Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Campaign to save the Seanad launched
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because you might as well erect a billboard on Stephen's Green saying "Cranks, posers and egomaniacs wanted".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.
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!0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.0 -
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,
Scofflaw0 -
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,
Scofflaw0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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,
Scofflaw0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
dublinman1990 wrote: »I know these are 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.
The EU law has to be interpreted into Irish law, amending existing legislation and allocating responsibility. Often this is a single line in some existing act, but the FG whip has mentioned that this goes straight through, undiscussed and unamended and that is a risk.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/statutory.html
The suggestion is that the replacement to the senate will be made up entirely of the taoiseach's special advisers. I fail to see how that proposal is more democratic or accountable, than an elected Seanad amended using the Seanad Reform bill currently waiting for Dail debate.
The Dail would function in the same manner as today, but I can't see that there would be an improvement of the quality of legislation without major reform. I suspect that we're unlikely to see the new voting system suggested by the constitutional convention, nor even the suggestion to remove the Dail whip at committee stage when drafting legislation.0 -
I can actually see why: the President never had the power to do so on his or her own initiative, but only if petitioned by a majority of senators and a third of TDs. Absent the Senate, a bill that had reached the President for signature would already have been passed by a majority in the single chamber, so there's no reasonable prospect of such a petition happening.3. deletes Article 27, the reference of bills to the people by the President.
This is a more serious concern for me. It opens the possibility of a Finance bill being blatantly and self-evidently unconstitutional, but immune from challenge by the Supreme Court. It comes across as another attack on the already limited separation of powers.4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.0 -
4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.oscarBravo wrote: »It opens the possibility of a Finance bill being blatantly and self-evidently unconstitutional, but immune from challenge by the Supreme Court
Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.
The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.0 -
Fair enough - I hadn't had time to read the bill when I commented earlier and was reacting to Scofflaw's interpretation, but now that I've had a look, the situation doesn't seem to have changed: it already isn't possible for the President to refer money bills to the Supreme Court, but - as you say - that doesn't inhibit an ordinary challenge.Cody Pomeray wrote: »Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.
The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.0 -
Cody Pomeray wrote: »Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.
The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.
Yes, I should really wait on interpretation until I have a consolidated version of Bunreacht, because that's two out of the three points I made incorrect so far! The point with this one is more that there is no longer any separate check on whether a bill is a money bill.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Explain to me then why we should continue to have our own government then? Genuine question - can you defend or contradict any of the points I made for not having it?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.
I'd argue that the Irish Government has in fact done more harm than good to the citizens of this country over the last 100 years, and between the last lot selling us out completely and the current lot determined to follow the same course there can be no justification for retaining either House.
All Home Rule has done is provide an easy way for local gombeen men to fill their pockets (alongside the occasional pothole), inflate a civil/public service to ridiculous proportions that we could never afford (and no that's not a pot-shot at the PS as I worked there for almost 5 years myself, but I can still recognize the problems), allowed the Catholic Church to hold back the social development of the country for decades (which is a big part of why we are so incapable of effective self-governance.. we were conditioned for generations to accept the word of our "betters" unquestioningly), and when we finally got past that, we sold the whole lot off to the EU for some new roads and money for farmers and STILL managed to piss away the biggest windfall/boom this country is ever likely to see!
I'm not saying we need to go back to the UK as a subjugated nation, but it's clear to me that we just aren't ready for the responsibility and duty of care that should come with running a country. It's equally clear the EU hasn't got our interests at heart and never will - a problem that'll only get worse as more countries join with THEIR own agendas until it collapses under its own weight.
If we rejoined the UK, not much would really change .. we'd still watch the same TV, still follow the same Premier League clubs, still shop in the same stores (which I dare say would cover the concerns of 90% of the electorate), but we might benefit from a system which has shown it's not afraid to put its own national interests first and has the clout to be taken seriously when it does so and where when politicians and others do wrong, they actually DO face real consequences - as opposed to the expensive and ultimately toothless tribunals we hold (remember CJH's state funeral? Bertie doing the lecture circuit, Bruton being paid a fortune from state coffers while he lobbies for his banking buddies, Cowen retired with his fat pension while the general public's has been raided and decimated.. and those are just the tips of the multiple icebergs!)
