Seanad abolition - does any one other than McDowell and the Senators really care?

mada999

Yeah cool, the more word gets out the better, and invite your friends to share it too.. It's weird there's no YES people about at the moment.

JP 1800

There are a lot of compelling arguments for both sides of the debate but one pertinent question should be, if the referendum gets a yes vote what will they replace the Seanad with?, an Oireachtas committee. Did we not reject a referendum last year to give the Oireachtas more investigative powers?. The Irish people need to think very carefully about the decision they will have to make on Friday as we will be potentially be giving up one third of our democracy in order to potentially save a few magic beans.

petronius

It is disgraceful that our leader (Enda) wont debate the referendum, particularly since it was he who initiated this measure with his solo run some years ago.
The argument that it was for the Irish people to decide, and not for politicians why does he campaign, why did he campaign on other referenda.
For Ireland to have a better democracy we need more democracy not less, to have greater engagement, buy-in, understanding, participation, etc. a reformed 2nd chamber (with a different background and framework than the Dail) is essential.
The cynical campaign - to say save 20million when no government minister can stand up and provide evidence is appalling - the stated savings can not even come into being until after this dail cycle, and then will not be realised for many years to come due to pensioning off of the members. No costing of the work formerly done by the seanad as it will be done by committees and civil servants.

even the word save is misleading since any finances which were directed to An Seanad, will now be spent on other meaures with in the oireachtas according to Minister Howlin - so NO Saving!

Open it Don't Close it!

ArmaniJeanss

JP 1800 wrote: »

The Irish people need to think very carefully about the decision they will have to make on Friday as we will be potentially be giving up one third of our democracy in order to potentially save a few magic beans.

It may be one third of our parliament, but its about 1/1000th of our democracy.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It may be one third of our parliament, but its about 1/1000th of our democracy.

At present, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be reformed and live up to it's potential as an important democratic forum and a safeguard against abuse of power through gradual legislative change.

Reform wouldn't be an easy task, but if we abolish it, it's gone and it's probably never coming back, and neither is any of that potential to do good with it.

petronius wrote: »

It is disgraceful that our leader (Enda) wont debate the referendum, particularly since it was he who initiated this measure with his solo run some years ago....

I think it's a good thing. From what i hear in the media this week, RTE are going to hold a debate regardless this evening, and FG will have to send someone, so ultimately the government's campaign, which has been based on lies, massaged figures, and cynical spin will be picked apart by a very well armed opposition regardless of whether Enda shows up or not. The fact that he can't show the courage to stand up and personally deliver his own argument in the face of that opposition speaks volumes to me about the credibility of his position and the motives behind the proposal.

Michael Martin is out for blood on this one. I'd say whoever goes up against him will have a difficult time this evening. It will be ironic to hear the leader of FF of all parties arguing in favour of political reform, but hey, the enemy of my enemy is my ally....at least for now.

Monotype

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It may be one third of our parliament, but its about 1/1000th of our democracy.

I think that you are underestimating the power of this referendum. Not on the Seanad, but the president as well.
The president will no longer be able to call a vote from the people if he or she thinks that it important. If that's not chopping away at democracy, I don't know what is.

Referral of Bills to the People

The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.

If this referendum is passed:
This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.

Now, I'm not sure if that implies that it's the case now where the president can call for a referendum directly or if the backup of Dáil/Seanad members is need, but it's completely gone now.

oscarBravo

Monotype wrote: »

Now, I'm not sure if that implies that it's the case now where the president can call for a referendum directly or if the backup of Dáil/Seanad members is need, but it's completely gone now.

It's completely clear from the text of the Constitution itself that the President can only refer bills to the people if asked to do so by the Oireachtas. It's not even a question of "backup"; he/she can't initiate the process.

The fact that it needs to be initiated by the Oireachtas is the reason why the article would be removed: if a bill got to the stage where the President was in a position to exercise this power, it would already have been passed by the Dáil, so there are no circumstances where it can be reasonably expected that the same Dáil would ask the President to refer it to the people. If the Dáil wanted to ask the people for their opinion, they would already have the constitutional power to do so (ordinary referendum procedure).

Monotype

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. Still, in the long run it could mean a few less votes that go to the people. We still see the power of the president reduced in other ways.

Money Bills

The President has the power to refer Bills to the Supreme Court for a decision on whether or not they are constitutional except in the case of Money Bills.

Money Bills are different from other Bills:
They are essentially proposed laws that deal only with matters relating to public finances including, for example, matters relating to taxation.
They must start in the Dáil.
The Seanad must consider them but may not make changes; it can make recommendations within 21 days which may be accepted or rejected by the Dáil.
The Seanad cannot delay the passage of Money Bills.

