Referendum time! Abolish the Senate, Create a Court of Appeal?

robindch

While it's great to see a referendum campaign which hasn't descended into near-civil war, there's a lot to be said for people showing a bit of passion about the whole thing too.

The latest figures from the IT are that 44% are in favour of abolition, and 27% are against. It would be interesting to see the full breakdown by economic class, as the IT's reporting that FG's "Let's save €20 million!" angle is proving persuasive.

In any case, it's hard not to interpret what's going on as anything other than a fairly straight-forward power-grab by the Dail. I certainly haven't seen any convincing arguments in favour of abolition, suggesting that fixing the little that's wrong with it is a much better approach.

Anyhow, does anybody have any views one way or other on the topic? Five days to go until voting day, this Friday!

kippy

robindch wrote: »

While it's great to see a referendum campaign which hasn't descended into near-civil war, there's a lot to be said for people showing a bit of passion about the whole thing too.

The latest figures from the IT are that 44% are in favour of abolition, and 27% are against. It would be interesting to see the full breakdown by economic class, as the IT's reporting that FG's "Let's save €20 million!" angle is proving persuasive.

In any case, it's hard not to interpret what's going on as anything other than a fairly straight-forward power-grab by the Dail. I certainly haven't seen any convincing arguments in favour of abolition, suggesting that fixing the little that's wrong with it is a much better approach.

Anyhow, does anybody have any views one way or other on the topic? Five days to go until voting day, this Friday!

To be honest, I'm all for a reduction in the number of politicians we have.
Starting with the Seanad, then moving on to the Dail, further reductions required there.
Then moving down to the City/Town and county councils. We've far too many politicians in general.

There is a lot being said about how the Seanad "keeps and eye" on the dail, but that's just nonsense in reality.

Dades

I have never given less of a crap about a referendum.

kippy

Dades wrote: »

I have never given less of a crap about a referendum.

Oh yeah, and that too........

JD Dublin

I read in today's IT that Edmund Holohan Master of the high Court has come out against the new Court of Appeal on the basis that the people in the system should work the system as it is now and there would be far less of a waiting list.

Holohan is not a judge but is an experienced barrister. I've sat in his vcourt and he is a sound guy IMHO, apart from the odd ''Snickers'' moment before he has the bit of grub at lunchtime. To quote the ads, ''You can be a bit of a diva when you're hungry''.

I have been in the Supreme Court with a customer who had no chance in an appeal but as Holohan suggests it was a way of delaying things for a few months. Having said that we only had to wait months, not years so I don't see what the problem is. Back to the title of the post - both the Bar Council and the Law Society have urgef a Yes vote to get this new Court of Appeals - which to me is a good enough reason not to vote for it in the first place.

By the way the new court will cost the State €3 million a year, probably a fraction of the fees generated for our leaned friends.

magicbastarder

i'm probably going to vote to retain the seanad. i prefer reform over abolition.

someone once explained to me, many years ago, that the lack of teeth the seanad has is a reflection of the lack of power the president has. that's as much detail as i can remember. anyone know if the argument holds water?

Sarky

Had a brain fart and forgot to register to vote.

It's an awkward situation, as far as I see; The seanad as it is is a fairly shoddy system in dire need of reform, but nobody's going to reform it and it'll remain staffed with yes-men and hysterical morons like Ronan Mullen and Fidelma Healy-Eames. On the other hand, a yes vote will do away with a rather important (flawed as it is) check on the dáil, and I'm fairly sure no government in this country has ever had a good track record on using its power responsibly. They certainly wouldn't replace the seanad with something less flawed than it is now. And Hysterical morons like Mullen would end up loose in public.

Lose-lose, to my mind. If it stays, no government will reform it. And I don't trust any Irish government to work without it.

eyescreamcone

Seanad abolition : Nay!

My Dad is 75.
He's never had a vote in the Seanad. That's 57 adult years of undemocratic behaviour.
He says he's going to use his only vote on Seanad matters to abolish it.

I myself have votes in 2 of the Seanad's consituencies. (NUI and TCD).
This is bullsh!t.

Anyone who thinks the Seanad is worth holding on to is talking out their arse.

I'll be voting with my Dad to abolish this useless undemocratic house on friday.

magicbastarder

the government are just looking to abolish the seanad as a box-ticking exercise. my concern - related to the comment that they'll never reform the dail - is that if they get this to pass, nothing is ever going to happen to reform the dail, which is where reform really *is* needed.

Beruthiel

Seanad abolition : Yay!

This is way I will be voting to keep the Seanad:

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."

I like the fact that we, the people, get to decide in which direction our country goes in. I don't always agree with the direction, but I like the fact that we get to choose.
That will be taken away from us and I'm not happy with that.

This is the lazy mans way of doing things. Reform is what we need in government, proper reform.

kippy

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is way I will be voting to keep the Seanad:

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."

I like the fact that we, the people, get to decide in which direction our country goes in. I don't always agree with the direction, but I like the fact that we get to choose.
That will be taken away from us and I'm not happy with that.

Has this ever happened in practice though?

I doubt it could happen, unless the "controlling parties" didnt have a majority in the Seanad either.......

Nodin

Appeals court : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

While it's great to see a referendum campaign which hasn't descended into near-civil war, there's a lot to be said for people showing a bit of passion about the whole thing too.

