Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Seanad Abolition, Yay or Nay?

2456

Comments

  • #32
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Actually AFAIK the Seanad cannot vote down a bill permanantly, if the Dail votes in favour of a bill again after it has been rejected by the Seanad then it goes through, the Seanad has NO veto, the Dail however does.
    Abolishing the Seanad is a sheer folly that will be lead to a power grab by the big Dail Parties, the Dail you can be assured will not be reformed if the Seanad is abolished.
    I say reform the Seanad not abolish it.

    You're right there, they can't flatly veto a bill, but they can certainly create a huge delay or even in certain circumstances kick off a very long-winded process that could potentially (albeit very unlikely) lead to a referendum on a particular bill.

    From wiki :
    In the event that a bill approved by Dáil Éireann has not received the assent of the Seanad within 90 days, the Dáil may, within a further 180 days, resolve that the measure is "deemed" to have been approved by the Seanad. This has only occurred twice since 1937, once in 1959 when the Seanad rejected the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill 1958 and again in 1964 when they rejected the Pawnbrokers Bill 1964.
    In both instances the Dáil passed the requisite motion deeming the legislation to have been passed.[3]

    A money bill, such as the budget, may be deemed to have been approved by the Seanad after 21 days.
    In the case of an urgent bill, the time that must have expired before it can be deemed to have been approved by the Seanad may be abridged by the Government (cabinet) with the concurrence of the President (this does not apply to bills to amend the constitution).
    The fact that 11 senators are appointed by the Taoiseach usually ensures that the Government, which must have the support of the Dáil, also enjoys a majority in the Seanad.

    The constitution does, however, grant to the Seanad certain means by which it may defend its prerogatives against an overly zealous Dáil:

    The Seanad may, by a resolution, ask the President to appoint a Committee of Privileges to adjudicate as to whether or not a particular bill is a money bill. The President may, however, refuse this request. This procedure has not initiated since the re-establishment of the Seanad under the current Constitution in 1937.[4]

    If a majority of senators and at least one-third of the members of the Dáil present a petition to the President stating that a bill is of great "national importance" the President can decline to sign the bill until it has been 'referred to the people'. This means that he or she can refuse to sign it until it has been approved either in an ordinary referendum or by the Dáil after it has reassembled after a general election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann


  • #33
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Here's a link to the last report on reform of the Seanad :

    http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/subcomonseanadreform/Report_on_Reform_of_the_Seanad.pdf

    It's actually quite readable and presented in a user-friendly style.

    There have been 12 reports since 1928, so this will make it the 13th attempt to reform the Seanad, albeit this time by a proposal to abolish it entirely.


  • #34
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If it was filled with the people it's supposed to be filled with, and not just mouth-breathers like Ronan Mullen talking out of his arse at every available opportunity, it'd be great. But no, instead we have that moron, we have Fidelma Healy Eames stumbling from one hysterical imagined crisis to the next (not to mention her embarrassing inability to pay for things like motor tax and train tickets), and a whole barrel full of other monkeys, with only a tiny handful of people there actually capable and willing to do the job they're supposed to.

    Getting rid of it is a f*cking stupid move. A senate is kind of an important part of a republic. Making the f*ckers in there do their damn jobs, or firing the incompetent ones, would be a far better idea than letting the role of checking government legislation fall on the shoulders of committees appointed at the leisure of the same government.


  • #35
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    A long time ago an unassuming politician was voted into power by people who thought he best represented their interests. And for a while he did. But little did the people realise that he wasn't at all trustworthy and was working for a larger goal. He tricked people into thinking that the senate was useless and needed to be abolished. Assuming he was still on their side, the people agreed.

    Then there was nothing standing in his way, he built the Death Star and destroyed Alderaan! History is repeating itself, people. And we can't let that happen!

    Reform the Seanad, don't abolish it. Because we can't trust Gilmore to throw Kenny off a walkway.


  • #36
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I find the whole way the NUI panel runs is a bit of a mess.

    First of all the number of people who actually vote on it is an absolutely tiny % of the total number of graduates of the NUI, so most don't bother to even register or update their details.