The Constitution contains provisions for the Seanad to dispute whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill.

If this referendum is passed:
The final decision on whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill will be for the Dáil alone.

ger664

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's completely clear from the text of the Constitution itself that the President can only refer bills to the people if asked to do so by the Oireachtas. It's not even a question of "backup"; he/she can't initiate the process.

The fact that it needs to be initiated by the Oireachtas is the reason why the article would be removed: if a bill got to the stage where the President was in a position to exercise this power, it would already have been passed by the Dáil, so there are no circumstances where it can be reasonably expected that the same Dáil would ask the President to refer it to the people. If the Dáil wanted to ask the people for their opinion, they would already have the constitutional power to do so (ordinary referendum procedure).

I think that Article 27 could be retained in principle, ie the President can consider the referral of a bill to the people if a large number of citizens petition him thus allowing and the Senead to be removed and the article retained but unfortunately this is not what is been presented to us on Friday.

echo beach

Monotype wrote: »

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. Still, in the long run it could mean a few less votes that go to the people. We still see the power of the president reduced in other ways.

If they can persuade the people to get rid of the Seanad on the basis that it is too expensive/we can't afford it/don't need it, then surely the same argument applies equally well to the presidency. All that money for one man to live in a big house and what does he do anyway? Look at the size of America and they manage with the same person as head of state and head of government. Why do we need two?
This won't be the end of concentrating power in the hands of a few. If it succeeds it will be the beginning.

wow sierra

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It may be one third of our parliament, but its about 1/1000th of our democracy.

Everyone has a right to vote for the County Councils and General elections. It is the people we vote for in these elections who chose the Senators.

I think the emphasis on the Uninversity canditates who are only one tenth gives the impression that the whole Senate is picked by Graduates of a small number of Universities when in reality most of them are elected by people who were themselves elected by universal suffrage.

petronius

After watching the Debate minus the instigator (Cowardly Kenny)
I think the fact is we need reform, abolition of the seanad does nothing to deliver real reform,i
it I believe will reduce accountability and remove a vehicle to achieve greater democracy and greater engagement with the public
On Vincent Browne I found McDowell and McDonald performed well, Martin ok, and Bruton quite poor - you could tell his awkwardness in explaining away the 20million assertion, and his deflection of argument lines.
This promise of changes concocted by the government to dail procedure and committees is unproven, the idea of bringing in outside expertise(without any democractic mandate which at least the university senators have) is laughable

Of course reform is needed
Open the seanad to universal franchise give every one the vote in it
Have the seanad look at EU Legislation and refer to the dail if issues arise
How Sinn Fein can argue that a 2nd chamber is a positive and yet be urging a Yes Vote is beyond me,
Vote No to keep the seanad but implement reform!

Monotype

Out of interest if there's anyone well up on the constitution, is there anything to be concerned about in this part?

References in the Constitution to the “Houses of the Oireachtas” or to “either House of the Oireachtas” will be replaced by a reference to Dáil Éireann.

The president would be considered a house of the oireachtas, so the current statements which refer to the houses would include him/her would, following the referendum being passed, would only refer to the Dáil.

So does this change the power structures in any way in terms of the president?

oscarBravo

Monotype wrote: »

The president would be considered a house of the oireachtas...

Nope. The Houses are the Dail and Seanad.

Monotype

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. The Houses are the Dail and Seanad.

Really? Pardon my ignorance so.

Edit: Ah "The Oireachtas" is the three, but the houses are just the other two.

Gergiev

I conducted an interesting experiment this evening.

During my rounds, I asked 3 people if they were voting tomorrow.

Without getting too specific, we chatted about the various options.

But 2 of the 3 chose the wrong voting option to express their possible intention.

For example, to save the Senate they believed they should vote yes, instead of no.

Interpreted as yes to preserve, no to abolish.

Anyone else getting that feedback or suspect that some or even a lot of voters will be confused?

Cork boy 55

Have not been following much to be honest

Is it a slam dunk for yes or what?

When was the last opinion poll?

Wiki is
Date Yes No Maybe
27 Sept 44% 27% 29%
28 Sept 37% 20% 42%
16 Sept 49% 33% 18%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2013_(Ireland)

Might be one of those shock ones, due to low turnout or government complacency and/or incompetence yet .... maybe

TheGoldenAges

First time voting tomorrow, I've listened to both sides and am leaning towards voting no. I'd rather see reform down the line when a government has more time and resources into researching reform measures instead of being rushed into abolishing it by a government whose sole mandate it seems is to decrease spending and increase taxes.