Seriously, I challenge ANYONE here to defend that record and tell me we are capable of self-governance0 -
Kaiser2000 wrote: »I'd argue that the Irish Government has in fact done more harm than good to the citizens of this country over the last 100 years
Firstly, I'm not a staunch republican by any means and I couldn't give a rats backside about the Catholic church. However, I find the whole "lets rejoin the UK" thing a little bit offensive. Are you seriously saying that Irish governments over the last 100 years have done more harm to the Irish people than what happened in the previous 100 years:
- The famine
- The conscription of young Irish people to fight colonial wars
- Religious persecutionKaiser2000 wrote: »All Home Rule has done is provide an easy way for local gombeen men to fill their pockets (alongside the occasional pothole), inflate a civil/public service to ridiculous proportions that we could never afford (and no that's not a pot-shot at the PS as I worked there for almost 5 years myself, but I can still recognize the problems), allowed the Catholic Church to hold back the social development of the country for decades (which is a big part of why we are so incapable of effective self-governance.. we were conditioned for generations to accept the word of our "betters" unquestioningly), and when we finally got past that, we sold the whole lot off to the EU for some new roads and money for farmers and STILL managed to piss away the biggest windfall/boom this country is ever likely to see!
I actually agree with some of the above. I detest parochialism, "Rome Rule", and the addiction of Irish farmers to CAP payments. However, it's not all bad. Having an Irish government has allowed for the saving of the Irish language, the rebirth of Irish culture (literature, music, etc), the building of the Irish economy, investment in Irish sports, etc. Would you prefer if Dingle was a bit more like Doncaster? How about if Connemara was a bit more like Coventry? No thanks for me
Also lets not forget that we are not the only country with problems. The UK has massive problems with social inequality, high incarceration rates, racial tensions, etc.Kaiser2000 wrote: »I'm not saying we need to go back to the UK as a subjugated nation
What exactly are you suggesting then?Kaiser2000 wrote: »If we rejoined the UK, not much would really change .. we'd still watch the same TV, still follow the same Premier League clubs, still shop in the same stores (which I dare say would cover the concerns of 90% of the electorate), but we might benefit from a system which has shown it's not afraid to put its own national interests first
How would rejoining the UK help us to further our national interests? We'd either be ruled by the English Conservatives or the English Labour party. We'd have no voice in Europe. Kiss goodbye to Ireland chairing any EU discussions.
Why, when Scotland is seeking more independence, do you think we should seek less independence.0 -
Firstly, I'm not a staunch republican by any means and I couldn't give a rats backside about the Catholic church. However, I find the whole "lets rejoin the UK" thing a little bit offensive. Are you seriously saying that Irish governments over the last 100 years have done more harm to the Irish people than what happened in the previous 100 years:
- The famine
- The conscription of young Irish people to fight colonial wars
- Religious persecution
Religious persecution continues to this day (albeit thankfully in a much reduced form) not so many miles up the road. You could equally argue the Catholic Church still holds undue influence over our education system as well necessitating many parents to have their kids baptised so they can be given a place in the local primary school.
Conscription is a normal thing in many countries but what about those who volunteered for service and were treated as traitors as a result?
The Irish language is one of the biggest wastes of resources and drain on our education system there is. Forcing generation of kids to learn a practically dead language that most will have forgotten 2 years after completing the LC and is of virtually zero value to them afterwards. We'd be a lot better teaching kids useful skills like Computers and languages like German, French, Spanish etc that might help them compete for the jobs that are currently being filled by others from the EU.I actually agree with some of the above. I detest parochialism, "Rome Rule", and the addiction of Irish farmers to CAP payments. However, it's not all bad. Having an Irish government has allowed for the saving of the Irish language, the rebirth of Irish culture (literature, music, etc), the building of the Irish economy, investment in Irish sports, etc. Would you prefer if Dingle was a bit more like Doncaster? How about if Connemara was a bit more like Coventry? No thanks for me
The Irish economy??! Have you missed the last 5 years or the fact that our "boom" was built on a house of cards that the next generation will still be paying for. The country is bankrupt - even though there are many who are still in denial.
