nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

beeftotheheels

I'm curious whether any one really feels strongly about the Seanad abolition other than vested interests?

I mean I think we all know that in its current guise it is pretty useless, woefully undemocratic, and a couple of half decent independent politicians who could probably get elected if they ran for the Dáil aside, filled with even more political dross than Dáil Éireann.

If we were being offered the opportunity to vote to reform it and make it accountable and fit for purpose, to give it real oversight powers I can see why that might be exciting.

But we're not.

So does anyone who is not a vested interest, or trying to revive a flagged political career, really care whether we abolish it or not?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

thebman

I think most people are just p***ed that yet another government has refused to give real choice to the electorate.

I imagine the government will get a backlash no vote on abolition on this basis that they refused to offer reform and people just want them to lose the referendum to embarrass the government since they have shown contempt for the electorate as has the political class in this country for some time now.

Revoting in EU referendums, now this crap and bull*** political policies in the run up to elections with statements like "Isn't that what you tend to do during an election" afterwards.

Is it any wonder, the polls show large percentage of undecideds and low ratings for all established parties.

The electorate are sick of the political classes bull****.

seligehgit

I do,delighted to get the opportunity to vote to abolish Seanad Eireann.

Javan

beeftotheheels wrote: »

So does anyone who is not a vested interest, or trying to revive a flagged political career, really care whether we abolish it or not?

I definitely think we should care. A 'no' vote makes sense to me, and not just as a backlash to embarrass anyone.

I don't particularly trust politicians.

Most of them, especially the most successful ones, are manipulative, deceitful and self-serving. Given that; I think it is madness to vote for fewer politicians. Fewer politicians with the same power means more opportunity to harm me (and everyone else living here) through stupidity, greed or malicious conspiracy.

The Seanad is not very good at keeping the Dail honest, but it is better than nothing.

This referendum is a choice between 'bad' and 'worse'. There is no good outcome, but a yes vote is definitely worse.

Cody Pomeray

Given that 41% of the public are suggested to favour retention and reform of the Seanad, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Yes, more than Michael McDowell and the Senators care about this.

The Yes campaign has to be headed by someone, or some group, with a pre-established public profile and relevant public experience.

The fact that it is so is no basis for concluding that the Yes side is itself comprised of vested interests.

You would be much better placed asking about the vested interests favouring the increased centralization of authority.

JP 1800

I for one will be voting no, it will not be a protest vote but a vote that I believe is the lesser of two evils. Realistically we need to reform our political system and make it truly democratic, where all political representatives are voted in and not gifted a position by a few. As stated earlier a fair few politicians are sociopaths who see the general public as a means to an end, the Chris Andrews case makes an interesting point. We need to diversify our representatives and move away from teachers and solicitors and favor a more rounded aspect of society such as artists, philosophers, engineers, scientists, academics and others with real world experiences and skills.

beeftotheheels

JP 1800 wrote: »

I for one will be voting no, it will not be a protest vote but a vote that I believe is the lesser of two evils. Realistically we need to reform our political system and make it truly democratic, where all political representatives are voted in and not gifted a position by a few.

But that is not an offer that has been made this time around, nor has it ever been offered to the Irish people. If we vote yes to abolition, or no to abolition, it matters not one iota, we have no reason to expect reform, we've never been offered any possibility of reform.

Javan

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But that is not an offer that has been made this time around, nor has it ever been offered to the Irish people. If we vote yes to abolition, or no to abolition, it matters not one iota, we have no reason to expect reform, we've never been offered any possibility of reform.

Right. The choice available to us is: vote no to keep a bad system or vote yes to make it worse.

Roger_007

JP 1800 wrote: »

I for one will be voting no, it will not be a protest vote but a vote that I believe is the lesser of two evils. Realistically we need to reform our political system and make it truly democratic, where all political representatives are voted in and not gifted a position by a few. As stated earlier a fair few politicians are sociopaths who see the general public as a means to an end, the Chris Andrews case makes an interesting point. We need to diversify our representatives and move away from teachers and solicitors and favor a more rounded aspect of society such as artists, philosophers, engineers, scientists, academics and others with real world experiences and skills.

