Campaign to save the Seanad launched

Sully

A NUMBER OF individuals from across Irish society have banded together in an attempt to save the Seanad.

Democracy Matters! is calling for a “radical reform” of the second house of the Oireachtas – not its abolition. A referendum on whether to keep or get rid of the parliamentary chamber is due to take place later this year.
The group, which launched its campaign this morning, argues for a strong Senate with new powers to “ensure we learn from the mistakes of a failed political system”.

...

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/campaign-to-save-the-seanad-launched-926226-May2013/

I don't believe we should leave the power in the hands of the Dail. We need a house where its less about political football and point scoring and more about working together to ensure legislation is heavily scrutinized and keeps TDs / Ministers 'in check'. We don't need a house for politicians that have failed to get elected as a TD - which every party abuses - goes or where TDs who are retiring go. I'm in favour of a second house but it must be completely reformed and moves away from its current form.

My concern however is that people will look beyond the advantages of two houses and will seek to cut costs and throw out these Senators for they see them as offering nothing. Yes, it offer little. Yes, its largely a ground to build reputations or where you go after failing to get elected into the Dail. No, it shouldn't be. Yes, we need a second house. The solution isn't to abandon the idea but to reform and plan out a house that is effective and works.

spank_inferno

Indeed you are correct.

However.... a strong independent functioning upper house will never happen, simply because it is not in the interest of the government of the day for that to be the case.

that being a certainty.... I can't wait to cast my vote to remove it.

Sully

spank_inferno wrote: »

Indeed you are correct.

However.... a strong independent functioning upper house will never happen, simply because it is not in the interest of the government of the day for that to be the case.

that being a certainty.... I can't wait to cast my vote to remove it.

If we voted Yes to keep it, they may have little choice.

astrofool

Sully wrote: »

If we voted Yes to keep it, they may have little choice.

how exactly would they have little choice? The status quo is that the Senate has no power and the Dáil has all the power, in the absence of revolution, the Senate should be abolished as soon as possible.

[Jackass]

The Seanad in its current form is completely redundant, and truth be told, never actually served a purpose other than to appease Protestant portions of the Free State by giving them a token political voice.

The house holds no power other than the power to discuss current affairs and to delay legislation by up to 12 weeks (iirc). Other than that, it has no real power that serves any purpose in the Government.

If we are to keep a second (upper) house, we need a complete political structure reform.

Personally, I would like to see a system where greater power is given to local Government, whereby councils are given stronger controls of local issues, a Mayor of Dublin to be appointed with a similar function to that of London or New York, and for this Council + Seanad new house to have proper obstructive functions, such as a two thirds majority having the ability to block legislation entirely, perhaps having powers to refer certain legislation to the public, having more local votes on local issues etc.

I'm no expert, but as it stands, I would vote to abolish the Seanad. If a new reformed Seanad was proposed with proper functions and something that would actually serve a purpose to the state and not just a resting house for failed politicians and a holding pen for aspiring politicians, all whilst leaching off the teet of the state whilst having no meaningful role, then I'd consider keeping it.

expectationlost

what i don't get is the impression is the state of the seanad is the seanad's faults, surely any government could have pushed through reform measures before if it wanted to and its up the government to do so not the seanad.

Cookie_Monster

Hopefully people won't abolish purely on cost grounds.

I'd be in broad agreement with this group, it needs to stay but be heavily reformed.

[Jackass]

expectationlost wrote: »

what i don't get is the impression is the state of the seanad is the seanad faults, surely any government could have pushed through reform measures before if it wanted to and its up the government to do so not the seanad.

It's a constitutional house, so it wouldn't be that simple afaik. Any amendments (or abolishment) would have to go to a referendum. The whole point being though that nothing has ever been suggested to reform it as it doesn't serve any purpose and no one seems to know what purpose it could realistically serve.

I'm not fully up on the role of the House of Lords or the senate in the USA, but presumably they could be looked at as a template.

Pete_Cavan

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm no expert, but as it stands, I would vote to abolish the Seanad. If a new reformed Seanad was proposed with proper functions and something that would actually serve a purpose to the state and not just a resting house for failed politicians and a holding pen for aspiring politicians, all whilst leaching off the teet of the state whilst having no meaningful role, then I'd consider keeping it.