The latest figures from the IT are that 44% are in favour of abolition, and 27% are against. It would be interesting to see the full breakdown by economic class, as the IT's reporting that FG's "Let's save €20 million!" angle is proving persuasive.

In any case, it's hard not to interpret what's going on as anything other than a fairly straight-forward power-grab by the Dail. I certainly haven't seen any convincing arguments in favour of abolition, suggesting that fixing the little that's wrong with it is a much better approach.

Anyhow, does anybody have any views one way or other on the topic? Five days to go until voting day, this Friday!

If the Seanad had any power, its forgotten the magic words, and so have the rest of us. I'd rather reform the thing and give it some nadgers, but keeping it in its current form would be hard to vote for. I'd say yes to the court of appeal.

Beruthiel

Seanad abolition : Yay!

With regards to the court of appeal.
That one confuses me.
Now it's court ----> supreme court.

If this passes, it's court ----> court of appeal ----> supreme court (depending on how the appeal goes)

Is that not prolonging the whole process?
Won't the only people to gain anything be the solicitors?
Fill me in on that if you can as I've had no time to read up on it properly yet and time's running out!

Penn

It needs major reform, but not abolition. That's baby and bathwater territory.

kippy

Penn wrote: »

It needs major reform, but not abolition. That's baby and bathwater territory.

Reform will never happen.

robindch

Appeals court : Nay!

kippy wrote: »

Reform will never happen.

It certainly won't if the senate is disbanded. Aren't FF promising to reform the thing?

Penn

kippy wrote: »

Reform will never happen.

With what FG et al are saying about the Seanad, if it's voted to be kept they can't not reform it. They're highlighting problems with the Seanad. If the Seanad is kept, those problems will still be there.

The Seanad can be kept but the majority of the problems can still be fixed. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Voting to keep it means the middle ground will have to be looked at.

Nodin

Appeals court : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

It certainly won't if the senate is disbanded. Aren't FF promising to reform the thing?

You'll pardon my gales of cynical laughter. They had plenty of time to do that, but had no urge to. There's no way in hell a party as cynical as FF are going to introduce a powerful independent-minded upper house.

Penn wrote:

The Seanad can be kept but the majority of the problems can still be fixed. It
doesn't have to be all or nothing. Voting to keep it means the middle ground
will have to be looked at.

Much as above, tbh. FG having a revelatory moment after a defeat on the issue is just not going to happen. Changes might be made, but actual reform? Nein.

seamus

Seanad abolition : Yay!

kippy wrote: »

Reform will never happen.

That's kind of a given. Keep the Seanad, no reform. Abolish the Seanad, little or no reform.

A referendum is referred to the people because it's a change to the core framework on which the configuration of our state is built.

As such, any changes to that configuration should be justifiable and not just changes for changes sake. When considering a referedum, the question should always be, "Why should I vote yes". If you can't be convinced to vote yes, you vote no. You don't start at a middle point and ask to be convinced to vote no, you should start from the default position of "do not change anything" and then ask to be convinced to go the other way.

So far, I have seen no good reason to remove references to the Seanad from the constitution.

At best, taking all things into account (including loss of taxes paid by Senators), the abolition will save about €6m - €7m per year. Those savings won't start being realised until 2015. And this referendum is costing about €16m to run.

So what we're talking about is a saving of €1 - €1.50, per citizen, per year, in about 5.5 years' time. Will that €6m figure even be meaningful once you take 5.5 years of inflation into account?

Less politicians. Well that's a bit of a soundbyte. It's vacuous. Too few politicians is just as bad as too many. "Less politicians", as an aim in itself doesn't solve any problems, it almost just sounds like some kind of weird vendetta.

Democracy of the Seanad? Valid issue. Does it mean the Seanad needs abolition? Well, the President cannot be elected by citizens overseas. Does that mean the office of the President should be abolished? Or that the electoral process needs to be changed? There is already scope to massively expand the Seanad electorate without any constitutional changes, but to do it correctly, expanding the electorate of the Seanad is a simple and justifiable constitutional change. Abolition of the Seanad is neither.

There's also weird dissonance about this democratic issue. The same people who will say it needs to be abolished because it's a powerless waste are the same ones who will say that it's an elitist undemocratic stronghold. It can't really be both. If it's powerless, then the nature of its election is fairly irrelevant, since its incapable of enacting change anyway.

It just seems as though the Government parties have come up with a menu of 3 reasons to dislike the Seanad and asked people to pick one.

It hasn't actually put forward any reasons to remove it from the constitution. Whether or not you like the existence of the Seanad, you need to ask whether there is a good reason to completely abolish it, not whether there's a good reason to keep it.

I still have to have a proper look at the courts system, but a solicitor friend seems fairly adamant that this is another case where reform is what's needed, but more bloat will be delivered. District court judges apparently work 2 hours a day, five days a week for six figures and spend most of that time in their chambers. They have little or no research or paperwork outside of that. There's no reason why their hours can't just be doubled or tripled. A new courts system will deliver little except more expensive inefficient courts. There are similar resources wastes across the courts system.
But like I say, I still have to read up on that whole thing.

wretcheddomain

Seanad abolition : Nay!

Typical essay answer from Seamus, but raised some good points as usual.

From my own perspective, it's starting to get frustrating to hear people demand reform instead of abolition. The question you have to ask yourself is why weren't you offered reform as an option at all? The reason is simple; it's unattainable as no government will ever cede power. Thus, the idea, hope or demand for reform is completely irrelevant to this referendum. We're being asked this week to vote on whether we keep the current Seanad for eternity, or get rid of it. Given that there's no positive or persuasive argument in favour of keeping it, especially given attempts at reform are futile, then we naturally fall down on the abolition side. I think this is pretty straightforward. Anyone who votes against the abolition on grounds of hoping for future reform is deluding themselves.

robindch

Appeals court : Nay!

wretcheddomain wrote: »

it's unattainable as no government will ever cede power [...] Anyone who votes against the abolition on grounds of hoping for future reform is deluding themselves.

I don't think anybody's voting against abolition in the sure hope of reform, but reform certainly won't happen if the senate is abolished. And, as above, abolishing the thing certainly can be interpreted as a power-grab.

Nodin

Appeals court : Nay!

....am I the only one who finds this kind of thing depressing?

wretcheddomain

Seanad abolition : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

I don't think anybody's voting against abolition in the sure hope of reform, but reform certainly won't happen if the senate is abolished. And, as above, abolishing the thing certainly can be interpreted as a power-grab.

I've met numerous people whose sole reason for keeping the Seanad is because they desire future reform. The only people who wish for this are the people who wish for this i.e. no politician, hence it's a ridiculous reason to vote along those lines.

It could possibly be interpreted as a power grab but exactly what power would they be grabbing that they haven't already got in their grubby hands?

seamus

Seanad abolition : Yay!

wretcheddomain wrote: »

From my own perspective, it's starting to get frustrating to hear people demand reform instead of abolition. The question you have to ask yourself is why weren't you offered reform as an option at all? The reason is simple; it's unattainable as no government will ever cede power.

But doesn't that scare you? If no government will ever cede power, then the implication is that every government will attempt to seize additional power where the opportunity exists.
Are you comfortable with the Dáil having a clear run to assign itself additional powers without a pesky second house in the way (crippled or otherwise)?

Thus, the idea, hope or demand for reform is completely irrelevant to this referendum.

The hope for reform, agreed, is futile. No government in my memory has ever taken any action on losing a referendum except to pretend it never happened.

But I don't think the idea or demand is irrelevant. While we are not presented with reform as an option, that doesn't mean we are required to ignore the possibility of it. Like I say in my essay , the option isn't A or B. It's "No change" or "change". A or B implies that either path involves action.
If people point out that the option should be "No change" or "Change A" or "Change B" or "Change C", then by default the poll is flawed and should be rejected.

We're being asked this week to vote on whether we keep the current Seanad for eternity, or get rid of it.

We're being asked on whether we want to abolish it, that's it. There's nothing in a "No" which prevents the question being asked again. A "Yes" however does abolish the Seanad forever.

Given that there's no positive or persuasive argument in favour of keeping it, especially given attempts at reform are futile, then we naturally fall down on the abolition side. I think this is pretty straightforward. Anyone who votes against the abolition on grounds of hoping for future reform is deluding themselves.

I respect entirely that some people may not agree with my "No by default" point of view, but I find it scary that people see this as an "A or B" exercise, as if both options were entirely new proposals being placed before them.

Imagine a car dealer stopped you in the street and told you to buy a new Kord Fuga from him because your existing car was old and starting to cost you money.
What're the first questions you would ask yourself?
A. Do I need to change my car?
B. Is the Kord Fuga a good option, or is there a better one?

You wouldn't immediately buy the car from him because that's the option being presented - you would look around to see what other options are possible, and reject the Kord Fuga if it wasn't the best one. Even though your existing car is old and costly, you stick with it by default until you find the best option for changing it.

wretcheddomain

Seanad abolition : Nay!

seamus wrote: »

But doesn't that scare you? If no government will ever cede power, then the implication is that every government will attempt to seize additional power where the opportunity exists.
Are you comfortable with the Dáil having a clear run to assign itself additional powers without a pesky second house in the way (crippled or otherwise)?

Not really...as I've asked before, what power could they demand on having given they already have a clear path to attain such power currently? The Seanad makes absolutely no difference in so-called 'checks' whether it's their or otherwise.

While we are not presented with reform as an option, that doesn't mean we are required to ignore the possibility of it. Like I say in my essay , the option isn't A or B. It's "No change" or "change". A or B implies that either path involves action.
If people point out that the option should be "No change" or "Change A" or "Change B" or "Change C", then by default the poll is flawed and should be rejected.

This is just not true. The possibility of 'checking power' or otherwise being ceded to the Seanad is exactly 0. We have to accept this reality however unpalatable it may be. I may not be satisfied with such a conclusion but sometimes you just have to be realistic. And as I said above, I don't wallow in fear in the corner of my room about this because the Dáil can extract as much power as it desires with or without the constitutional lipstick, known in some circles as the Seanad.

We're being asked on whether we want to abolish it, that's it.

Now you've got the point - we're being asked to abolish it or keep it as it is. Keeping it as it is would be a fatuously bad decision hence we must have the courage to abolish it entirely. It's simply not needed, but that's a separate point.

Imagine a car dealer stopped you in the street and told you to buy a new Kord Fuga from him because your existing car was old and starting to cost you money.
What're the first questions you would ask yourself?
A. Do I need to change my car?
B. Is the Kord Fuga a good option, or is there a better one?