If we are to have a truly democratic Senate, it would have to be elected by all the people.......just like the Dail. So we would have Dail A and Dail B. What would be the point?

TheRealPONeil

beeftotheheels wrote: »

... If we vote yes to abolition, or no to abolition, it matters not one iota, we have no reason to expect reform, we've never been offered any possibility of reform.

Therefore just vote No.

Javan

Roger_007 wrote: »

If we are to have a truly democratic Senate, it would have to be elected by all the people.......just like the Dail. So we would have Dail A and Dail B. What would be the point?

If reform were an option, which it is not, but if it were an option then there would be plenty of ways to have a more democratically elected Seanad that is not just a mini-Dail.

National constituencies could be a part of it, to get rid of the parish pump element.
Different house rules could be a part of it. Abolish or weaken the whip and make it easier for independents to participate.
Giving the Seanad more power could be part of it. Perhaps give the Seanad the ability to vote down finance bills.
Changing the structure of the cabinet could be part of it. Make a senator Tainiste, so the Seanad would always have a seat at the cabinet table.

Any combination of these ideas (and many others) could create a Seanad that is different to the Dail in both structure and function.

Unfortunately none of these options are on the table. We just have 'bad' or 'worse'.

Roger_007

Javan wrote: »

..........
Giving the Seanad more power could be part of it. Perhaps give the Seanad the ability to vote down finance bills.

If the Seanad had the power to vote down finance bills, no budget bill would ever be passed. Result: Chaos

[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately none of these options are on the table. We just have 'bad' or 'worse'. [/QUOTE]

There is no point is just asking 'Do you want to reform the Seanad?'
Would you care to frame the question(s) that could be put to the people in a referendum?

Javan

Roger_007 wrote: »

If the Seanad had the power to vote down finance bills, no budget bill would ever be passed. Result: Chaos

Really? I doubt that. The successful politicians are generally not complete idiots. You can't be a good liar and a complete idiot.

Roger_007 wrote: »

Would you care to frame the question(s) that could be put to the people in a referendum?

I just put forward some reform proposals. Others have put forward many more proposals. Unfortunately they are all completely irrelevant to the referendum in front of us.

oscarBravo

Javan wrote: »

I just put forward some reform proposals. Others have put forward many more proposals.

How many of them should be on the referendum ballot?

Roger_007

Javan wrote: »

Really? I doubt that. The successful politicians are generally not complete idiots. You can't be a good liar and a complete idiot.

I just put forward some reform proposals. Others have put forward many more proposals. Unfortunately they are all completely irrelevant to the referendum in front of us.

This is the problem. I have not heard any proposals for reform that would make the Seanad any better or more relevant than it is now. Anything I have heard amounts to just a continuation of the same elitist, non-representative institution that we already have.

MiddleLands

Keeping the Seanad would be like keeping a gas guzzling vintage car that you rarely use and at the same time, you can't even afford to put petrol in your family Skoda.

The Seanad is just like a Vintage Car - looks good in the driveway but not of much use to you.
You can't turn the vintage car into the family car - you can't turn the Seanad into something useful.
It's an easy decision - close the Seanad.

reach for the stars

Anybody who thinks the seanad would be reformed if it is retained is daydreaming.The fact that ordinary people are now saying i think it might be better to reform it shows how easily the sheep are led in this country when a few high profile people come out and put an idea in their head.A halfway house for failed politicians who still want their mouth at the trough.

Javan

MiddleLands wrote: »

Keeping the Seanad would be like keeping a gas guzzling vintage car that you rarely use and at the same time, you can't even afford to put petrol in your family Skoda.

The Seanad is just like a Vintage Car - looks good in the driveway but not of much use to you.
You can't turn the vintage car into the family car - you can't turn the Seanad into something useful.
It's an easy decision - close the Seanad.

Have you looked at any facts before coming to that conclusion?