Given that many of our main streets resemble British High Streets as it is (have a wander down Grafton St next time you're in town), the presence of Tesco in most large towns and other UK chains, I'd argue we're already there with the resemblance.
And we don't? Have a look through last week's news reports about the fighting on the beach on the north side with gangs of black vs white kids facing off.Also lets not forget that we are not the only country with problems. The UK has massive problems with social inequality, high incarceration rates, racial tensions, etc.
We have taken in a lot of foreign nationals but very little effort has been made to encourage or assist these people with integrating into their new country and this is a situation that will only escalate as our "PC" left-wing attitudes mean that anyone who even raises this as a concern is immediately branded a xenophobic racist and marginalised regardless of how valid their opinions may actually be.
And what exactly is chairing EU discussions doing for us other than costing us money - or did you not see the report that 900! Gardai are to be tasked to the G8 summit?How would rejoining the UK help us to further our national interests? We'd either be ruled by the English Conservatives or the English Labour party. We'd have no voice in Europe. Kiss goodbye to Ireland chairing any EU discussions.
Have we won any real concessions on this debt that wasn't ours to begin with? Have we seen real ground-level improvements in the local economy, unemployment, emigration etc? Of course not.. it's merely another opportunity for our "ruling class" to show what good Europeans they are (usually at the expense of the people they're supposed to be representing!)
Because we've shown time and again that we're too interested in strokes, lining our own pockets and looking after our mates when we're let at the controls to behave in a responsible manner that puts the good of the country and the people (rather than the elite) first.Why, when Scotland is seeking more independence, do you think we should seek less independence.0 -
Kaiser, PRAF, perhaps a separate thread? As far as I know we're only having a referendum on abolishing the Seanad, not on rejoining the UK.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
The EU law has to be interpreted into Irish law, amending existing legislation and allocating responsibility. Often this is a single line in some existing act, but the FG whip has mentioned that this goes straight through, undiscussed and unamended and that is a risk.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/statutory.html
The suggestion is that the replacement to the senate will be made up entirely of the taoiseach's special advisers. I fail to see how that proposal is more democratic or accountable, than an elected Seanad amended using the Seanad Reform bill currently waiting for Dail debate.
The Dail would function in the same manner as today, but I can't see that there would be an improvement of the quality of legislation without major reform. I suspect that we're unlikely to see the new voting system suggested by the constitutional convention, nor even the suggestion to remove the Dail whip at committee stage when drafting legislation.
Thanks for replying back to my post Ressem.
I will make the point that I have understood already that EU law has to be amended with the Irish Constitution. I did learn only on the key points of this during my time while studying a course in Accountancy (In which I unfortunately subsequently failed).
One of the modules learned in that course btw was Law & Ethics. The Constitution was part of that curriculum in Business Law.
I thought it would be nice to just share that point with you.
I do agree with you however that this unchanged interpretation would be a risk that this could be in my view could be toxic in not resolving the accountability in the Dail.
But, IMO it could be open to any interpretation from any person either with a elitist view or not. We just have to find out & see what form that risk could be.
Also did you Ressem or anyone see Prime Time on RTE 1 last night where there was an interview between Transport Minister Leo Varadkar and Senator Sean Barrett chaired by Miriam O'Callaghan?
The point that struck me from that programme is that how can it add up that Sean Barrett got 55,000 votes to himself elected into the Seanad in which not one single vote was deemed democratic by the public.
He is a Trinity College Senator & I would suppose that he would have gotten Votes from probably some members of staff & some others who had other connections with him. To get that amount of votes & at that volume really is shocking. It is hard to believe that even today a TD who is elected into the Dail can only get a fraction of that vote from the public.
How can some people in this Society think that in can just allow this to go ahead. How could that could be logically possible to carry out such a large number of votes on one person?0
Advertisement