With that said one simple change that should be made it the Seanad should be voted for by the people of Ireland, maybe have it between EU/Local, Dail and Presidential elections

dlouth15

I'll be voting no tomorrow but my worry is that a lot of the impetus for reform will also disappear should a no result be returned.

Sierra Oscar

Gergiev wrote: »

I conducted an interesting experiment this evening.

During my rounds, I asked 3 people if they were voting tomorrow.

Without getting too specific, we chatted about the various options.

But 2 of the 3 chose the wrong voting option to express their possible intention.

For example, to save the Senate they believed they should vote yes, instead of no.

Interpreted as yes to preserve, no to abolish.

Anyone else getting that feedback or suspect that some or even a lot of voters will be confused?

Been getting people on the doors who say they will 'Vote No' as they do not want a Seanad any longer, so it will balance itself out.

echo beach

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'll be voting no tomorrow but my worry is that a lot of the impetus for reform will also disappear should a no result be returned.

There is no impetus for reform, at least not from anybody who has the power to drive reform.
A no vote allows the possibility of reform at some point in the future, likely the distant future, while a yes vote ensures there will be nothing to reform. That is enough to make me vote no.

mada999

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. The Houses are the Dail and Seanad.

The Oirectachas (spelling?!), is the President, the Dáil and the Seanad

oscarBravo

mada999 wrote: »

The Oirectachas (spelling?!), is the President, the Dáil and the Seanad

Yes, but the office of President is not one of the houses of the Oireachtas.

Article 12.6.1:

The President shall not be a member of either House of the Oireachtas.

Article 15.1.2:

The Oireachtas shall consist of the President and two Houses, viz.: a House of Representatives to be called Dáil Éireann and a Senate to be called Seanad Éireann.

The President isn't a House.

Cynical, unanswerable sucker punch to the 'no' campaign by Kenny in the morning media on referendum day.

According to him, there will be no Seanad reform if a 'no' vote is passed. Scaring undecided voters into leaning his way with a claim he knows there isn't time to counter via media before people vote. Are there no depths to which the FG machine isn't willing to sink to get Europe it's prize in this poll...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-seanad-cant-be-reformed-29629317.html

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there no depths to which the FG machine isn't willing to sink to get Europe it's prize in this poll...

What the hell does Europe have to do with anything?

Grudaire

Deleted User wrote: »

Cynical, unanswerable sucker punch to the 'no' campaign by Kenny in the morning media on referendum day.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-seanad-cant-be-reformed-29629317.html

That article is from two days ago!?

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

What the hell does Europe have to do with anything?

What, you've never heard of straw-man talking points!? :pac:

It's a yes & another yes from me.

Cliste

Cliste wrote: »

That article is from two days ago!?

My apologies, happily withdrawn. It was part of my news feed for today, but on further inspection is 2-day old copy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What the hell does Europe have to do with anything?

Billy86 wrote: »

What, you've never heard of straw-man talking points!? :pac:

I have to refute that comment. It's not a straw-man, and I've been alarmed at the failure to fully report the ties between the two over the course of the campaign, by a media which seems more inclined to focus instead on easy headlines which play into the psyche of the average recession-addled tabloid reader on one side, and the ease with which those same headlines can be picked apart as a fallacy on the other.

There is a strong correlation between what is happening at the polls today and the ability of the EU to push certain key measures more speedily past the Irish people, by way of some of the articles of the constitution which the referendum is concerned with being removed or amended. Ireland's ability to hold a popular referendum is something a majority of EU states do not have the benefit of, and something which has frequently frustrated the progress of the EU leaders in advancing their agenda in the past.

The fact remains that should this poll pass, there is little or nothing to stop a party with a large majority in a single-chamber government forcing through any legislation it (or any external power with discrete leverage over it) wishes to see enacted speedily, by means of party whips, guillotined debates, and the like. It vests too much power in the hands of too few, and (and i say this absolutely without the use of hyperbole) it has overtones of National Socialism and the rise of Hitler in 1930's Germany in terms of it's capability to stifle open, informed discourse in a public forum, and measured decision making by representatives empowered with the freedom to act in accordance with the will of the people they represent.

Too much power in the hands of too few, is NEVER a good thing for democracy, no matter how altruistic the original intent of the powerful might be.

Kenny has shown in the past that it is most certainly Frankfurt's way, and not Ireland's that he is willing to put his weight behind, and frankly, i have approached this proposition with the same point of view which i would approach any business deal. By asking questions such as who stands to benefit from the proposal, in what way and by how much, what is the cost, what is the risk of damage to us, to others, and whether there would be a more effective way of achieving the stated goal or benefit than what is being proposed.