So far this term the Seanad has made contributions to at least two bills that will save the state significant sums of money and will save the citizens enormous hassle and cost.
One of those bills was the personal insolvency bill. As written by the Dail this bill included language that could have left it open to challenge by vested interests. This would have meant legal costs for the state and more delay and misery for people looking for a solution to their debt issues.

To me, that seems to be quite useful.

reach for the stars

And these bills would have never happened if there was no seanad? Bills should be overseen by professional people trained to do so,not by a bunch of people turned down by the electorate but rewarded by parties for being good party members.

Javan

reach for the stars wrote: »

And these bills would have never happened if there was no seanad? Bills should be overseen by professional people trained to do so,not by a bunch of people turned down by the electorate but rewarded by parties for being good party members.

If I were to speculate at what might have happened in a different world I'd say it is likely that the bills would have been passed as written by the Dail (including the input from the AG and other Dail advisers), and that this would have resulted in more misery for the people looking to solve their debt issues.

Those bills went through the Dail process and came out flawed. That process includes getting advice from professional people with appropriate training. The Seanad, including their professional people, saw the problems and proposed amendments to fix them.

That is a Seanad that is performing a useful function.

Roger_007

Javan wrote: »

If I were to speculate at what might have happened in a different world I'd say it is likely that the bills would have been passed as written by the Dail (including the input from the AG and other Dail advisers), and that this would have resulted in more misery for the people looking to solve their debt issues.

Those bills went through the Dail process and came out flawed. That process includes getting advice from professional people with appropriate training. The Seanad, including their professional people, saw the problems and proposed amendments to fix them.

That is a Seanad that is performing a useful function.

That is precisely the function that should be performed by a Dail committee, not by another 'shadow' Dail.

Javan

Roger_007 wrote: »

That is precisely the function that should be performed by a Dail committee, not by another 'shadow' Dail.

That work was done by a Dail committee. It was done badly.

Regardless of what 'should' work the Dail alone does not work.

I don't see any reason to believe the Dail committees would suddenly become much better if the Seanad were abolished. I'd speculate that the Dail committees would get less effective. As the power is concentrated further in the government whips I think it is likely that the committees would come under greater pressure to deliver to a deadline rather than delivering high quality work. If that happened you would see more bad bills becoming law with consequences for all of us.

So you are correct: that work should be done by a Dail committee. But in the real world 'should' is not good enough, and we need more.

Copyerselveson

MiddleLands wrote: »

Keeping the Seanad would be like keeping a gas guzzling vintage car that you rarely use and at the same time, you can't even afford to put petrol in your family Skoda.

The Seanad is just like a Vintage Car - looks good in the driveway but not of much use to you.
You can't turn the vintage car into the family car - you can't turn the Seanad into something useful.
It's an easy decision - close the Seanad.

Rather than debating by PR soundbites I think we need to understand the impact of removing one element of the Oireachtas from the Constitution.

It's very easy to make simplistic populist arguments to bolster support for the abolition of Seanad Eireann, however if we vote to destroy the Seanad we will also vote to concentrate political power solely in the hands of the Dail. We are already losing the town councils and now for the sake of saving a relatively small amount of money, one arm of the Oireachtas.

I am not defending the Seanad as it stands, it's fundamentally an undemocratic place - but it is so because the Dail and each successive government has seen to it that the Seanad remains undemocratic.

The real question that the Government should have asked was: "Do you want to scrap the Seanad or do you want to reform it by changing how it is elected and defining what powers it should have to review and revise legislation?"

I do fear for the future of our somewhat shaky democracy if the referendum is passed. I have no doubt that passing this referendum will simply concentrate power in the hands of the upper echelons of the Civil Service and a select few politicians.

For the sake of standing up to the senior Civil Servants and the politicians, don't do what they tell you and vote No.

oscarBravo

Copyerselveson wrote: »

...if we vote to destroy the Seanad we will also vote to concentrate political power solely in the hands of the Dail.

In a sense that's a truism, but in another sense, will it actually make any difference?

Political power isn't concentrated in the Dáil, it's concentrated entirely in the cabinet. There is no separation of powers worth talking about between legislature and executive, so - in real terms - is there, in practice, anything worthwhile to be gained from keeping the lame-duck part of the legislature in place?