By offering only two options in the referendum (retain or abolish, no third option of reform), the government is looking to seize upon this dismissive attitude to gain public support for the removal of the Seanad in order to concentrate power in the Dail. AFAIK no group opposed to the abolition of the Seanad is saying "its grand the way it is, lets leave it be", they are acknowledging the problems with the current Seanad and their campaign is based on a platform of reforming it into something effective. A vote to retain the Seanad is a vote for reform, maybe not directly but it gives a mandate for a reform agenda to be pursued.

astrofool

That's because the government that we elected do not want it to have any power. If the Seanad did have power, then the make up would likely be very similar to Dáil Éireann, making it redundant. Any ideas that it would have stopped the bail out of anglo, or magicked money out of thin air (or from our vast oil fields....) to keep taxes and spending the same are out of touch with reality.

expectationlost

[Jackass] wrote: »

It's a constitutional house, so it wouldn't be that simple afaik. Any amendments (or abolishment) would have to go to a referendum. The whole point being though that nothing has ever been suggested to reform it as it doesn't serve any purpose and no one seems to know what purpose it could realistically serve.

im not saying the gov could act unilatarily outside of constitution, look again headlines today saying "seanad failed to reform", not governments failed to reform the seanad, when last did a government try to press through limited reforms of seanad and senators broke their whip and vote against them?

Nodin

Sully wrote: »

If we voted Yes to keep it, they may have little choice.

....they can put it on the long finger, and having done so, come back at a future date and paint the buttons a different colour while claiming they've reformed it. I'd say that whatever the public statements, none of the main parties would have any interest in a senate with power, and an active interest in none or a powerless one.

jimmycrackcorm

Many people suggest reforming it but I've yet to hear any concrete proposal about how it should work. I don't think there would be a need for another mini Dail as it would end up like a duplicate makeup.

As it is at the moment it's an undemocratic institution so just as well it has no powers.

Cody Pomeray

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many people suggest reforming it but I've yet to hear any concrete proposal about how it should work. I don't think there would be a need for another mini Dail...

That's my problem with many of the suggestions. People are suggesting a publicly elected Seanad Eireann, which would really only act as an even more impotent device. With a whip in place in a house equivalent to the Dáil, the Seanad would become nothing more than an echo chamber.

At least under the current system, where a small number of worthies can come in from the Universities and spout unpopular, strange, eccentric and fabulously bonkers opinions, we have some degree of independence.

We need to put the Seanad chamber out of reach of a popular smash and grab exercise by the public fist.

What I mean is, we need a cabinet safely housed in Seanad Eireann - like some sort of war bunker cum philosophical salon.

This Seanad and its cabinet (divided into committees) would be picked from a pool of the wisest and most upstanding individuals in public life.

They could make independent and wise decisions to be carried solemnly into Dáil Eireann on a velvet cushion, whee it will be ravenously pawed, plucked and sniffed by the regional deputies, and this will give Seanad decision-making its democratic adequacy.

It will also have the very pleasing effect of ensuring that Irish policymaking is transparently debated, in public, and is not subject to fits of populism.

spank_inferno

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many people suggest reforming it but I've yet to hear any concrete proposal about how it should work. I don't think there would be a need for another mini Dail as it would end up like a duplicate makeup.

As it is at the moment it's an undemocratic institution so just as well it has no powers.

Well I'm just a nobody, but my "fantasy Senate" would be:

- 30 Senators
- 5 year term
- Max of 3 terms can be served
- No constituancies (to focus just on the national)
- No whip system (and the barring of one ever being brought in)
- Nomination of candidate via public petition. (eg: 2,000 being required)
- Parties can nominate candidates but they would have to canvas for signatures also.


The only part of the above that would be likely to be tweeked would be constituancies.
Its an upper house after all, so the less local clientelism the better.
So perhaps to make a list system work better perhaps use the EU election constituancies.



(but again, knowing that no reform will ever happen..... I'll vote just to scrap it.)