You wouldn't immediately buy the car from him because that's the option being presented - you would look around to see what other options are possible, and reject the Kord Fuga if it wasn't the best one. Even though your existing car is old and costly, you stick with it by default until you find the best option for changing it.

The problem with this analogy is that you're assuming we, the people, can make such a decision. The option of 'looking around to see what other options are' is not within my grasp, a third party has to look at the cars. This third party doesn't even want a new car, in fact, demands that all cars are scrapped. As the middle-man in this process, I have no say. Hence, your analogy fails.

PopePalpatine

Appeals court : Nay!

Sarky wrote: »

Had a brain fart and forgot to register to vote.

It's an awkward situation, as far as I see; The seanad as it is is a fairly shoddy system in dire need of reform, but nobody's going to reform it and it'll remain staffed with yes-men and hysterical morons like Ronan Mullen and Fidelma Healy-Eames. On the other hand, a yes vote will do away with a rather important (flawed as it is) check on the dáil, and I'm fairly sure no government in this country has ever had a good track record on using its power responsibly. They certainly wouldn't replace the seanad with something less flawed than it is now. And Hysterical morons like Mullen would end up loose in public.

Lose-lose, to my mind. If it stays, no government will reform it. And I don't trust any Irish government to work without it.

I'll admit it, when I first heard of the Seanad potentially being abolished, I revelled in the hope that Cardinal Mullen and Jack Kyle's Traumfrau would be out of a job. The fact remains that they'll get massive pensions, and that they'll probably find jobs elsewhere - worst case scenario, Cardinal Mullen becomes part of the Church's legal team and frustrates efforts to secularise schools, hospitals and the compensation of the victims of the Magdalene Laundries, and FH-E ends up on the board of a hospital with a "Catholic ethos".

kippy

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of a given. Keep the Seanad, no reform. Abolish the Seanad, little or no reform.

A referendum is referred to the people because it's a change to the core framework on which the configuration of our state is built.

As such, any changes to that configuration should be justifiable and not just changes for changes sake. When considering a referedum, the question should always be, "Why should I vote yes". If you can't be convinced to vote yes, you vote no. You don't start at a middle point and ask to be convinced to vote no, you should start from the default position of "do not change anything" and then ask to be convinced to go the other way.

So far, I have seen no good reason to remove references to the Seanad from the constitution.

At best, taking all things into account (including loss of taxes paid by Senators), the abolition will save about €6m - €7m per year. Those savings won't start being realised until 2015. And this referendum is costing about €16m to run.

So what we're talking about is a saving of €1 - €1.50, per citizen, per year, in about 5.5 years' time. Will that €6m figure even be meaningful once you take 5.5 years of inflation into account?

Less politicians. Well that's a bit of a soundbyte. It's vacuous. Too few politicians is just as bad as too many. "Less politicians", as an aim in itself doesn't solve any problems, it almost just sounds like some kind of weird vendetta.

Democracy of the Seanad? Valid issue. Does it mean the Seanad needs abolition? Well, the President cannot be elected by citizens overseas. Does that mean the office of the President should be abolished? Or that the electoral process needs to be changed? There is already scope to massively expand the Seanad electorate without any constitutional changes, but to do it correctly, expanding the electorate of the Seanad is a simple and justifiable constitutional change. Abolition of the Seanad is neither.

There's also weird dissonance about this democratic issue. The same people who will say it needs to be abolished because it's a powerless waste are the same ones who will say that it's an elitist undemocratic stronghold. It can't really be both. If it's powerless, then the nature of its election is fairly irrelevant, since its incapable of enacting change anyway.

It just seems as though the Government parties have come up with a menu of 3 reasons to dislike the Seanad and asked people to pick one.

It hasn't actually put forward any reasons to remove it from the constitution. Whether or not you like the existence of the Seanad, you need to ask whether there is a good reason to completely abolish it, not whether there's a good reason to keep it.

I still have to have a proper look at the courts system, but a solicitor friend seems fairly adamant that this is another case where reform is what's needed, but more bloat will be delivered. District court judges apparently work 2 hours a day, five days a week for six figures and spend most of that time in their chambers. They have little or no research or paperwork outside of that. There's no reason why their hours can't just be doubled or tripled. A new courts system will deliver little except more expensive inefficient courts. There are similar resources wastes across the courts system.
But like I say, I still have to read up on that whole thing.

Fair enough. Some good points..........
I will say however that we do have too many politicians. That surely is a given at this point. At local and national level. Indeed one could argue that the calibre is also a major issue, but that wont be solved by maintaining the status quo.

The Seanad has all these "powers" allegedly but have never once seen fit to use them. Why?
Because essentially the party in power controls the Seanad too and if the didn't EVERYTHING would be a political spat.

FF have had the guts of a decade for refrom, yet never implemented it? Why - cos the Seanad was a good a spot as any for putting their own cronies into.


There is an awful lot of hot air inside the seanad - perhaps these people would do better in the dail?

Hotblack Desiato

Seanad abolition : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

It would be interesting to see the full breakdown by economic class, as the IT's reporting that FG's "Let's save €20 million!" angle is proving persuasive.

I agree the FG posters and slogans are populist nonsense, but that doesn't make abolition wrong either. Populist nonsense is effective, but that's more of a reflection on the Irish electorate rather than politicians

In any case, it's hard not to interpret what's going on as anything other than a fairly straight-forward power-grab by the Dail.

