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

If we vote Yes to close the Seanad and then expect the Government to deliver a new, reformed Seanad we will be waiting and it will never happen.

Future governments can then say, "look, the electorate voted to close the Seanad, there's no demand for a second chamber"

Also a Yes vote endorses government solely by the Parish Pump.

Loafing Oaf

Copyerselveson wrote: »

If we vote Yes to close the Seanad and then expect the Government to deliver a new, reformed Seanad we will be waiting and it will never happen.

It will if there is a broad-based campaign for one, and if opinion polls show there is broad popular support for a fresh new second chamber. And if such a campaign doesn't materialise, well that shows the people never really wanted the Seanad in the first place.

Indeed, perhaps the next logical step is abolish the presidency. After all, it must cost us a lot of money to put a politician into a retirement home.

After that, we can abolish the Dail. Then we have no need of politicians and those really clever people in the Civil Service do know what's best for us.

Think of the money we'll save!

opiniated

reach for the stars wrote: »

Anybody who thinks the seanad would be reformed if it is retained is daydreaming.come 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 out and put an idea in their head.A halfway house for failed politicians who still want their mouth at the trough.

Actually, I detest McDowell and Co., so I suppose that means I'm unlikely to be unduly influenced by what he says.

Having said that, I detest Enda Kenny almost as much, and Michael Noonan quite a bit more....

So I suppose my decision to vote "No" must actually be because I actually made up my own mind - just like a lot of other ordinary people!

It's easy to call people sheep just because you don't agree with them.
Your opinion may not be accurate, though!

echo beach

Today we heard the proposals to reform the Dail, most of which depend on this referendum being carried, so if we vote 'no' we are left with a Seanad that won't be reformed and a Dail that won't be reformed. If we vote 'yes' we have no Seanad and a Dail that MIGHT be reformed, if and when they get around to it.

If they reformed the Dail and the committees and could show us how well it was working and so proving the we didn't need the Seanad then I would be willing to listen. If this doesn't happen or it doesn't work there will be no way of forcing real reform. The proposal is that the committees would hear submissions from interested 'experts' on legislative change. The existing Seanad panels are supposed to comprise of just that, persons with expertise in a particular area. In practice senators are elected on the basis of their politics, not their background. How do we know the unelected 'experts' and lobbyists advising the committees wouldn't be the same?

Javan

echo beach wrote: »

Today we heard the proposals to reform the Dail, most of which depend on this referendum being carried, so if we vote 'no' we are left with a Seanad that won't be reformed and a Dail that won't be reformed. If we vote 'yes' we have no Seanad and a Dail that MIGHT be reformed, if and when they get around to it.

If they reformed the Dail and the committees and could show us how well it was working and so proving the we didn't need the Seanad then I would be willing to listen. If this doesn't happen or it doesn't work there will be no way of forcing real reform. The proposal is that the committees would hear submissions from interested 'experts' on legislative change. The existing Seanad panels are supposed to comprise of just that, persons with expertise in a particular area. In practice senators are elected on the basis of their politics, not their background. How do we know the unelected 'experts' and lobbyists advising the committees wouldn't be the same?

None of the Dail reform proposals need constitutional change.

Reform the Dail. Prove that the Seanad is not necessary. Then come back with a proposal to abolish the Seanad.

These announcements need to be viewed the same way as pre-election promises. The government knows it could lose this vote and has very weak arguments in favour of abolition, so it is promising that the Dail will be better in the future.

Effective Dail reform is, IMO, just about as likely as effective Seanad reform, which is just slightly more likely than a snowstorm in a desert.

It's unusual to see almost all the parties united in wanting to abolish the seanad (albeit for very diverse reasons.) Usually it would mean that it was a universally good idea... in this case I don't think so, especially since we are offered only two options.