    Then you've got the problem that you get a few bits and piece of random information about the candidates. it's very difficult to decide what their policies or politics are based on a couple of lines of information, most of which seems to be about their profession and qualifications in most cases.

    It's a rather quaint idea, that would have made sense when the NUI or even Trinity was a 'community' back in the early part of the 20th century. There must be hundreds of thousands of people potentially eligible to register.

    Even the TCD constituency is absolutely enormous if everyone who could register did.

    I would really rather that they just ditched the idea of university senators entirely and perhaps moved towards something like having them drawn from some kind of directly-elected super constituencies.

    Maybe run a Seanad election alongside the European elections using the same constituencies and have a group who are also drawn from a national constituency who stand for the whole country and are elected by everyone?

    It should serve as some kind of a balance that takes counters the parochial make up of the Dail.

    I just think with the NUI constituency in particular, it's very easy for a vocal minority to get somoene elected.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    enda1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,165 ✭✭✭enda1


    I think the Seanad elections should be offset by two years from the Dáil. Otherwise I'd agree with a lot of what Old and grey said.


  • #38
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    The Seanad has to vote on its own abolition tonight, looks like several FG/Lab senators may vote against the Government, should be interesting.


  • #39
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Seen this on the TV. The Taoiseach will gain a massive majority in the main house, then work toward absolute Power by abolishing the Senate. Some other stuff happens and the Taoiseachs apprentice becomes this kind of black robot dude with a real cool sword and a giant death star.

    All ahead of us....


  • #40
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    syklops wrote: »
    Yeah because the Seanad did a great job of keeping an eye on the last shower that was in power.

    Where was the Seanad the night of the bank guarantee?

    It wouldn't matter where it was, because it is unable to act as a counter-balance to the Dáil. Clearly the night of the bank guarantee demonstrates we CANNOT trust Dáil Eireann to always act in our interest, we need to give the second house enough powers to prevent such a travesty.

    A vote for Abolition says you trust the Dáil to do the right thing.


  • #41
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    The Narrator wrote: »
    I notice people are saying that we should reform it.

    Would it not be better to abolish it and reform the Dáil?

    If we are going to reform our politics, surely it would be best to reform the house that actually leads the country politically.

    While I prefer a two-house system, I could live with the abolition of the Seanad if it was part of the implementation of wider political reforms. However, what is happening is Enda Kenny is only promising to look at Dáil reforms later. We've seen twelve reports go by unimplemented into Seanad reform, does anybody really believe Dáil reform will happen *after* the Seanad is gone? If Enda Kenny is really serious about reform, he needs to present a complete package of Dáil & Seanad reform, and commit to full implementation before calling any referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    syklops wrote: »
    Thats exactly how I feel. What have they done for us recently? What did they do back in 2009 when the sh1t hit the fan? A recurring argument here is to keep them to "keep an eye on" the current government, but they didn't do a very good job of keeping an eye on Bertie, Cowen and Lenihan.

    Which is why REFORM is needed. The Seanad in it's current form pays lip-service to the notion of "keeping an eye" on the Dáil, to just get rid of it and blindly put all faith in Dáil Eireann is complete lunacy.


  • #43
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    syklops wrote: »
    Thats exactly how I feel. What have they done for us recently? What did they do back in 2009 when the sh1t hit the fan? A recurring argument here is to keep them to "keep an eye on" the current government, but they didn't do a very good job of keeping an eye on Bertie, Cowen and Lenihan.

    Actually it was the Seanad that highlighted the corruption and mismanagment of Fas and the CIE during the Cowen and Ahern era, and the Seanad that highlighted the political cronyism in both those organizations.


  • #44
    Agricola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Agricola


    If reform was an option in October, I'd probably vote for it over abolition. In its present form its serves next to no purpose as far as I can see. Just a platform for people who love the sound of their own voice. Politicians tend to boil down to people with real ability and spoofers. The Senate to me has always had a much higher percentage of the latter.