It's not a power-grab because there's no power to be grabbed. The Seanad cannot veto legislation but only delay it by 90 days. They get no say in money bills (e.g. Budget) at all.

It was set up as a sop to Protestants, a fig-leaf to cover over that Ireland was effectively a Roman theocracy. Many things have since changed, but it was the Dail that changed them. The EU / ECHR have had far greater input into provoking necessary social reform in this country than the Seanad ever had, or ever could have.

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is way I will be voting to keep the Seanad:

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."

This has never happened, and even if it did the President (who usually is from one of the governing parties) can just refuse.

Majority of the Seanad going against the Government? Never going to happen. Don't forget that the Taoiseach gets to appoint nominees, making a Government majority in the Seanad all but certain.

I like the fact that we, the people, get to decide in which direction our country goes in. I don't always agree with the direction, but I like the fact that we get to choose.
That will be taken away from us and I'm not happy with that.

I don't get it. We're not losing anything by taking this away, it's a power that has never been and will never be exercised.

This is the lazy mans way of doing things. Reform is what we need in government, proper reform.

No government is going to take power away from itself and give it to another body - unless they are guaranteed control of that body. It's bad enough having a powerless puppet chamber - but a puppet chamber with the appearance of having real power (but in reality permanently controlled by the government) would be worse.

Beruthiel wrote: »

With regards to the court of appeal.
That one confuses me.
Now it's court ----> supreme court.

If this passes, it's court ----> court of appeal ----> supreme court (depending on how the appeal goes)

Is that not prolonging the whole process?
Won't the only people to gain anything be the solicitors?
Fill me in on that if you can as I've had no time to read up on it properly yet and time's running out!

The Supreme Court will only hear appeals on Constitutional grounds or on 'matters of national importance' if this is passed.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'll admit it, when I first heard of the Seanad potentially being abolished, I revelled in the hope that Cardinal Mullen and Jack Kyle's Traumfrau would be out of a job. The fact remains that they'll get massive pensions, and that they'll probably find jobs elsewhere - worst case scenario, Cardinal Mullen becomes part of the Church's legal team and frustrates efforts to secularise schools, hospitals and the compensation of the victims of the Magdalene Laundries, and FH-E ends up on the board of a hospital with a "Catholic ethos".

Mullen used to work for the Catholic Communications Office. At least, pension aside, he'll be off the taxpayers' back if this passes.

wikipedia wrote:

From 1996 to 2001, Mullen worked in the Communications Office of the Archdiocese of Dublin and appeared as a spokesperson for the Archdiocese and Cardinal Desmond Connell.

Brian Shanahan

Seanad abolition : Nay!

is that in a parliamentary democracy (or close approximation, most parliamentary systems aren't true democracies), an upper house has two functions (which are mutually exclusive):

1) To act as the repository for failed politicos, favourites of the current party leaders, and (in cases like the UK) people whos ancestors were quite good at hitting other people with sharp metal objects. This is the system currently in use here.
and
2) retarding the democratic process, by reigning in on any legislative actions by the lower, more democratically elected, house. This is explicitly the function of the US senate, to act as a brake on congress (until recently the only national body chosen by popular vote). I reckon that the founding fathers would be suprised how far the teahadists actually managed to run with this one (they recently passed a law making filibusters easier claiming they were "reforming" them to make them harder).

As those two purposes are inimical to the democratic purpose, and I cannot see any other, then I will be voting for the abolishing of the Seanad. And hey, it'll be one less avenue for Ronan Mullen to enter the public arena.

lynski

I am in favor of retaining it, Seamus, makes a great case above, also i feel it is a forum for the likes of David Norris, who could not get elected as a TD, Mary O'Rourke, Fergal Quinn, Mary-Ann O'Brien, Ivana Bacik, people whose voices in public life are not about party political bs, who do not toe-lines and who have considered opinions and contributions.
The Dail is the one that needs to be abolished, IMHO, we need a national parliament, devoid of pseudo-civil-war party lines, with elected TDs representing the people, all of them, with an elected leader from the TD. The party system has no relevance to modern irish society, they stand for nothing or the same things, they are just different gangs.
This country is so small, why not abolish all political parties, all electoral boundaries; every one votes for their top 50 from a pool, top 100 get into Dail, Seanad the same on a smaller scale. They elect a leader and deputy and top 10 form a cabinet. Votes are all free.
Do it all by text, on the same day every 5 yrs.
Cant be any worse then we have now.

wretcheddomain

Seanad abolition : Nay!

lynski wrote: »

I am in favor of retaining it, Seamus, makes a great case above, also i feel it is a forum for the likes of David Norris, who could not get elected as a TD, Mary O'Rourke, Fergal Quinn, Mary-Ann O'Brien, Ivana Bacik, people whose voices in public life are not about party political bs, who do not toe-lines and who have considered opinions and contributions.
The Dail is the one that needs to be abolished, IMHO, we need a national parliament, devoid of pseudo-civil-war party lines, with elected TDs representing the people, all of them, with an elected leader from the TD. The party system has no relevance to modern irish society, they stand for nothing or the same things, they are just different gangs.
This country is so small, why not abolish all political parties, all electoral boundaries; every one votes for their top 50 from a pool, top 100 get into Dail, Seanad the same on a smaller scale. They elect a leader and deputy and top 10 form a cabinet. Votes are all free.
Do it all by text, on the same day every 5 yrs.
Cant be any worse then we have now.