PRAF

I think the best case for retaining the Seanad was Enda's ill advised kite flying about a hand picked, undemocratic Seanad-lite to replace it. I think it is likely that the public will vote to retain it. It'll probably take an intervention from the judges, ex-senators, etc. but I think they will convince the public to retain it.

That said, I don't think the Seanad serves any useful purpose right now. It was a mistake not asking the Constitutional Committee to look into improving it. It badly needs reform. It is a damning indictment of our political system that multiple reports calling for Seanad reform have been ignored by govt after govt.

worded

Ivor gets a mention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPT3feipJ8

ressem

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many people suggest reforming it but I've yet to hear any concrete proposal about how it should work. I don't think there would be a need for another mini Dail as it would end up like a duplicate makeup.

As it is at the moment it's an undemocratic institution so just as well it has no powers.

The Seanad Reform Bill 2013?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/4913/b4913s.pdf

The plain language translation of the bill's purpose starts at Page 77 of the PDF.

Aside from allowing the public to vote in senators in some of the groups, it keeps 6 educational seats. The taoiseach keeps his nominees.
Senators pay is set at half a TD's pay.

A modified role,
to examine European legislation,
government statutory instruments,
ministerial appointments to public bodies,
permission to hold public interest inquiries,
making it compulsory for a senate committee to debte a petition that receives a thousand votes.

The senate does have the power to propose bills for submission to the Dail.

Eoghan Murphy (FG backbencher) mentions suggestions for Dail Reform. I don't know how much traction these have, along the lines of weakening the party whip domineering of the cowed and silent backbench TDs.
http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EMurphy-ReformingDailA5Booklet-PRINT.pdf

Cody Pomeray

Forget weakening the whip, the whip needs to be removed by way of a Constitutional amendment which will prohibit any personal consequence threats to lawmakers who vote independently.

We badly need a US style parliamentary system whereby lawmakers routinely walk through the opposition lobbies without threat of suffering catastrophic career repercussions. It is patently anti-democratic.

Of course, there's a classic catch-22. Use of the party whip means any bill to propose a Constitutional breaking the whip would be impossible to achieve.

Nobody wants to break the wooden spoon because everyone's afraid of the wooden spoon.

_Kaiser_

astrofool wrote: »

The status quo is that the Senate has no power and the Dáil has all the power

Just an aside that it increasingly seems in the last 2 governments that the Dail has no/little power at all with all of the big/important decisions (whatever Europe hasn't already taken over themselves) being taken solely at cabinet level. The rest are just there to make up the numbers, provide entertainment for the media and claim expenses.

Sounds more like the Politburo that the Dail to me.

PRAF

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Just an aside that it increasingly seems in the last 2 governments that the Dail has no/little power at all with all of the big/important decisions (whatever Europe hasn't already taken over themselves) being taken solely at cabinet level. The rest are just there to make up the numbers, provide entertainment for the media and claim expenses.

Sounds more like the Politburo that the Dail to me.

The Dail is nothing more than an elaborate, and expensive, talking shop most of the time. The govt of the day circumvents the Dail via the whip system. Unfortunately this isn't something that has only arisen in the last 2 years (i.e. we can't blame FG/Lab for this). It has always been so

Scofflaw

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Just an aside that it increasingly seems in the last 2 governments that the Dail has no/little power at all with all of the big/important decisions (whatever Europe hasn't already taken over themselves) being taken solely at cabinet level. The rest are just there to make up the numbers, provide entertainment for the media and claim expenses.

Sounds more like the Politburo that the Dail to me.

As PRAF says, that's a much longer term issue. Try to think of the last time a sitting government lost a vote in the Dáil, and you'll almost certainly draw a blank, because it doesn't happen in modern Irish politics. If anything, the willingness of Labour and FG TDs to lose the whip has meant the situation in the last two years has been a slight improvement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KevIRL

Agree with Sully on this one, will definitely be voting no to the abolition of the Seanad. It (along with the Dail) is in need of some radical reform but not abolition.

Noel Whelan from Democracy Matters was speaking a load of sense today on The Right Hook about it

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/9/1652/05th_June_2013_-_The_Right_Hook_Part_2 (26 mins in)

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's my problem with many of the suggestions. People are suggesting a publicly elected Seanad Eireann, which would really only act as an even more impotent device. With a whip in place in a house equivalent to the Dáil, the Seanad would become nothing more than an echo chamber.

At least under the current system, where a small number of worthies can come in from the Universities and spout unpopular, strange, eccentric and fabulously bonkers opinions, we have some degree of independence.

We need to put the Seanad chamber out of reach of a popular smash and grab exercise by the public fist.

What I mean is, we need a cabinet safely housed in Seanad Eireann - like some sort of war bunker cum philosophical salon.

This Seanad and its cabinet (divided into committees) would be picked from a pool of the wisest and most upstanding individuals in public life.

They could make independent and wise decisions to be carried solemnly into Dáil Eireann on a velvet cushion, whee it will be ravenously pawed, plucked and sniffed by the regional deputies, and this will give Seanad decision-making its democratic adequacy.

It will also have the very pleasing effect of ensuring that Irish policymaking is transparently debated, in public, and is not subject to fits of populism.

The problem with this is who decides who is fit for this purpose? In that form it could be easily abused with "jobs for the boys" like we saw with Bertie Aherne appointing Eoghan Harris to the Seanad a few years back.

I do like the idea of people being picked on merit and based on their achievements but it will only work if the selection process is completely closed off to being abused.

Cody Pomeray

Consequences of the 32nd Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013, if passed, as set out in the Government press release;

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/06/government-announces-its-proposals-for-the-thirty-second-amendment-of-the-constitution-abolition-of-seanad-eireann-bill-2013-2/?cat=3

1. As a general rule, major non-emergency legislation will first be submitted to the relevant Dáil committee in Heads of Bill format.
2. To allow for extra consideration and scrutiny, each Bill will be referred back to the committee which considered it at Pre-Legislative and Committee Stages for a final examination after Report Stage and before the Bill is passed by the House. This new stage will be known as Pre-Enactment Stage. It will be provided for in Dáil Standing Orders.
3. It is proposed that a Minister will revert to the relevant select committee within 12 months of the enactment of a Bill, to discuss and review the functioning of the law and to allow for a debate from members and stakeholders as to whether the legislation is fulfilling its intended purpose.
4. As part of a strengthened committee system, there will be 14 Dáil committees: four strategic committees on issues of major strategic and political importance (including PAC, Finance and EU scrutiny); seven sectoral committees to shadow Government Departments; and three thematic committees which will focus on specific issue (petitions, Good Friday Agreement, members’ interests). It is envisaged that each committee will have twelve members and will invite external experts to provide specialist input to its work.
5. When enacted, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill will enable Oireachtas committees to once again undertake parliamentary inquires into certain matters of major public importance. Since such inquires can involve unique and complex legal and policy issues a separate administrative system will ensure that they function smoothly. Once an inquiry is established, it will be undertaken by a sub-committee of the relevant select committee in order to ensure that the work of the select committee can continue uninterrupted.
6. A proposed new Dáil schedule will increase time spent on deliberating legislation.
7. The d’Hondt system will be introduced to distribute chairs of key committees on a proportional and equitable basis. This proposal, if agreed by the House, will go hand in hand with a revised Dáil schedule to allow committees to do as much work as possible when the House is not sitting.
8. A new ‘10 Minute Bills’ procedure will be introduced.

These provisions are completely inadequate to allay concerns about the democratic legitimacy of Seanad abolition, I don't see anything here except inconsequential procedural arrangements and an extra day of Dáil sittings; definitely won't be voting yes to this amendment.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The problem with this is who decides who is fit for this purpose? In that form it could be easily abused with "jobs for the boys" like we saw with Bertie Aherne appointing Eoghan Harris to the Seanad a few years back.

So be it. I think a US-style handpicked and expert cabinet, whose decision making is reviewed and legitimized by the Dáil, is the best way of producing informed, coherent and balanced long term policymaking.

RATM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Hopefully people won't abolish purely on cost grounds.

I'd be in broad agreement with this group, it needs to stay but be heavily reformed.

