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

Abolish Seanad

Alan_H_1991

Can someone please give me some valid reasons why the Seanad should and should not be dissolved

just bullet points

only elaborate on one or two of your points if you can

thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

oppenheimer1

Alan_H_1991 wrote: »

Can someone please give me some valid reasons why the Seanad should and should not be dissolved

just bullet points

only elaborate on one or two of your points if you can

thanks

Because when you combine it with the reforms (power grab) that the sitting government want to make to the constitution it makes the executive all powerful and weakens the opposition voice even further.

The senate shouldn't be abolished but reformed. And by the way the two referendums next week should not pass either.

gurramok

I have no vote to the Seanad just like 90%+ of the population so yes it is a slur on democracy that it still exists.

nesf

Start a debate, don't just ask for people's opinions!

Focalbhach

I don't think he really wants a debate.

nesf

Focalbhach wrote: »

I don't think he really wants a debate.

That was my first thought but his other posts have been about going back to college which makes me question whether this is homework.

Focalbhach

nesf wrote: »

That was my first thought but his other posts have been about going back to college which makes me question whether this is homework.

We used to get homework when I was in college... it was just called an 'assignment' or some such, with a longer timespan

I guess we can't know one way or the other, but the phrasing seems rather odd otherwise!

Killer Pigeon

Well if the Seanad were ever to remain in existence, then senators should be elected by universal suffrage.

mikemac

Either give it more power or abolish it

And if it's supposed to be a check on the Dáil then take away the Taoiseach's ability to nominate their cronies

A Taoiseach with a majority and backing from the cabinet can put through pretty much anything they want.
And they appoint the Attorney General who will ensure it'll get past the President and Supreme Court

So maybe going offtopic maybe the Attorney General should be an independent office too and not one given to government of the day supporters

bamboozle

the last Dail Bill rejected by the Seanad was in 1964 the pawnbrokers bill - this vote was only rejected as it took place at 10.30pm by which time all the FF senators had gone home!!)

pointless talking shop & ex TD retirement home

aloyisious

I got the Referendum Commission's independent guide to the "Seanad and Court of Appeal" referendums today. I had been thinking that, despite the saving allegedly to be made by scrapping it, that having the Seanad there as a safeguard against totalitarian Govt was a good idea.

Page 6 has this piece:
Referralof 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 Dail 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.

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

The next Para in the guide read's as: Approval of certain EU proposals.
At present, Ireland may adapt and implement the proposals and laws only if this is approved in advance by both the Dail and Seanad.
If the referendum is passed: Only the approval of the Dail will be required for the adaption of such EU laws and decisions.

Those two parts above have me worried. I don't know if there is any other part of the Constitution that allow's the President to ask the People to decide on a Bill by referendum, so I have had my reservations increased on the abolishing of the Seanad increased several-fold.

What are other people's view's on the proposal to abolish the Seanad?

Cerco

I think the vast majority would like to see a reformed Seanad. However the Seanad cannot reform itself and the Government of the day, no matter which hue, will make meaningful reforms because it would weaken their own power to push through legislation etc. A reformed Seanad would hold the Government of the day to account.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

bamboozle wrote: »

the last Dail Bill rejected by the Seanad was in 1964 the pawnbrokers bill - this vote was only rejected as it took place at 10.30pm by which time all the FF senators had gone home!!)

pointless talking shop & ex TD retirement home

What about legislation that originated in the Seanad like Fergal Quinns Bill giving protection to sub contactors which is now law?
Over 550 amendments to legislation have been passed in the Seanad in recent years.
What about scandals raised in the Seanad which would not have been discovered otherwise like Shane Ross exposing the corruption FAS and indeed CIE?
The Seanad needs reform, no question but not abolition, if abolished the Government will be all powerful without any oversight.
This is nothing but a powergrab of Haughey-esque proportions by Enda.
And it is predicated on false arguments and false promises of Dail reform.

golfball37

If the people calling this a power grab are so exercised they can always re-introduce some form of upper house next time they are power. The Seanad is a gravy train for cronies and friends of the great and the good, not to mention Political failures.

It should be abolished as it is un-reformable in its current guise and serves no meaningful purpose.

I say tear it down and start again, with an upper house of elected reps in the near future.