Come on, let's go the whole way and abolish the whole country too... :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Seanad abolition : Nay!

lynski wrote: »

I am in favor of retaining it, Seamus, makes a great case above, also i feel it is a forum for the likes of David Norris, who could not get elected as a TD

OK. But his biggest career achievement came about through the European courts, not the Seanad.

Mary O'Rourke,

Career TD who parachuted into the Seanad after the voters rejected her. Not a good thing.

Fergal Quinn

Can't think of a single worthwhile thing he's done in the Seanad.

Mary-Ann O'Brien

Who?

Ivana Bacik

Failed to be elected an MEP once, and as a TD twice. Still hasn't got the hint

people whose voices in public life are not about party political bs, who do not toe-lines and who have considered opinions and contributions.

Both Bacik and O'Rourke are very much career politicians and members of political parties.

The real problem with the Seanad is that for every half-decent senator (mostly university senators, but then there's Ronan Mullen also...) there's at least ten wastes of space who only get in because they have been party hacks all their lives and it's 'their turn', or they are failed TDs looking for a political lifeboat, or they are buddies with the Taoiseach.

This country is so small, why not abolish all political parties, all electoral boundaries; every one votes for their top 50 from a pool, top 100 get into Dail, Seanad the same on a smaller scale. They elect a leader and deputy and top 10 form a cabinet. Votes are all free.
Do it all by text, on the same day every 5 yrs.
Cant be any worse then we have now.

Jesus.
So instead of having to pick from maybe 15 candidates now, I have to familiarise myself with hundreds. And they'll all be independents so they'll all have their own manifestos, and there'll be nobody whipping them into shape if they decide on a major u-turn. How many pro-choice voters were fooled into voting for Lucinda Creighton? I never heard her utter a word on the subject of abortion until last year.

Text voting is dodgy enough for TV talent shows, no way could you seriously suggest it for electing our government.

lynski

ninja900 wrote: »

OK. But his biggest career achievement came about through the European courts, not the Seanad.


Career TD who parachuted into the Seanad after the voters rejected her. Not a good thing.


Can't think of a single worthwhile thing he's done in the Seanad.



Who?


Failed to be elected an MEP once, and as a TD twice. Still hasn't got the hint



Both Bacik and O'Rourke are very much career politicians and members of political parties.

The real problem with the Seanad is that for every half-decent senator (mostly university senators, but then there's Ronan Mullen also...) there's at least ten wastes of space who only get in because they have been party hacks all their lives and it's 'their turn', or they are failed TDs looking for a political lifeboat, or they are buddies with the Taoiseach.




Jesus.
So instead of having to pick from maybe 15 candidates now, I have to familiarise myself with hundreds. And they'll all be independents so they'll all have their own manifestos, and there'll be nobody whipping them into shape if they decide on a major u-turn. How many pro-choice voters were fooled into voting for Lucinda Creighton? I never heard her utter a word on the subject of abortion until last year.

Text voting is dodgy enough for TV talent shows, no way could you seriously suggest it for electing our government.

We have an involved and comlex Voting system but we end up with more or less the same selection of **** term in term out, where has it gotten us? Up to our eyes in debt in a depressed corrupt vaguely catholic state. How could it be worse?
Maybe it should be a draft, like national service, a random draw of 100 people spread out across the country. The civil servants make most if the decisions anyway.

Nodin

Appeals court : Nay!

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of a given. Keep the Seanad, no reform. Abolish the Seanad, little or no reform.

A referendum is referred to the people because it's a change to the core framework on which the configuration of our state is built.

As such, any changes to that configuration should be justifiable and not just changes for changes sake. When considering a referedum, the question should always be, "Why should I vote yes". If you can't be convinced to vote yes, you vote no. You don't start at a middle point and ask to be convinced to vote no, you should start from the default position of "do not change anything" and then ask to be convinced to go the other way.

So far, I have seen no good reason to remove references to the Seanad from the constitution.

At best, taking all things into account (including loss of taxes paid by Senators), the abolition will save about €6m - €7m per year. Those savings won't start being realised until 2015. And this referendum is costing about €16m to run.

So what we're talking about is a saving of €1 - €1.50, per citizen, per year, in about 5.5 years' time. Will that €6m figure even be meaningful once you take 5.5 years of inflation into account?
.

I shall vote against the abolition with those thoughts to salve my troubled conscience.

magicbastarder

what options would people suggest for voting into the seanad? a list system?
i did half like the idea i read about once where your 'constituency' is the month in which you were born. so a candidate will declare him or herself for the february constituency, say, and people born in february are entitled to vote for them. removes the geographical ties to a constituency, so you don't get parish pump politices at nearly the same level.
not that this idea is not without its flaws.

Turtwig

Poll added.

Brian Shanahan

Seanad abolition : Nay!

ninja900 wrote: »

Jesus.
So instead of having to pick from maybe 15 candidates now, I have to familiarise myself with hundreds. And they'll all be independents so they'll all have their own manifestos, and there'll be nobody whipping them into shape if they decide on a major u-turn. How many pro-choice voters were fooled into voting for Lucinda Creighton? I never heard her utter a word on the subject of abortion until last year.

The greatest contribution any Irish person has made to politics? The whip system. The Irish Parliamentary Party under Parnell were the first political party to institute a proper whip system, forcing all their parliamentary members to vote along party lines.