I agree with this. It was actually laughable listening to Enda Kenny today calling the Seanad a 19th Century British institution and how upper houses of parliament "don't work". The House of Lords and the US Senate have served the UK & US for hundreds of years and they've worked perfectly well at keeping the government of the day in check. If our Seanad had the same powers then it would do the same. It doesn't because the politicians of the day designed it that way. What it needs now is serious reform not abolition. But for Enda and pals they can abolish the Seanad and sell it to the public as 'political reform' whilst not reforming the Dail in the slightest.

spank_inferno

Seeing as reform is not a choice in the referendum.

Why vote no?

BaronVon

spank_inferno wrote: »

Seeing as reform is not a choice in the referendum.

Why vote no?

If it's rejected, they'll probably come back with a reform package, although any reform package put forward by the Dail will never take enough power from themselves!

I'll be voting no, and encouraging anyone who'll listen to do the same.
(iirc, the Seanad only costs €10m a year)

PRAF

spank_inferno wrote: »

Seeing as reform is not a choice in the referendum.

Why vote no?

If you are in favour of a reformed seaned (as opposed to no seaned) than you vote to keep it.

Pete_Cavan

spank_inferno wrote: »

Seeing as reform is not a choice in the referendum.

Why vote no?

As I said earlier, no group opposed to the abolition of the Seanad is saying leave it the way it is, they are acknowledging the problems with the current Seanad and their campaign is based on a platform of reforming it into something effective. A vote to retain the Seanad is a vote for reform.

washman3

The very fact that somebody like Michael McDowell is calling for the retention of this glorified talking shop/retirement home should be enough to abolish it.
Absolutely sickening to hear this guy speaking on democracy. People should never forget that he was a cabinet minister with his finger on the pulse when this country was going down the tubes. His arrogance knows no bounds.Make no mistake about it, if his ilk are in favour of the Seanad its definately not in the interest of the ordinary decent Irish person he is acting.:mad:

PRAF

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As I said earlier, no group opposed to the abolition of the Seanad is saying leave it the way it is, they are acknowledging the problems with the current Seanad and their campaign is based on a platform of reforming it into something effective. A vote to retain the Seanad is a vote for reform.

Why does it take the threat of abolition for people to come out fighting for seanad reform? It's a pity that it is such a weak institution.

drunkmonkey

I think they should nearly abolish the president while were at it, let Micheal D but the last one.
Everyone is saying the Seanad didn't reign in Finna Fail but it was the president who had the power to shut them down but she didn't. So if people are saying the Seanad done nothing well then president is just as guilty.

johnnyskeleton

Why doesn't anyone advocate Seanad reform instead of abolition - a mix of directly elected and appointed experts, unpaid, there to carry out an expert/advisory role in the interests of public service only.

PRAF

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think they should nearly abolish the president while were at it, let Micheal D but the last one.
Everyone is saying the Seanad didn't reign in Finna Fail but it was the president who had the power to shut them down but she didn't. So if people are saying the Seanad done nothing well then president is just as guilty.

The president has very little executive or policy powers. I'm pretty sure the president would not have been able to "shut them down"!

Rather than abolishing it, there is a good argument that the role of the president should be increased.

More importantly, if we abolished the role, who'd live in Áras an Uachtaráin? You might have to use it as a hotel or else use it as the new reptilian house for Dublin Zoo.

PRAF

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why doesn't anyone advocate Seanad reform instead of abolition - a mix of directly elected and appointed experts, unpaid, there to carry out an expert/advisory role in the interests of public service only.

If you opt for an unpaid house, only well off people who could afford to work for free could be senators. Needless to say, you would be unlikely to have an upper house that is in any way representative of the people it is supposed to serve.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why doesn't anyone advocate Seanad reform instead of abolition - a mix of directly elected and appointed experts, unpaid, there to carry out an expert/advisory role in the interests of public service only.

Because you might as well erect a billboard on Stephen's Green saying "Cranks, posers and egomaniacs wanted".

Directly electing the Seanad is going to fill it with populist thanks whores more likely to be interested in twitter and podium theatrics than effective long term policy.

Think of the line up. Bono? Sinead O'Connor? Joe Duffy? Seán Gallagher? Other 'captains of industry" like your man who owns Insomnia and Rona McSourFace from Dragons Den? No thanks, I'm out!

Manach

I'd be in favour of reform and not deletion and so handing over the reigns to an already fused executive/legislative branch.
Slightly tongue in check, as a classicist why not a randomly selected Seanad as the Athenians had - no chance of corruption and a truly representive grouping that is not beholden to any encrusted power structure.

_Kaiser_

Why does it even matter?

Seriously, at this stage does ANYONE really believe that our self-serving, parochial, incompetent, corrupt bunch of teachers, lawyers and publicans PLAYING statesmen (and women!) will ever introduce or implement (because there is a difference) ANYTHING that will bring meaningful reform and change to the system they all benefit from - regardless of party affiliation.

Given that most of the important decisions are made outside of the country now anyway, this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or fighting over the scraps of "power" that are left.

Consider that we've had multiple Shatter/Gardai scandals, Reilly scandals, Hogan and Kenny himself interfering in matters they shouldn't have to name just a few and yet NOT ONE of these people has resigned or been brought to account in ANY meaningful way. While such things do happen in other countries as well, at least people lose their jobs over it!

Abolishing/reforming the Senate will only be a token gesture in either case, possibly save a few quid which will be inevitably squandered elsewhere, and again there'll be no REAL change to the status quo.

I take no pleasure in it, but I think the Irish flirtation in Home Rule/Independence has been a miserable failure when you think that in not even 100 years we've managed to bankrupt the country, send yet another generation of Irish youth abroad because we have nothing for them here, and handed most of the decision-making process over to others - first the Church and now the EU. For those who are left we have Austerity (for some!) and ever more inventive ways of squeezing more money from them to keep the gravy flowing at the top.

I think a better referendum would be "should we renounce our "Independence" and admit that we're just not mature enough as a people to be let at the controls" - but of course that'll never happen so I expect the same cesspool to limp along for a while yet until either the EU collapses under its own weight, or some other external force we have no control over decides our fate for us.

spank_inferno

A "Yes" vote for abolition can also be considered a vote for change also.

As there is nothing to stop a government from proposing a shiny new reformed Senate and then having a 2nd referendum for its re-instatement.

Then we could see if the people really wanted or cared about having Senate v2.0.

As I see it, a "No" vote is a mandate for more decades of failed status quo.

Fr Tod Umptious

spank_inferno wrote: »

A "Yes" vote for abolition can also be considered a vote for change also.

As there is nothing to stop a government from proposing a shiny new reformed Senate and then having a 2nd referendum for its re-instatement.

Then we could see if the people really wanted or cared about having Senate v2.0.

As I see it, a "No" vote is a mandate for more decades of failed status quo.

Very true

I find it hilarious that there suddenly seems to be an upsurge in support here for not abolishing the Senate
When FG first said they would do this when they were in opposition support seemed quiet high, but now that they are in Govt and unpopular becuase they are trying to get the country back on track that suppoort seems to have reduced.

Judgement Day

Michael McDowell was on the radio this morning and maintained that he had never met a 'muppet' in the Seanad, surely he was just having a laugh?

Some well known Senate muppets - in my opinion - that they are all FF is a coincidence.

Labhrás Ó Murchú. Another credit to the Seanad http://www.politics.ie/forum/oireachtas/131071-senator-i-cheat-my-expenses-fianna-fail-senator-labhras-omurchu.html

Ivor Callely. Forced to resign after fraudulent expense claims etc.

Des Hanafin. Religious zealot. FF chief party fundraiser for eons and raised many eyebrows with his unique personal style of financial accounting. In the Senate for almost 30 (!) years.

Seán ‘Fixer’ Doherty. One-time Minister for Justice involved in the phone-tapping scandal. Appointed to the Senate when he lost his Dail seat and was, unbelievably, appointed the Cathaoirleach.

John Ellis. Left many Leitrim farmers owed money in the late 1980’s when his Stanlow Trading Ltd went down the tubes. Bailed out from Charlie Haughey's (Leader's Allowance) amongst other sources.