  • #45
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    The President is supposed to be able to keep a check on things (although he/she is nominated and supported by political parties too)

    The President is only supposed to make sure that laws being passed adhere to the constitution. It is not his role to ensure that the laws represent the right strategy for the country, that is left to the Dáil. Hell, he can't even make a speech without having it cleared by the Government.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would be in favour of reform of both Dail and Seanad. I would like to see approx 75 to 100 single seat constituencies. This would be overseen by 15 to 20 elected Senators, under the leadership of the President, who would have more powers. All TD's and Senators to serve no more than 2 x 5 year terms. On retirement, they should receive ONE pension only, once they are over the age of 60.

    Single-seat constituencies would be a disaster - you end up with US vs. THEM systems with little consensus. Fewer constituencies with more representatives would suit us far better. We could base constituencies on the existing Regional Assembly structure, with about twelve 6-10 seater constituencies for say 99 TDs, 1 per 50,000 of population.

    I do like that the Séanad isn't based on geographical constituencies, an idea would be to keep this aspect but to have the constituencies aligned with Government departments. People could then register in their constituency of greatest interest i.e. I might vote on a candidate for Education and Skills, you might register for the Justice & Equality panel. With 5 Senators per panel, you'd end up with five people deemed knowledgeable shadowing the work of a department and keenly aware of the legislation being considered in their area.

    I do like the idea of limiting the number of terms they may serve though, with two-term limits per job, career politicians worth their weight could still notch up 44 years service from the councils, through the Dáil & Seanad, and finally the Presidency.


  • #46
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    Agricola wrote: »
    If reform was an option in October, I'd probably vote for it over abolition. In its present form its serves next to no purpose as far as I can see. Just a platform for people who love the sound of their own voice. Politicians tend to boil down to people with real ability and spoofers. The Senate to me has always had a much higher percentage of the latter.

    Enda Kenny is asking a loaded question - by only giving us abolition as an option he's continuing the long tradition of the Dáil refusing to cede any powers to the Seanad despite report after report recommending this to be the best thing to do in the interest of Irish democracy. We need to reject any abolition and insist that reform come onto the agenda.


  • #47
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51fGHV6ViAk


  • #48
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    ectoraige wrote: »
    Enda Kenny is asking a loaded question - by only giving us abolition as an option he's continuing the long tradition of the Dáil refusing to cede any powers to the Seanad despite report after report recommending this to be the best thing to do in the interest of Irish democracy. We need to reject any abolition and insist that reform come onto the agenda.
    reform will never come onto the agenda.
    You can abolish it or keep it as is.


  • #49
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,299 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    From the Oireachtas Website:
    The fact that a Dáil Bill must be examined also by Seanad Éireann is a safeguard against legislation being enacted too quickly.

    I could launch into a huge ramble of reasons why I think we need the Seanad, but I feel that sums up the gist. It needs to stay.

    Yes, it's a puppet in that it will almost always pass a bill because of its composition being biased by the government. Yes, it's probably much less effective than it could be.

    That doesn't mean we need to wipe it from existence. Reform it, make it more effective. It protects us, even if only a little, from bad legislation. Not only that, but it doesn't need to vote against or strike down a bill or make the papers to have an effect - the Seanad can simply amend bills and send them back to the Dáil and that, in the normal course of events, rarely makes the news but can make a huge difference.

    We need to keep it, and I'm terrified that those who are brainwashed by the government's promise of €20m saved will come in their droves and do away with the only safeguard we have against the more common event of the Government passing bad legislation despite with good intentions. I'm horribly afraid that people who are uneducated about the Seanad and don't know - or even care - about its existence will simply see the € symbols and vote to remove it like sheep.


  • #50
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Very few people realise that according to the Constitution (Article 16.3.2) a general election is only required to held not less than every seven years, it is an act of the Oireachtas that set the current five year limit.
    Of course once Enda has his way and Abolishes the Seanad he can enact a Dail Bill to extend his stay in office until 2018! With the Government majority who will stop him.


  • #51
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Very few people realise that according to the Constitution (Article 16.3.2) a general election is only required to held not less than every seven years, it is an act of the Oireachtas that set the current five year limit.
    Of course once Enda has his way and Abolishes the Seanad he can enact a Dail Bill to extend his stay in office until 2018! With the Government majority who will stop him.


    I couldn't stop them last time. The problem with the country is the electorate not the elected.

    Abolish the senate.

    Might as well.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I wonder how many will actually vote?


  • #53
    Pandora2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Pandora2


    It must be retained, I'm with Old and Wise all the way!! This would be a tragic move, in fact, to concentrate sole power with the current Government in these times, it is nothing short of an affront to democracy. The Seanad has more than proved it's worth and is capable and long overdue and resisted reform! I lived through the Haughey reign and there is a huge whiff of his style from this! It is a huge grab for power! Where did Enda's Mrs work again?


  • #54
    rugbyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,789 ✭✭✭rugbyman


    I intend to vote for abolition. I have a slight involvement in politics.But my biggest problem at this moment is that so many reasonable people on here have commented.
    It is ,imo ,completely wrong to ask the question, abolition or reform! they are not alternatives
    It should have been reform or no reform, leading on to , abolish or not abolish

    I would imagine that it is reformable(though clearly not by its members,to date)
    The means by which the members are elected is completely unrepresentative.

    I assume ,especially considering the results, that the OP, wanted a confusing answer, for whatever reason.

    I believe that the Senate will be abolished by a considerable majority in the coming referendum .
    Regards, Rugbyman


  • #55
    Infini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭Infini


    Better to fix it and reform it to work to block potential BS like bertie and friends from getting through again. Also make it elected by the people directly.


  • #56
    Dostoevsky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Dostoevsky


    Eoghan Harris & Marie Louise O'Donnell ==> two exceptional reasons why this horrendous institution should never exist. Two people appointed, and given over €100k per annum, because they came out on RTÉ and supported Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny respectively. And don't even mention the university votes. Morally reprehensible.

    Anybody who thinks it deserves not to be closed because they want to give the Blueshirts a kick in the ghoulies really has no idea of how to separate good from bad. Closing this archaic Anglo-Irish institution, which is based on the British House of Lords, should have been done in 1922. The British insisted upon the creation of a senate specifically to look after the remnants of their colonial community in Ireland. It was never supposed to be about democracy as most people today understand that word. And it has always lived up to what it was not supposed to be about.

    Seanad Éireann gives Irish society nothing. Anybody who goes on about democracy really is oblivious to how committee systems have developed since 1922. They, above all else, make this elitist Seanad redundant. The question is what does Kenny propose to replace it? Whatever it is couldn't be worse than this abysmal institution. Get rid of it, and then find some replacement which cannot be a simple "jobs for the boys" place where politicians rejected by the electorate and political sycophants get appointed to by the political powers of the day. Mary O'Rourke anybody?


  • #57
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    rugbyman wrote: »
    I intend to vote for abolition. I have a slight involvement in politics.But my biggest problem at this moment is that so many reasonable people on here have commented.
    It is ,imo ,completely wrong to ask the question, abolition or reform! they are not alternatives
    It should have been reform or no reform, leading on to , abolish or not abolish

    I would imagine that it is reformable(though clearly not by its members,to date)
    The means by which the members are elected is completely unrepresentative.

    I assume ,especially considering the results, that the OP, wanted a confusing answer, for whatever reason.

    I believe that the Senate will be abolished by a considerable majority in the coming referendum .
    Regards, Rugbyman


    The question was phrased as it was mainly because I don't know anyone who wants the Seanad to remain as it is, including a 'leave it as it is' struck me as being somewhat unnecessary give that very few people want to leave it as it is.

    The referendum may be Abolish or don't, but it will be contested on the basis of Abolish or Reform.


  • #58
    theSHU
    Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭theSHU


    Pandora2 wrote: »
    It must be retained, I'm with Old and Wise all the way!! This would be a tragic move, in fact, to concentrate sole power with the current Government in these times, it is nothing short of an affront to democracy. The Seanad has more than proved it's worth and is capable and long overdue and resisted reform! I lived through the Haughey reign and there is a huge whiff of his style from this! It is a huge grab for power! Where did Enda's Mrs work again?