And despite what a lot of commentators are saying I see nothing particularly wrong with the whip system. Why join a party if you're going to vote against party policy every time you disagree with it (obviously if a situation beyond party policy, e.g. the Iraq war of 2003 for UK MPs, going against the whip IMO is ok)?

Hotblack Desiato

Seanad abolition : Nay!

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And despite what a lot of commentators are saying I see nothing particularly wrong with the whip system.

Indeed. If I decide I like the manifesto of a particular party, and they get into government, I want them whipped into shape to implement it. I don't want some guy I elected as a member of Party X to implement policy Y to suddenly start wrestling with his 'conscience'. If he or she isn't happy with a policy and it's so important to them, the time to jump ship is before the election not after it.

BTW the FG 'pro-life promise' was no such thing, it promised to set up a Dail committee to examine the ECHR judgement etc. and we ended up getting pretty much exactly what it said.

Bannasidhe

Appeals court : Nay!

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Come on, let's go the whole way and abolish the whole country too... :rolleyes:

Now that I will vote yes to as there seems feck all chance of things being reformed.

Abolition of the Seanad - absolute No vote from me.

I hear all of this guff about 'other countries with similar populations' but complete silence about how those same countries have strong local/municipal government as well.

We, on the other hand, are insanely centralised already and, weak as the Seanad is, at least they do scrutinise legislation in public debates.

Reform local government first and devolve some of the centralised power back to the local authorities, then reform the Dail - more transparency, more public debate, more examination of proposed legislation, more free votes on proposed amendments and far less use of the guillotine then talk to us about the Seanad.

I think they are putting the cart before the horse - and I am sht sick of populist bumf passing for debate from political parties.
Did we learn nothing from the Bertie years?

wretcheddomain

Seanad abolition : Nay!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now that I will vote yes to as there seems feck all chance of things being reformed.

Abolition of the Seanad - absolute No vote from me.

I hear all of this guff about 'other countries with similar populations' but complete silence about how those same countries have strong local/municipal government as well.

We, on the other hand, are insanely centralised already and, weak as the Seanad is, at least they do scrutinise legislation in public debates.

Reform local government first and devolve some of the centralised power back to the local authorities, then reform the Dail - more transparency, more public debate, more examination of proposed legislation, more free votes on proposed amendments and far less use of the guillotine then talk to us about the Seanad.

I think they are putting the cart before the horse - and I am sht sick of populist bumf passing for debate from political parties.
Did we learn nothing from the Bertie years?

I agree that there is far too much centralisation of power. However, that alone could be used as an argument for the abolition of the Seanad; after all, our legislative system should be viewed as a whole and circumcising it via the abolition of the Seanad seems a wholly positive thing on these grounds alone.

But we don't need to retain the Seanad to have reform of local government and I'd always be in favour of the latter as it's at least achievable. However, this is in sharp distinction to the Seanad for which reform is an airy-fairy concept exploited by the likes of Fianna Fáil in these debates.

PopePalpatine

Appeals court : Nay!

At least with more powerful local authorities, you don't have Healy-Raes (or any politicians like them) running for the Dáil on the basis of "we'll fixsh the roads".

Mr_A

Appeals court : Nay!

Definite no on Seanad abolition. Cheap populist move that says a lot about how poor the level of political discourse in this country is. The debate last night on prime time all too often descended into party political bunfights that ignored the question at hand. Of course it needs reform- and if a serious attempt is made at this and it still doesn't work then perhaps I'd support abolition, but the current government campaign is just taking the easy way out. Reform would be hard so let's just dump it.

On the appeal court I'll vote yes, but our legal system needs massive reform and this is just a bit of tinkering. It is so expensive and slow that most ordinary citizens would baulk at using the system to assert their rights.

If anyone is interested, I've blogged on both polls here.

Luke_MaB

Seanad abolition : Nay!

I will be voting YES to both referendums on Friday. On the more pressing issue of the Seanad, however, my reasoning for voting yes isn't as a result of indulging into Fine Gael's trivial and quite disrespectful campaign, but, as a result of the inaction of the Seanad itself since its inception. 1964 was the last time a piece of legislation voted against by the Seanad and that was by accident! The Seanad in its current form is just a 'job for boys' and a rubber stamp for the government. Had the Seanad referendum been put before the Constitutional Convention before being put to the people and the third option of 'reform' been included, then yes, I would have ticked the reform box. However, as reform is not an option, nor do I believe it will be one in the future if it was retained, as its biggest defenders, Fianna Fáil, has had 14 consecutive years to implement sweeping radical reforms to the Seanad yet failed to do so. On that basis, their credibility on the issue is severely diminished and rendered, in my opinion, not worthy. The elitist, undemocratic institution that is the Seanad must go. For most of us it will be our first Seanad vote, let's make it our last.

robindch

Appeals court : Nay!

Luke_MaB wrote: »

The Seanad in its current form is just a 'job for boys' and a rubber stamp for the government.

That's a case for reform, not a case for abolition.