An Coilean

golfball37 wrote: »

If the people calling this a power grab are so exercised they can always re-introduce some form of upper house next time they are power.

I don't ever expect to be in power. (Barring a glorious revolution of some kind, in which case you can be sure I wont be havin any checks or ballences on my power)

It should be abolished as it is un-reformable in its current guise and serves no meaningful purpose.

Unreformable? Anything to back that up? It could be extencivly reformed through legislation in the morning.

I say tear it down and start again, with an upper house of elected reps in the near future.

So mangle our constitution for no particular reason?

Scofflaw

An Coilean wrote: »

So mangle our constitution for no particular reason?

Well, we'd save ourselves the price a litre of milk each, maybe. Every year!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Days 298

Reasons to get rid of it...

Its delightful contributions during the life saving abortion bill by Fianna Fail senators the biggest party wanting to retain it. Show how useless it is. One of the most watched, reported and important bills passed in recent times.

Senator: Abortions would deprive future Special Olympians of life
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/senator-abortions-would-deprive-future-special-olympians-of-life-237179.html

FF Senator Jims Walshs description of abortion caused another member who had an abortion to beg for the descriptions to stop
Video of his despcription here 7:40 on:

David Norris hostile to Regina Doherty, head of elections, as she is a newcomer to poilitcs. Saying she is talking from her vagina about the abolition of the Seanad bill.

Every party bar FF want it gone now even SF! Why didn't FF reform it in the good times? Why do the have a problem with they idea of a majority government now rather than when they had it. Its elitism, only 3% of the pop can vote for its members. The seanad has no effect on anything. They can only delay bills, it does not provide check on the Dial. Its like a bunch of schoolkids shouting their heads off inside there being paid €65000 a year. If given more power it would provide undemocratic checks on democratically elected TD's bills.

I dont care how little it would save, politicians must show they are willing to do something rather than continuously promise reform. People don't want big things cut so complaining that it cost little to run makes no sense. Surely small unimportant things should be cut.

If someone inside the Seanad is of any public service they can run in front of the people for a Dail seat. Over 50% of members are people who tried and failed to be elected as a TD.

Its not a power grab because how can one ultimately grab power from a powerless entity.

FF had years to reform it. FG said they would seek its abolition, at least an electoral promise is being kept. FF's manifesto said they would abolish it too. Reform is a very loose word that is being thrown about and most likely nothing would change if it wasn't for this referendum.

I want it gone.

View

An Coilean wrote: »

So mangle our constitution for no particular reason?

Removing something that serves no useful purpose isn't "mangling" the constitution.

If we did NOT have the Seanad, who on earth would even propose, much less vote for, a body like we currently have constituted? After all, what would the proposed purpose of such a body be? And, if we can't identify what its purpose is, why do we need it?

Scofflaw

Its elitism, only 3% of the pop can vote for its members.

The seanad has no effect on anything.

These are actually contradictory arguments. The Seanad cannot be meaningfully elitist if it has no power.

They can only delay bills, it does not provide check on the Dial.

It's not intended to. It would be a sad thing to abolish something simply because one doesn't think it's doing a job it's not supposed to do.

If given more power it would provide undemocratic checks on democratically elected TD's bills.

Which is why it doesn't have that power, only delay, scrutiny and amendment.

Whichever side of the debate on is on, the debate should be grounded in an understanding of why the Seanad is there and the job it is supposed to be doing, not arguments like these.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Removing something that serves no useful purpose isn't "mangling" the constitution.

If we did NOT have the Seanad, who on earth would even propose, much less vote for, a body like we currently have constituted? After all, what would the proposed purpose of such a body be? And, if we can't identify what its purpose is, why do we need it?

The purpose of the Seanad is to provide expert scrutiny and amendments to Dáil legislation (hence the vocational and university panels), as well as a reflective check on the Dáil - or, more realistically, the executive - rushing to legislate on a current hot issue.