    The Seanad just gives MORE power to the government at present. It's primary purpose is to allow prized positions to be handed out by the Taoiseach to his political allies. We need to get rid of it. We also need to cut the number of TD's, cull the number of councillors and county councils and move away from proportional voting that only gears towards village pump politics.


  • #59
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,299 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    People want to get rid of the Seanad because they say it's a luxury, or that it's useless. How is it useless? Because it never reverses a Dáil decision?

    How about this: The Dáil never really reverses a government decision. That's how party politics works, unfortunately. If you want to get rid of the Seanad because you think it gets nothing done, then you may as well remove most governments that work using party politics. That's what's flawed here, not the concept of an upper house.

    At least Senators here are elected, unlike their colleagues in the House of Lords. Perhaps An Taoiseach would like to create a similar sort of exclusive club where future nominees of the Taoiseach can, instead of in the Seanad, laud over the rest of us mere mortals.

    And to thoroughly dissect some rubbish spouted above:
    theSHU wrote: »
    The Seanad just gives MORE power to the government at present.

    Drivel. It serves as insurance against the Dáil making an error of judgement and helps ensure that legislation, especially in these times of madness, is neither rushed nor contrived.
    theSHU wrote: »
    It's primary purpose is to allow prized positions to be handed out by the Taoiseach to his political allies.

    Completely and utterly incorrect. It's primary purpose, as defined by the constitution, is
    Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

    Article 15

    1.
    1° The National Parliament shall be called and known, and is
    in this Constitution generally referred to, as the Oireachtas.

    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.

    3° The Houses of the Oireachtas shall sit in or near the
    City of Dublin or in such other place as they may from
    time to time determine.

    2.
    1° The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State
    is hereby vested in the Oireachtas:     no other legislative
    authority has power to make laws for the State.

    Its job, therefore, is to serve as a check and balance assurance that the Dáil is doing its job and it is key in ensuring that the Oireachtas enacts good legislation.
    theSHU wrote: »
    We need to get rid of it.

    We quite simply need to keep it.
    theSHU wrote: »
    We also need to cut the number of TD's [and] councillors and county councils

    I disagree. We need to cut their pay to the EU average. TD's are the third highest paid members of parliament in Europe, and until the wage drops last week were the second highest paid (Italy pays €16,000 a month, Germany €92,016 per year).

    I'm tempted to agree in relation to County Councillors, there are a very large number of them - but they aren't paid any more than a small salary as they aren't considered full-time positions. Total expenses and salary combined is less than €30,000 for most (source) and that was in 2008.

    As for county councils, again I disagree, they are involved in so much micromanagement that making their areas of responsibility much larger would result in poor service to rural areas.
    theSHU wrote: »
    and move away from proportional voting that only gears towards village pump politics.

    We're one of the only countries in the world using a fair system of voting which translates order of preference into representation in the Dáil. Parish (not village) pump politics is a problem, yes - but I would prefer to see a fairly elected TD concentrate on his constituents than see an unfair system of voting where a party can get 20-30% of the popular vote and still see power.


  • #60
    Pandora2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Pandora2


    theSHU wrote: »
    The Seanad just gives MORE power to the government at present. It's primary purpose is to allow prized positions to be handed out by the Taoiseach to his political allies. We need to get rid of it. We also need to cut the number of TD's, cull the number of councillors and county councils and move away from proportional voting that only gears towards village pump politics.

    Stuff and nonsense! It is precisely because of the check and balance nature of the Seanad that they want rid of it! 11 of those seats are Taoiseach's appointments, it gives him majority but I was certainly more impressed with EK's appointments on the whole than I ever was with a Fianna Fail stable. That element can be eliminated! It comes about simply because of the diary of events prescribed from the moment a GE is called, it can be changed! But that would be ah yes...reform! No argument from me on TD's, Cllr's et al, knock yourself out! PR I have no considered opinion so I won't spoof!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I predict that if it is abolished then no one will miss it.


Advertisement
Advertisement