You only have to check Wiki to establish that the Seanad is merely a halfway house for TDs who have lost their seats biding their time and for prospective councilors waiting their turn at the Dail trough.

The €20 million annual saving (est. per Enda Kenny) is more than 10 times the amount being sought for urgent upgrading of Crumlin Children's Hospital - not that it would be diverted to that worthy cause.

ressem

spank_inferno wrote: »

A "Yes" vote for abolition can also be considered a vote for change also.

As there is nothing to stop a government from proposing a shiny new reformed Senate and then having a 2nd referendum for its re-instatement.

Then we could see if the people really wanted or cared about having Senate v2.0.

As I see it, a "No" vote is a mandate for more decades of failed status quo.

A yes can be used by the taoiseagh to divert from any effective Dail reform. He doesn't seem as motivated to push this as the Seanad abolition.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coalition-to-accept-bill-on-seanad-reform-amid-fears-of-internal-revolt-1.1393653 wrote:

Party chief whip Paul Kehoe defended the Government’s record and said that Taoiseach Enda Kenny wanted to go further with political reform but initiatives were being blocked by the Opposition whips.

Wholesale amending the constitution is easier than pushing reform through a dail with a record majority, is it? How about publishing these "blocked reforms" then and making the blockers defend their views.

McDowell claimed that Kenny could change the standing orders on how the Dail works within any week. If this is accurate then we could be shown a working effective Dail before the referendum is held.

According to that IT article, the government will allow the Seanad reform Bill pushed by Sen Zappone to pass. (http://democracymatters.ie/)

Therefore the next seanad, if kept, will require every voter choosing their area of interest and voting for a candidate. With a national constituency and a requirement to be qualified in the area, a lot of the county council appointed lot could be thrown out.
A lot of candidates will probably be promoted by the unions which might or might not be preferable.

Scofflaw

Bill is here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/6313/b6313d.pdf

Quite long, so need a little time to read and digest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bill is here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/6313/b6313d.pdf

Quite long, so need a little time to read and digest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hmm. Variously:

1. makes the Cabinet a minimum of 14, all of whom are TDs.

2. power to remove a judge changes from majority in both houses to a 2/3 majority in the Dáil

3. deletes Article 27, the reference of bills to the people by the President.

4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.

I appreciate Article 27 has never been used, but that still bothers me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pete_Cavan

PRAF wrote: »

Why does it take the threat of abolition for people to come out fighting for seanad reform? It's a pity that it is such a weak institution.

The problem is that the Seanad is a weak institution and it is ineffective in keeping the government in check. So the solution to this problem is to remove it and have no institution, weak or otherwise, to keep the government in check! The situation doesnt improve, it stays the same or gets worse, hardly a great solution. Abolishing the Seanad to solve this problem will simply ensure the problem will exist for ever.

Its a bit like a football team realising their problem is they concede too many goals and solve this problem by removing the goalkeeper and not replacing him. Although the original goalkeeper wasnt great, without a goalkeeper there the situation is almost certainly going to get worse. Surely it is better to look at ways to improve the goalkeeper, or bring in someone completely different, instead of playing without one.

PRAF

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Why does it even matter?

Seriously, at this stage does ANYONE really believe that our self-serving, parochial, incompetent, corrupt bunch of teachers, lawyers and publicans PLAYING statesmen (and women!) will ever introduce or implement (because there is a difference) ANYTHING that will bring meaningful reform and change to the system they all benefit from - regardless of party affiliation.

Given that most of the important decisions are made outside of the country now anyway, this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or fighting over the scraps of "power" that are left.

Consider that we've had multiple Shatter/Gardai scandals, Reilly scandals, Hogan and Kenny himself interfering in matters they shouldn't have to name just a few and yet NOT ONE of these people has resigned or been brought to account in ANY meaningful way. While such things do happen in other countries as well, at least people lose their jobs over it!

Abolishing/reforming the Senate will only be a token gesture in either case, possibly save a few quid which will be inevitably squandered elsewhere, and again there'll be no REAL change to the status quo.

I take no pleasure in it, but I think the Irish flirtation in Home Rule/Independence has been a miserable failure when you think that in not even 100 years we've managed to bankrupt the country, send yet another generation of Irish youth abroad because we have nothing for them here, and handed most of the decision-making process over to others - first the Church and now the EU. For those who are left we have Austerity (for some!) and ever more inventive ways of squeezing more money from them to keep the gravy flowing at the top.

I think a better referendum would be "should we renounce our "Independence" and admit that we're just not mature enough as a people to be let at the controls" - but of course that'll never happen so I expect the same cesspool to limp along for a while yet until either the EU collapses under its own weight, or some other external force we have no control over decides our fate for us.

Woah there! A bit over cynical here I think. Fair enough if you think that abolishing the Seanad is just rearranging the deck chairs. However, to say that we are incapable of self-governance and should go back to being (presumably) a part of the UK without our own govt is quite frankly ludicrous.

ressem

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Variously:

1. makes the Cabinet a minimum of 14, all of whom are TDs.

2. power to remove a judge changes from majority in both houses to a 2/3 majority in the Dáil

3. deletes Article 27, the reference of bills to the people by the President.

4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.

I appreciate Article 27 has never been used, but that still bothers me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Regarding point 1
How is article 28 section 1 affected?

I'm only seeing the change to Article 12.4.2 i ) which decreases the Oireachtas numbers required to nominate a presidential candidate from 20 to 14.

Yes, there used to be the possibility of bringing in up to 2 external candidates into the government via the Seanad which will be gone.

Scofflaw

ressem wrote: »

Regarding point 1
How is article 28 section 1 affected?

I'm only seeing the change to Article 12.4.2 i ) which decreases the Oireachtas numbers required to nominate a presidential candidate from 20 to 14.

Yes, there used to be the possibility of bringing in up to 2 external candidates into the government via the Seanad which will be gone.

There we go - read it too quickly and elided two sections.

mea culpa,
Scofflaw

Javan

spank_inferno wrote: »

Seeing as reform is not a choice in the referendum.

Why vote no?

Because voting no keeps the status quo, broken as it is. Voting yes makes the system much worse.

dublinman1990

ressem wrote: »

The Seanad Reform Bill 2013?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/4913/b4913s.pdf

The plain language translation of the bill's purpose starts at Page 77 of the PDF.

Aside from allowing the public to vote in senators in some of the groups, it keeps 6 educational seats. The taoiseach keeps his nominees.
Senators pay is set at half a TD's pay.

A modified role,
to examine European legislation,
government statutory instruments,
ministerial appointments to public bodies,
permission to hold public interest inquiries,
making it compulsory for a senate committee to debte a petition that receives a thousand votes.

The senate does have the power to propose bills for submission to the Dail.

Eoghan Murphy (FG backbencher) mentions suggestions for Dail Reform. I don't know how much traction these have, along the lines of weakening the party whip domineering of the cowed and silent backbench TDs.
http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EMurphy-ReformingDailA5Booklet-PRINT.pdf

I know these are proposed government reforms here; but I would like to ask this question. If the Seanad was eventually reformed in the future; how in your view; would EU Regulations be debated there in adequate time if they were already enacted into law?

My own view is that if our government gave time to the Seanad to debate on upcoming EU legislation in the future. Would it not require a treaty change to do that in terms of debating EU regulations within national parliaments?

It is somehow useful in one way when debating on EU Directives though.

I also don't like the system of The Taoiseach of the day having to keep all of the 11 nominees in any circumstance. I think that the way it is handled in the past is too corrupt & misguided for a Modern Ireland.

I like the idea to see all nominated people to run for Senator (not past senators) on a independent basis by being voted through the public system via the local & European Elections. We can do this as a people by getting rid of a system where past or present senators do have votes (albeit a very small number) from universities and the like.

The idea of having to attempt to get say about 1,500 votes to get into a political institution does not even stand up to scrutiny in any other proper democracy.

I am not of abolishing the Seanad myself now as I am in favour of reform.

But; I do believe that this plan from the current government is an ambitious one to make our state parliament ungovernable (If the situation came to light that our Seanad was completely abolished).

How could our parliament function in this manner? It is just simply a ludicrous idea.