Hold onto your hats - here comes the history:

The Seanad envisioned and implemented in the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State was in many respects equal in power to the Dail - yes, there were indirect elections, but relatively equal in legislative power. In conventional political terms, Senates are intended to moderate the unmoderated power of the primary legislature which in many instances have and continue to turn into rubber stamping outfits -- particularly where there's a prime-ministerial type position which calls for, implements and passes legislation. The US system, in broad terms, where a president proposes legislation to the legislature which debates and writes it, then returns it for approval to the president, is intended to reduce the chances of rubber-stamping. Far as I recall, the original US senate was picked from the rich, the powerful, the big land owners and the universities - the intention being again, to introduce a degree of intentional conservatism which counterbalances the more febrile individuals who might be elected by public elections (think Jackie Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry and so on).

Unfortunately, the 1922 Seanad picked a fight with Devalera over some constitutional issue, Devalera got pissed off and called a referendum which abolished it in 1936, in circumstances that were described as "controversial" (I don't know what they are; would be interesting to learn). Devalera then called another referendum in 1937 for an entirely new Constitution. That second referendum was passed and amongst much else, it enacted the weaker Seanad that Enda's about to abolish now.

Yes, the senate is "elitist" in that it's picked indirectly from a small number of people. That's the intention of a genuine senate. Yes, the current senate is powerless, because Devalera made it that way. But you can't have it both ways - our current legislative process is open to abuse by a dictatorial style of leadership. Yes, it can pass the abortion legislation for example against widespread internal opposition, but it can also pass much more unpleasant legislation with little difficulty too.

The Seanad is intended to balance the political power of the Dail. It currently does little enough of that, but it could be made better. Without a balance, you end up with a unicameral system which is, unhappily, much easier to subvert.

Your choice on Friday - vote "Yes" and remove the second house and leave the Dail do what it wants to unchecked and perhaps have a future government enact a better Seanad. Or, vote "No" and keep the existing Seanad, and send the message to the Dail that the nation still wants oversight.

FG's main argument, btw, that the state should abolish the senate to save €20m is, frankly, beyond belief.

Brian Shanahan

Seanad abolition : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

The Seanad envisioned and implemented in the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State was in many respects equal in power to the Dail - yes, there were indirect elections, but relatively equal in legislative power. In conventional political terms, Senates are intended to moderate the unmoderated power of the primary legislature which in many instances have and continue to turn into rubber stamping outfits -- particularly where there's a prime-ministerial type position which calls for, implements and passes legislation. The US system, in broad terms, where a president proposes legislation to the legislature which debates and writes it, then returns it for approval to the president, is intended to reduce the chances of rubber-stamping. Far as I recall, the original US senate was picked from the rich, the powerful, the big land owners and the universities - the intention being again, to introduce a degree of intentional conservatism which counterbalances the more febrile individuals who might be elected by public elections (think Jackie Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry and so on).

As I have said before, a senate with power has one purpose only, to retard the democratic process, and maintain the power of the already existent oligarchies.

Frankly this modern obsession with the retardation of democracy (e.g. the constant squealing of "tyranny of the majority") disgusts me.

Manach

Appeals court : Nay!

First time ever I'm with the majority in this forum. Yes/No.

The Seanad as is provides some form of oversight of the functions of the Government. Our system is based on a modified Westminster parliamentary model. Different branches oversee and check each other. Commentators like the Constitutional expert David Gynn Morgen have stated that the Dail is a fused legislative/executive model, where the party whip system in effect eviscerates the oversight of the legislator. A reformed Seanad which can better debate, amend and oversee the dail, being less tied to Party interests is the better model.

robindch

Appeals court : Nay!

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As I have said before, a senate with power has one purpose only, to retard the democratic process, and maintain the power of the already existent oligarchies.

A "democratic process" involves more than a Taoiseach who writes and passes the legislation he wants, when he wants, with little or no internal opposition.

I seem to remember a certain bank guarantee from a few years back that was negotiated behind closed doors, rushed through the dail and enacted as legislation which resulted in a less-than-fully happy outcome for the country.

With an effective Senate, perhaps somebody outside the whip system might have had the balls to say "Oi, stop right there."

Pherekydes

I'll be voting against the abolition of the Seanad.

Things have been far too bad in this country without one party gaining an overall majority. It could be reformed, if the political will was there. Didn't the current governmental parties promise reform? What are we getting? A reduction of 5 (five!) TDs, countered by extra ministerial advisers, who cost a lot more.

I have a few ideas:

• 100 TDs
• TDs receive the average industrial wage
• 30 Senators
• Senators must be independent
• Senators elected by all eligible voters; no political appointees
• Ministers who are unable to perform their duties with special help should be replaced

Brian Shanahan

Seanad abolition : Nay!

robindch wrote: »

A "democratic process" involves more than a Taoiseach who writes and passes the legislation he wants, when he wants, with little or no internal opposition.

Hey I didn't say it was the only impediment to the democratic process. However it is one of the thicker layers of impediements.

I consider very little in the modern world to be truly democratic. Most goverments IMO are nothing more than disguised corporate oligarchies.

robindch

Appeals court : Nay!

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I consider very little in the modern world to be truly democratic.

Uh, no country runs a true democracy where regular citizens have executive or legislative power. On the contrary, Ireland, like most polities, runs representative democracies of one kind or another.

So I'm not quite sure why you appear to think that we live in a democracy.

Banbh

Seanad abolition : Nay!

I'll be voting Yes to dump this unelected, over-paid, over-pensioned quango. I take it as a personal insult that I (and the overwhelming majority of fellow citizens) don't have a vote for the Seanad yet pay for their wages, their expenses, their pensions, their secretarial services, their postage, their drink...