I am not defending the Seanad as it stands, it's fundamentally an undemocratic place - but it is so because the Dail and each successive government has seen to it that the Seanad remains undemocratic.

True, but by the same token, successive governments have seen to it that nothing disturbs the ongoing concentration of power in the executive.

The real question that the Government should have asked was: "Do you want to scrap the Seanad or do you want to reform it by changing how it is elected and defining what powers it should have to review and revise legislation?"

That's not a question that lends itself to a referendum. Referendum questions are yes/no by their nature. Hence my earlier question: how do you go about asking the people what reform they want?

For the sake of standing up to the senior Civil Servants and the politicians, don't do what they tell you and vote No.

I bet you fifty euros that if this referendum is defeated, the subsequent talk of reforming the Seanad fizzles out within a year. I can't see a "no" vote in this referendum being a vote for Seanad reform in any meaningful sense.

carveone

oscarBravo wrote: »

In a sense that's a truism, but in another sense, will it actually make any difference?

There will be to the Constitution. A quick skim shows me about 50 entries mentioning the Seanad. 40 or so if you just chop Article 18 but that's a lot of changes. Are all those changes going to be displayed on the referendum itself?

There is no separation of powers worth talking about between legislature and executive, so - in real terms - is there, in practice, anything worthwhile to be gained from keeping the lame-duck part of the legislature in place?

(In my humble opinion) the separation between the judiciary and the executive was blurred with the ability to vary their pay (up and down). Without getting into that again, this referendum seems to continue the concentration of powers into the hands of one person - the Taoiseach - even if that erosion seems pretty thin this time.

I bet you fifty euros that if this referendum is defeated, the subsequent talk of reforming the Seanad fizzles out within a year.

I won't take that bet

Edit: Can I bet you fifty euros that if the referendum is passed, the Government’s promises to reform the Dáil will fizzle out within an equal period!

oscarBravo

carveone wrote: »

There will be to the Constitution. A quick skim shows me about 50 entries mentioning the Seanad. 40 or so if you just chop Article 18 but that's a lot of changes. Are all those changes going to be displayed on the referendum itself?

Probably not on the ballot paper, but I would have thought in some of the relevant literature and on the refcom website.

(In my humble opinion) the separation between the judiciary and the executive was blurred with the ability to vary their pay (up and down). Without getting into that again, this referendum seems to continue the concentration of powers into the hands of one person - the Taoiseach - even if that erosion seems pretty thin this time.

I agree - I voted against both of those referendums, for separation of powers reasons - but I'm not convinced that the Seanad actually contributes anything of tangible value to the SoP ideal.

I won't take that bet

Edit: Can I bet you fifty euros that if the referendum is passed, the Government’s promises to reform the Dáil will fizzle out within an equal period!

I'll never bet money on TDs reforming the Dáil in any meaningful way.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

but I'm not convinced that the Seanad actually contributes anything of tangible value to the SoP ideal.

That's possibly true, but while the Seanad exists in the constitution, it's something which at least can be worked with and provides some protection, at least in theory.

If it's removed, it's gone and you can be sure it's never coming back.

If the choice is between having at least the illusionary framework of a bicameral structure, or abolishing the framework and with it any chance of having an oversight structure in place for the Dail, then the former is lesser of two evils, in my mind. €20m is pittance in savings terms, doesn't even factor into this IMO.

I still have a lot of reading to thinking to do on this referendum though.

oscarBravo

seamus wrote: »

I still have a lot of reading to thinking to do on this referendum though.

Ain't that the truth. I think I can honestly say I've never been so completely undecided in the run-up to a referendum.

For me, it's coming down to the tension between two perspectives: on the one hand, the Seanad has a slightly useful role in theory, but doesn't seem to achieve much in practice, and the basis for its election is fundamentally broken. On the other hand, the government that is proposing its abolition has a track record of SoP power grabs.