People regularly carp about the fact that the Dáil is full of people with no actual expertise except in being politicians. The Seanad is supposed to balance that by providing a chamber of expertise. The restricted electorate is intended to ensure that Senators are elected by expert constituencies, and are therefore likely to be experts in an important legislative area, rather than the baby-kissing winners of geographical popularity contests. The minimal powers of the Seanad reflect the restricted democratic mandate it has compared to the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[Deleted User]

This is a very tough call. I don't want to see total abolition of the Seanad. I would prefer to see it reformed. We do need an upper house. A number of maybe 12 elected at the same time as the General Election, under the chairmanship of the President.
Problem is, we're only getting to option for a yes or no.

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Seanad cannot be meaningfully elitist if it has no power.

Can it be meaninglessly elitist?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Seanad is supposed to balance that by providing a chamber of expertise. The restricted electorate is intended to ensure that Senators are elected by expert constituencies, and are therefore likely to be experts in an important legislative area, rather than the baby-kissing winners of geographical popularity contests.

To what extent has that turned out to be the case? As in, what percentage of senators on average are experts in important legislative areas, in any given Seanad term?

Deleted User wrote: »

We do need an upper house.

Why?

Cerco

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can it be meaninglessly elitist?

To what extent has that turned out to be the case? As in, what percentage of senators on average are experts in important legislative areas, in any given Seanad term?

Why?

Yes, in my opinion. When an elite group are given the opportunity to draw salaries and expenses while performing no meaningful function.

In it's current form it is talking shop for wafflers many of whom are being rewarded by the Government. A retirement home for failed politicians or a half way house to those aspiring to the Dail gravy train.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can it be meaninglessly elitist?

I suppose so, although I'm not sure why anyone would worry about it. I see Cerco's view above, but I don't generally feel outraged on such a basis, because if I start getting outraged about people with inadequate expertise being paid I'm not sure where I'd stop, and these ones aren't at least doing any harm. I can afford the litre of milk a year they cost me, and I've probably had at least that much entertainment value out of the various Senators already this year.

oscarBravo wrote: »

To what extent has that turned out to be the case? As in, what percentage of senators on average are experts in important legislative areas, in any given Seanad term?

Heh. That one is going to be highly debatable, because one person's expert is another person's complete idiot. But you have correctly put your finger on a very weak point in the justification for the Seanad as it is, because by and large I think we can say that Senators aren't experts but simply more politicians, elected or appointed by other politicians, and acting in accordance with party interests rather than their supposed expertise.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

I don't know whether we need one, but a Seanad as originally envisaged is no bad thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

The purpose of the Seanad is to provide expert scrutiny and amendments to Dáil legislation (hence the vocational and university panels), as well as a reflective check on the Dáil - or, more realistically, the executive - rushing to legislate on a current hot issue.

People regularly carp about the fact that the Dáil is full of people with no actual expertise except in being politicians. The Seanad is supposed to balance that by providing a chamber of expertise. The restricted electorate is intended to ensure that Senators are elected by expert constituencies, and are therefore likely to be experts in an important legislative area, rather than the baby-kissing winners of geographical popularity contests. The minimal powers of the Seanad reflect the restricted democratic mandate it has compared to the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That maybe a theoretical purpose for a Senate.

It hardly applies in practice in the case of our current Seanad though, does it?

The Free State Senate was set up so minorities were over-represented in it, thus having some chance of counter-balancing the majority represented in the Dail. It proved "awkward" for the government who promptly gutted it then abolished it and replaced it with our current Seanad specifically set-up to be "tame" thus ensuring it can't fulfil that theoretical role - as such it has always been a chamber without a real purpose in practice.

The Seanad doesn't serve a "expert" role nor does it - like the original FS Senate - serve to represent minorities nor does it even serve as a "chamber of the regions" to counter-balance our ever-increasing focus on the Dublin region (the only other useful purpose I can see for such a body).

A vote to retain it is a vote to retain it in its current form.

"Reform" isn't an option on the ballot and our governments have had less interest in reforming it than they had for legislating for abortion in the wake of the 1992 X case ruling and associated referenda. That is extremely unlikely to change and, no, the electorate won't care enough to make it an election issue.

astrofool

I get the feeling that most who want to retain an upper house want it reformed in such a way that the party they support will somehow gain more power out of it, not being happy with how the general election turns out, as if some reformed Seanad would not have voted for the bank bills, or austerity budgets of the last few years.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

That maybe a theoretical purpose for a Senate.

It hardly applies in practice in the case of our current Seanad though, does it?

The Free State Senate was set up so minorities were over-represented in it, thus having some chance of counter-balancing the majority represented in the Dail. It proved "awkward" for the government who promptly gutted it then abolished it and replaced it with our current Seanad specifically set-up to be "tame" thus ensuring it can't fulfil that theoretical role - as such it has always been a chamber without a real purpose in practice.

The Seanad doesn't serve a "expert" role nor does it - like the original FS Senate - serve to represent minorities nor does it even serve as a "chamber of the regions" to counter-balance our ever-increasing focus on the Dublin region (the only other useful purpose I can see for such a body).

Sure.

View wrote: »

A vote to retain it is a vote to retain it in its current form.

"Reform" isn't an option on the ballot and our governments have had less interest in reforming it than they had for legislating for abortion in the wake of the 1992 X case ruling and associated referenda. That is extremely unlikely to change and, no, the electorate won't care enough to make it an election issue.

Of course reform in't an option on the ballot, because the government would prefer to make it easy on themselves. But look at it like this - either the government are responding to public pressure in holding the vote, or they aren't.

If they aren't, then there's some advantage to the government in a Yes, and my instinct is to vote No, because the advantage I would see is further centralisation of power, and I'm not pro that.

If they are, then the only way that public pressure will go away is if the public buys the rhetoric about a No being a vote for the Seanad in its current form. Since I don't know anyone who's voting for retaining the Seanad in its current form, that seems unlikely, so it seems the public pressure will remain. Again, I'd vote No on that basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

astrofool wrote: »

I get the feeling that most who want to retain an upper house want it reformed in such a way that the party they support will somehow gain more power out of it, not being happy with how the general election turns out, as if some reformed Seanad would not have voted for the bank bills, or austerity budgets of the last few years.

Give the only party supporting it is Fianna Fáil, that seems unlikely. It's certainly not the case for me. I'd like to see an expert upper house with no political allegiance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good loser

Scofflaw wrote: »

Give the only party supporting it is Fianna Fáil, that seems unlikely. It's certainly not the case for me. I'd like to see an expert upper house with no political allegiance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There are so many opportunities for debate now through radio, TV, internet, boards etc that the need for a formal and costly Senate in this small homogenous country does not exist. Plus the extended judicial review powers of the courts and the EU dimension. Other small countries have shown the way. Let's excise it.

Scofflaw

Good loser wrote: »

There are so many opportunities for debate now through radio, TV, internet, boards etc that the need for a formal and costly Senate in this small homogenous country does not exist. Plus the extended judicial review powers of the courts and the EU dimension. Other small countries have shown the way. Let's excise it.

There are indeed many opportunities for debate, but what you'll find is that without authoritative fonts of debate, such debate is generally trivial. It's surprising what a difference it makes.

Cast your mind back to the period when the Troika gave press conferences. Around each one there was debate. Then the Troika stopped giving press conferences, and the debate largely dried up.

The internet discusses what's in the media, the media reports on what they've seen. When there's nothing to see, the springs of debate run thin or dry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Good loser wrote: »

There are so many opportunities for debate now through radio, TV, internet, boards etc that the need for a formal and costly Senate in this small homogenous country does not exist. Plus the extended judicial review powers of the courts and the EU dimension. Other small countries have shown the way. Let's excise it.

You forget one crucial aspect of the Seanad. A minority of Senators there (generally, but not always University selected) represent views of a group who could not reasonably expect to get a TD elected. I'm thinking of the likes of David Norris being elected in a time where an openly gay TD candidate would barely get his deposit back. Due to the way the NUI/Trinity voting system works you tend to get more minority voices, this is both good and bad for you because you'll get both sides of the arguments being represented.

The issue with only TDs being public representatives is that they tend to reflect only majority, or very large minority/populist, viewpoints most of the time. This is also the issue with making the Seanad open to the same vote as the Dáil. You actually want a select group doing the voting for this house, though bluntly it's not very select these days. You also want to restrict its power quite severely because of it not being open to general vote.

Of course, given that only a small minority of Senators come from the University constituencies and the majority come from professional politicians voting/choosing the point is somewhat moot.