Usually in that situation, if something doesn't add up, if it doesn't all square off, or seem right, it isn't. In short, if you smell a rat, there's probably one around somewhere...

Saving a (comparatively) paltry twenty million (even if that figure wasn't in dispute) at some distant undefined point in the future, by holding a risky, costly and politically devisive referendum at great PR cost to the party and it's leader and leadership, out of the kindness of their hearts and a genuine wish to make the political institutions of this country more effective?? When the same administration has baulked at having the courage to make real savings in the public sector and show real political reform as they were mandated to do, for fear of political damage? It simply doesn't add up. Kenny and co, don't have "form" for doing the right and decent thing. They have shown over the last two or more years that they are not the altruistic sort, and the natural question to ask is "who really stands to benefit from what's being done here, and how and by how much?"

To me, the answer is the government majority, the Taoiseach and his front bench and the power they seek to hold to advance their own agenda (whatever or however good or bad that may be) by means of the "three-line" party whip system, and lastly, the financial and political powerhouses of Europe by means of the strong leverage/pressure they have shown in the past they are willing to wield over us in their own self-interest.

oscarBravo

Ah. A conspiracy theory.

Carry on, so.

TheRosseforp

This referendum exemplifies the ignorance of Irish society in relation to issues of governance. I have not heard of one legitimate, substantiated claim to abolishing the Seanad. Unfortunately, the majority of voters rely on the media to obtain information about the issues at heart.

I find the whole issue of money quite infuriating and a point which is not worthy of debate. It should have no worth in constitutional issues, but when applied to Irish debt/expenses it is a futile and weak argument in any case.

The idea of less politicians seems to appeal to many, I've seen the theory of Ireland having 'too many representatives per person' being spouted about frequently. In any case, fewer politicians is a negative, outdated ideal. More public representation has a direct correlation with improved development of social and economical issues on a local, regional and national spectrum. Look at other European countries who are not suffering from economic growth and depravity as ourselves, France has 125 representatives per person while Germany is somewhere around the 1 for every 300. If you want to make savings you do not cut the number of contributors, you reduce their salaries. Unfortunately the representatives within Ireland have shown to be incompetent at times, although reducing the number of them is in no way a solution. Anybody arguing to the contrary is simply lacking an understanding on the subject.

The Seanad in its current form has many inefficiencies. While it has provided a platform for more local and regional issues to be brought to the fore of politics, the system of electing the representatives is inherently flawed. We all want and need reform, but to do that further decentralisation of power is essential. Without this it is simply not feasible or a realistic goal to obtain political reform in Ireland. Countries in the Developing World that have suffered economic, environmental, and social turmoil due to political instability are basing their new regimes and development on decentralisation of power. In Ireland, we have somehow concocted the idea that less politicians is a benefit because they are not doing a good enough job. While I agree that the incompetence of public representatives needs to be addressed, this populist media fed approach is not the way forward. In saying that, I was astounded at Minister Bruton's comments that the Seanad is not fulfilling its role on a legislative scale or as a "watchdog". It has made over 500 amendments to bills within our constitution. The ineffectiveness of the Seanad is not on a legislative scale, but rather on an operational level where issues of regional and local concern are simply bypassed by the Dáil. (Not needing to state the obvious, but greater collaboration is needed in this regard)

The concept of not needing a second parliamentary house is one which I could get behind, provided that far greater local and regional powers were delegated. We have seen little of that in an Irish context and even when Minister Bruton mentioned that the other night it was given no more importance than a one line comment. The 'Putting People First' report released last October actually wanted Ireland to increase the size of our regions from 8 to 3. We already have massive regions by European standards, such a move would result in metropolitan like areas. But Minister Bruton wants to tell us that we are making a move to increase local governance. A 7 page theoretical reports will not result in reform on a local scale, and I find it insulting that the government have the audacity to suggest so.

I must add that the televised debates over the last week were disappointing. Instead of supplying quality, unbiased information to the public we were greeted with a mudslinging contest between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The issue at hand here is far more intrinsic than the ideals of political parties, it will be ingrained within our constitution. It was a debate marred by political agendas and that was evident throughout. Mary Lou McDonald gave a decent account of herself the other night but her insinuation that reform is going to happen with the abolishment of the Seanad is disingenuous. Or, if she really does believe that will happen, I have given her far more credit over the years than he is worthy of. (I do believe she is angling with the General Election in mind to show that FG and SF can cooperate on political issues if needs be, we will have to wait and see on that one)

I have little faith in political reform regardless of the outcome of this referendum. However, keeping the Seanad gives the potentially for this reform and at the very least stagnates over concentration of power. The removal of it simply over centralisises power to the top table and is frighteningly abstract from contemporary policies and analysis.