If the choice was between abolition and reform - if we had a copper-fastened guarantee that there would be a root-and-branch restructuring of the Seanad in the event of a "no" vote - I'd be leaning much more strongly towards reform. As it is, the cynic in me is fairly certain that the choice is between abolition and status quo ante, which is a harder choice.

Javan

oscarBravo wrote: »

For me, it's coming down to the tension between two perspectives: on the one hand, the Seanad has a slightly useful role in theory, but doesn't seem to achieve much in practice, and the basis for its election is fundamentally broken. On the other hand, the government that is proposing its abolition has a track record of SoP power grabs.

If the choice was between abolition and reform - if we had a copper-fastened guarantee that there would be a root-and-branch restructuring of the Seanad in the event of a "no" vote - I'd be leaning much more strongly towards reform. As it is, the cynic in me is fairly certain that the choice is between abolition and status quo ante, which is a harder choice.

As you say, the question in front of us allows only abolition or business as usual.

I've made the point already that the value of the Seanad is not just theoretical. There has been real value in this term in so far as the Seanad has successfully proposed some very important amendments.

Another factor is, as you say, that this government is pushing the boundaries on the separation of powers. There is a 'slippery slope' risk here, that this referendum will make it easier for future governments to push that boundary even further.

petronius

The Seanad should be reformed and not abolished

Abolition would be used but the government to pretend they are reforming and slow them from doing any real Dail reform such as reducing TD numbers, or less confrontational politics.

Abolition would remove the chance for alternative voices and expert ones, who would not get elected via the dail system in the oireachtas, like David Norris, Ronan Mullen, Fergal Quinn, Mary Robinson, Gordon Wilson, Seamus Mallon, Brid Rodgers, Professor Crown.

Abolition would achieve very little, it is doubtful that any significant money will be saved since additional work formerly done by the seanad would then be done by the Dail and its civil servants.

Abolition would give more power to the Dail, and remove the chance that the seanad can cast another eye upon legislation, or even give time to rethink on some elements of it. Often the process of the scrutiny of the seanad and dialogue with minsters has resulted in better drafted legislation this should and could be improved.

Concentration power in a single partisan chamber is a bad idea.

Some legislation can originate in the seanad which may otherwise get lost via the dail party political punch and judy show - e.g. the contractors legislation from Fergal Quinn recently

The seanad in the past has been used to provide a voice for the protestant community in ireland and the nationalist community in the north of ireland removing this would surely diminish the Oireachtas. A reformed seanad could be a vehicle to have more representation for marginalised groups, the diaspora, and from the north.

Of course the first reform of the seanad should be a universal franchise either by everyone choosing a panel to elect to, or redrafting some sort of regional panel. I like the idea of either having the seanad election mid term or during the euro elections this would result in politicIans who fail to get elected not being able to a week later run for an seanad, maybe having 1/2 those elected mid term, and 1/2 elected on general election day would be a good idea to preserve the ratio of the general election somewhat and reduce the seanad being a rival.

Governments have failed to reform the seanad since they see it as a tool for them for appointees, retirement home or nursary for their party members - this aspect should be changed. The University Panels are exclusive, but they are the ones who have citizens electing it, and have produced many valuable senators, a minor reform would have been the one which was voted for was to extend this to other colleges.. and should have been done this would have at least broadened the participation by the public -
nothing other than a universal franchise is acceptable now

Abolishing something which is so embedded in our constitution without considering reform is foolish - this measure was a gimmick and while people are anti-politicians it is an easy target.

Wildlife Actor

The irony of TDs saying that our small population doesn't need a second house of parliament, when we've 100 TDs too many: pure voting fodder.

The reality is that the Seanad as it operates is a load of cr@p, but I'm still voting no because voting yes is saying to the Government "yes, give us some scraps of pretend reform and we'll be happy. You can continue to ignore the real reform where it's needed." In that respect, a little reform is not better than nothing. It's worse.

In some respects it's a "protest vote" but I'm not ashamed of that because there is a sufficient connection between the subject of the protest and the subject of the referendum.

Voting no is an opportunity to say to a government that doesn't listen "this is a sham."