On the Yes side many of the arguments point towards reform rather than abolition (eg FG, Lab, Sinn Féin, ULA etc)

On the No side there is:

Fianna Fáil - who appear to have done a u-turn on their previous determination that the Seanad has any use (but hey no surprise there)

Green Party - who simply want reform as was their position when this was originally proposed.

dlouth15

What is interesting is that the same problems with the seanad are identified by both sides of debate.

Many on the "yes" side will agree with the arguments put forward for reform rather than abolition. Where they disagree (and I would include myself here) is on the practical question of whether or not these reforms will actually happen at some point should a "no" result be returned.

If there's a "no" result, groups like Democracy Matters, which appears on the surface to have a reform agenda, will quietly disappear, their work being done. The issue of reform will go away since much of it only appeared in the face of the abolition referendum.

The main interpretation of a "no" result therefore will be that the public have little stomach for change (the opposite of what many on the no side seem or pretend to believe) and any further reform of the electoral system will be even less likely than it was before (not that it was likely to start with).

The bare fact of the matter is that it is a choice between a particular reform (abolition) and the maintaining the status quo generally.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The bare fact of the matter is that it is a choice between a particular reform (abolition) and the maintaining the status quo generally.

Those are two pretty crap choices.. any option C?

petronius

A lot of reform of the seanad can be done with in the constraints of the Constitution - see Prof Crowns proposals.
Giving everyone a vote in a panel for example - an seanad ballot paper alongside your dail one, this would prevent those who fail to get elected in the dail being given a 2nd chance at the seanad elections

the pathetic suggestions of Dail reform this week outline the governments plan to avoid any real reform -
No commitment to remove the power of the party whip! which renders genuine debate null and void - no extra speaking rights..
Even the suggestion that the government be allowed to bring in "experts" (unelected!) to advise them smacks of hypocrisy when they claim the reason to get rid of the seanad is that it is unelected mostly

Any link to his proposals?

I agree completely. Token rooms is what we've been offered...

petronius

Here is the link
http://www.thejournal.ie/john-crown-seanad-election-reform-bill-817186-Mar2013/

a lot of merit in it certainly preferable to abolition
its benefits are
- prevents dail candidates running for seanad
- gives all citizens the vote (people can chose a panel)
- allows for diaspora to participate via embassy/consulate
- it stays within the constitution
- would allow anyone to nominate to the seanad instead of the groupings which exist now

of course further improvements would have to be done via referendum

Not sure I'd be happy with the whole thing, but as an option C I'd definitely choose it over the keep or abolish choices that we are given!

pajor

seligehgit wrote: »

If the referendum is defeated there is likely to be no possibility of any meaningful reform,history tells us that....previous reports/recommendations and the 1979 referendum.

This is what I've been wondering myself. The question and the stance that's been given on it is so black and white.

Is a no vote going to force them to knock heads together, to actually reform it? I can't see it happening.

Looks like I'll be making my own preference box again on the ballot paper. :rolleyes:

JP 1800

pajor wrote: »

Looks like I'll be making my own preference box again on the ballot paper. :rolleyes:

At least you will be voting, I wonder what the turnout will be for this one?

petronius

The Seanad should be Reformed no one disputes that.
Enda being a coward in avoiding a debate on the issue, if he believes that it is of benefit why not debate it? If he believes it has no role why didnt he say it sooner in his political life?
Abolition achieves nothing only allows the government to feign that they are reforming
the platitudes of dail reform suggested in lieu of a yes vote are vague.
Why abolish something which could be beneficial to our country, an avenue in to politics for none traditional politicians, broaden our democracy. It removes a safe guard or the extra time and extra eyes a 2nd chamber can provide

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

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

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: »

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.

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So it's part of a conspiracy to get rid of the President too, is it?

As for "participation in democracy", a body where the only electors of it are graduates of Trinity and NUI, the Taoiseach of the day who rewards loyal lapdogs and cheerleaders , and unelected quangos is hardly reflective of 'democracy' at work.

Javan

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.

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.