ger664 wrote: » Are people really happy with the removal of Article 27 from the constitution ?
Javan wrote: » I can't answer that question. I'm not quiet and I have no imagination. I'm not sure what answer you were looking for either. - A person who does not like change might vote no. - A person who is quiet might not vote. - A person who does not get involved in debate might vote with the biggest ads or the most posters. In this case that will be a yes. Personally I vote on the basis of self-interest. What result will be best for me. A no vote will be neither good nor bad. A yes vote will be bad. Therefore the decision is easy: vote no.
dlouth15 wrote: » A Seanad full of failed politicians is no substitute for effective local government but voting no in the referendum sends the message to politicians that the electorate don't like change. And so, slim though it might be at the moment, there is even less chance of reform in other areas of government, local or otherwise. It also ensures seanad reform isn't going to happen either. Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?
dlouth15 wrote: » Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?
Javan wrote: » Agreed, but as has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject; other countries that have a parliament with one house have also got effective and powerful local government. We do not.
seligehgit wrote: » Several small countries I believe have a political system based on a unicameral system without any threat to their democracies.We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.Everybody knows how ineffective the Seanad has been as a check on the executive,reform will never happen in my opinion if the referendum is defeated and we'll be left grossly over represented in terms of politicians at a national level in comparison to most developed democracies.
Mouth of the South wrote: » Oh really? With a country of less than 5 million people and an already hugely over-inflated lower house, why in God's name do we need more inefficient local government and an undemocratic upper house talking chamber?
Mouth of the South wrote: » You got prim and prissy on their behalf, why backtrack now? And you keep on glibly saying over and over "you made my point for me" as if by the mere fact of repeating that that it somehow 'proves' your gibberish about supposed 'loss of democracy'. Change the record.
Javan wrote: » I'm not offended by any of it. I agree with what you said about Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Micheal Martin. So what? Actually; the fact that they are all as bad as each other is all the more reason to avoid putting all the authority in one office. Again; you make my point for me.
Mouth of the South wrote: » Are you offended on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin or Sinn Féin, oh "adult" one?
Javan wrote: » You keep making my point for me. The local government here has no role is legislative affairs. In other democracies with a single house the local government has power to pass local laws for local issues. Thank you for making my point so clearly.
Javan wrote: » I'm not arguing with any of that. Contempt is also what Enda is showing by refusing to get involved in a debate. Contempt is what you are showing by using childish names instead of talking about this important issue like an adult.
Mouth of the South wrote: » A bunch of parish pump gombeens and sleveens in Ballaghdreen or Fingal have nothing to do with the national legislature or national affairs. And your "adding up" is the classic 2 + 2 = 5.
Javan wrote: » You were just told what local government has to do with it. Any country that has a working parliament with only one house also has strong local government. This is all about concentration of power in one house, and one office in that house. Concentrated power always inevitably leads to increased corruption and a worse outcome for people outside the inner circle. This government is looking to abolish the Seanad, rigidly apply the whip and weaken local government. Add that up and it is a clear power grab. Putting all that power in one office cannot be good for the country.
Mouth of the South wrote: » "Contempt" is what the Fianna Downfall regime of 1997 -2011 showed to the Irish people. "Contempt" is a sleveen like Meehole Martin reversing his position on the Seanad for cheap politicking pointscoring . "Contempt" is what the Shinners have for the right of people on both sides of the border to even be alive and for the existence of this very State.
Mouth of the South wrote: » The articles in the Constitution dealing exclusively with the Seanad will be removed. All references in the Constitution to the “Houses of the Oireachtas” or to “either House of the Oireachtas” will be replaced by a reference to Dáil Éireann. What's the big deal there? What has local government and getting rid of parish pump gombeen inefficiency got to do with it? Other than keeping other ineffective windbags in clover at national level, that is. For nearly every referendum presented, there is some Chicken Little running around saying the sky will fall - there'll be abortion on demand, "Bye bye Daddy" etc. Saying you are "frightened about the consequences for our democracy" is similar alarmist rubbish and reminds me of the pro-monarchy as head of state lobby in Australia who frightened their electorate into thinking they would become the Weimar Republic if they replaced the Queen of England with an Australian as head of state.
Javan wrote: » I think given that Enda has this much contempt for us and for a democratic process now, imagine how much worse it will be after he gets the additional concentration of power in his office. And to those who say 'we are getting to vote; that is democracy': an informed electorate is an essential part of a working democracy. By refusing to have a debate Enda is asking us to vote without all the facts. That is undemocratic.
Copyerselveson wrote: » At the very heart of the matter is that the Taoiseach is proposing to rip the heart out of our Constitution and has now rowed back from his promise to debate this anywhere. So we are expected to vote yes to this proposal on the back of questionable costs and no debate. If we scrap the Seanad as Enda wants, we will allow the Oireachtas to be dismantled, give professional lobbyists a direct route to lawmaking and undermine our already shaky democracy.
Copyerselveson wrote: » Come back to me in five years time if the electorate decide to abolish the Seanad and tell me if we have more or less participation in democracy. Perhaps we will have abolished the President and much of the Dail as well by then.
Mouth of the South wrote: » Saying you are "frightened about the consequences for our democracy" is similar alarmist rubbish and reminds me of the pro-monarchy as head of state lobby in Australia who frightened their electorate into thinking they would become the Weimar Republic if they replaced the Queen of England with an Australian as head of state.
Copyerselveson wrote: » Have you read Bunreacht na hÉireann? Did you know that over 40 articles of the Constitution will need to be repealed or amended in order to abolish the Seanad? This isn't just any old referendum campaign where one or two articles are under discussion; this is about the most fundamental change to the governance of our country since 1937 and our Taoiseach will not debate this change publically. The other countries you mentioned like New Zealand, Sweden etc. have far stronger local governments than we have. The FG/Labour coalition have actually WEAKENED our local government by abolishing Town Councils and it wasn't today or yesterday that the bulk of our local government was handed over to County Managers and their staff rather than the elected County Councils. I am frightened about the consequences for our democracy and frankly you should be too.
Mouth of the South wrote: » Every constitutional referendum "rips the heart out of our Constitution" if you go by that logic. Denmark, Sweden, Portugal and New Zealand , amongst others, abolished their upper house talking chambers , what adverse effects did they suffer? As for professional lobbyists, Meehole's crowd have had more to do with them than anybody else and I doubt it'll make any change to how that shower operate either way.
Mouth of the South wrote: » Sleveen Martin wants a political football to be made out of the Seanad issue. Enda rightly seeing it as grandstaging by an opportunistic flipflopper like Meehole.http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-micheal-martin-tv-debate-1089363-Sep2013
pajor wrote: » Looks like I'll be making my own preference box again on the ballot paper. :rolleyes:
