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

manonboard · 22-09-2013 06:52PM

There are 2 further reasons I believe I will vote no that should of been altered in a better way.

These 2 are:

1. This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.

Currently, it requires the majority of Seanad and 1/3 of the Dail to propose to the president that a bill is of such national importance to the people that it should be decided by a referendum of the people.

I cannot in good conscience sign this right away. This right is important to me. It is a right that would be invaluable when the time comes to use it. Without the Seanad, it cannot be used and will be removed from our constitution. It cannot be a Dail only vote as this makes no sense, so it's either keep the Seanad and the right, or lose them both.
If a issue ever arises where this would of be enacted and cannot in future. It would be a travesty against our society.

2. Removal of judges.

I'm scared of this change. I will not voluntary allow the Dail house, ruled by a party with whip to be also single handily be able to remove people from the judiciary system. I see TDs scared to judge issues independently because of the fear of being removed from office. So why would judges not feel the same fear? In the worst case scenario, I could see a judge who is habitually ruling against the state in cases or likely to declare a proposed legislation as unconstitutional removed from their post.
In a moderate case, I envisage that the judiciary system will oppose the government and state less willingly and less often if they are in fear of their positions being removed.
It scares me to allow a government power to control the people who are there to keep that power in check.

If anyone disagrees for good reason, please share. I wish to cast my vote with as much knowledge as possible.

petronius · 24-09-2013 01:25PM

good to see some www.democracymatters.ie posters about

pathetic unproved minor dail reforms suggested by government not legislated for but proposed if the seanad is abolished is a fig leaf

Enda "the coward" Kenny afraid to debate a referendum which stemmed from his solo run some years back is a indictment of our political classes that they can hide from articulating their position on a subject.

petronius · 24-09-2013 02:16PM

I like Feargal Quinns contribution to the debate on An Seanad - "Open it, Don't Close it"

http://www.feargalquinn.ie/index.php

Banjoxed · 24-09-2013 03:47PM

There are some good arguments here for retaining the Seanad, and the other aspect for me is to take a stand against the cheap shot bucko politics of the campaign. Fine Gael may ultimately have reason to regret going down the Stupid Party route.

Javan · 24-09-2013 04:40PM

seamus wrote: »

http://referendum2013.ie/referendum-commission-writes-to-houses-of-the-oireachtas-commission-on-seanad-costs/

Apparently the €20m costs figure cited for the Seanad "may not fully translate into savings" if it's abolished.

Looking at the figures, the €2m pensions costs will remain. The €9.3m in support costs will probably remain for the most part as the staff and equipment are re-used elsewhere.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, and if the Seanad is abolished how much will it cost to "reform" the Dail?

This is looking more and more like a distraction show from the Government, they're failing to show any practical benefits for abolishing the Seanad beyond populist statements like, "Less politicians".

I decided to look at some numbers related to the costs / savings figures.

As mentioned on the referendum commission website, the €20m savings claimed by the government will not be fully realised as savings.
In fact; there will be no savings at all for the remainder of the term of this Seanad. Even with a 'yes' vote the current term will not end early.
Even after that; the likely real savings are probably less than €10m per year at least until some of the retired senators die, then the savings will slowly rise towards €12m per year.

As an aside, the cost of running a referendum is, judging by the recent EU treaty referendums, about €20m to €30m. So just by asking the question the government is spending two years' worth of potential savings.

Now if we look at that in the context of the budget; the planned current spending budget for 2013 (that is; money spent by the government that does not include capital projects) is €49,920m. That makes the potential saving about 0.02% of the current account budget.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not excited about a possible saving, in a few years time, of 0.02% of the current account budget.

Claregirl · 26-09-2013 12:04AM

I'm really struggling to decide what way to vote.

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

For a country with a population smaller than some UK councils I really don't see the need for the number of TDs and Senators currently in existence.

On the other hand is this referendum just a "cute hoor" move by FG putting forward a referendum knowing it will fail but they've fulfilled their election promises, the electorate votes against it and their cronies currently sitting in the Seanad who were rejected by the people in Daíl elections can safely keep their seats.

I honestly do not believe there will be any reform of the Seanad if this referendum is defeated. The exercise to reduce the number of TD's resulted in only 8 fewer seats:(

ger664 · 26-09-2013 01:09AM

Claregirl wrote: »

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.
(

For me it is a no brainier. Yes the Seanad currently serves no real propose, and is but retirement home for the majority of its members. It should be either abolished or radically reformed, however the proposed abolishment should not mean an eroding of our democratic system.
The proposed amendment's or hatchet job to the consituation gives too much power to this and successive governments. They will have the ability to ram through legislation and EU laws without any checks and balances, this is not in the interests of democracy or us the citizens. It is only in the interests of the political class, which is why most parties are supporting it and those that oppose it are jumping up and down over the savings to be made. If the ramifications in particular the removal of Article 27 where explain properly or got significant press coverage this would be defeated quite easily.
As for the firing of judges, there is a good reason why governments should not be allowed hire or fire judges.
If this is passed our only way of opposing a law of significant national importance which we don't like during a governments term will be to take up arms against the state. People must remember that Hitler was democratically elected by the German people.

Javan · 26-09-2013 09:36AM

Claregirl wrote: »

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

I don't understand this assertion that the Seanad serves no useful purpose now. It maybe does not do as much as we'd like, but what is does is not nothing.
There are hundreds of amendments successfully proposed by the Seanad every term. Most of those amendments are routine. They are evidence that the Dail committees are not doing a great job, but they are not earth-shatteringly brilliant.
Other amendments do have some wide-ranging and important consequences.

I'm not saying that we should be satisfied with that level of activity from the Seanad; I'd like to see a lot more.

I am saying that the Seanad as-is serves some useful purpose. To say that it does not is not correct.

opiniated · 26-09-2013 01:26PM

Claregirl wrote: »

I'm really struggling to decide what way to vote.

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

For a country with a population smaller than some UK councils I really don't see the need for the number of TDs and Senators currently in existence.

On the other hand is this referendum just a "cute hoor" move by FG putting forward a referendum knowing it will fail but they've fulfilled their election promises, the electorate votes against it and their cronies currently sitting in the Seanad who were rejected by the people in Daíl elections can safely keep their seats.

I honestly do not believe there will be any reform of the Seanad if this referendum is defeated. The exercise to reduce the number of TD's resulted in only 8 fewer seats:(

What seriously scares me is that it might not fail!

Max Powers · 27-09-2013 11:57AM

scrap it, it never has and never will provide a proper service. Its is a pathetic talking shop that offers us no protection, never has, never will. All other small to large countries get on just fine without a 2nd house, their govts dont suddenly turn into dictatorships with too much power.

Opportunity to save ourselves; the tax payer, millions and to get rid of a large collection (not all, but overwhelming majority) of pathetic excuses for politicians.

ger664 · 27-09-2013 01:48PM

Max Powers wrote: »

All other small to large countries get on just fine without a 2nd house, their govts dont suddenly turn into dictatorships with too much power.

Those countries have effective local governments who have real power and in most case spend more per head of population than we currently do.

stereomatic · 27-09-2013 06:41PM

Could somebody add poll options for what way people might vote with the following options available;

Abstain

No

Spoil

Yes

Don't know

28-09-2013 01:52PM

I'll definitely be voting no to this. My two main bug bears are the removal of the referring of bills to the people by the President, and I'm not really happy with the proposal that just the Dáil will be there to approve the adoption of (certain) EU laws and decisions.

Just for the declaration of interest I'm eligible to vote for the Seanad but I've never registered to vote as I don't see why I should have the option to vote yet friends/family who didn't go to University don't, so I'd definitely be pro-reform.

Tom Young · 29-09-2013 01:21AM

Fine Gael would not bother scrapping something that didn't have power. Don't be fooled.

In the past 2.5 years when the current Government had time to Reform, they did nothing. The announcements last week are insulting, even to many sensible voices in their own party.

Wider voting franchise has been ready for implementation since 1979, this Government denied the electorate that ability.

Power: Originating legislation - 43 Bills since life of current Government. 1 non Government sponsored.

Amendments: 529, that would otherwise not have happened with the whips, guillotine and codology that goes on in the Dáil.

Government amendments argument is weak, mostly the Government says that the amendments are 'theirs' ...fine, but they didn't have them in prior to the final stage. Ergo, NO Seanad - No amendments.

A staggering 245 amendments were made to the Personal Insolvency Bill - in the Seanad It remains imperfectly formed.

The Flawed Basis:

1. €20 Million is not being saved, its being diverted. The real figure in the short term is €9.3 Million as stated and on record by the clerk of the Dáil who is also on RefCom. FG stating on Facebook that €20 Million could employ 100 secondary teachers, it won't. Nobody buys it - FG received €2 Million which should be returned if the Seanad goes and further, the pensions for former Senators only time out 5 years after they die.

2. Fewer politicians, no, more patronage and expert committee nonsense, paid for by the above - no saving at all.

3. Single House, all of the countries cites by FG as examples of unicameral excellence are with the exception of New Zealand, not common law and have highly devolved local and regional Government structures. Ireland does not. Primarily due to savage austerity.

-NZ due to move back to bicameralism;
-DK massive devolved power;
-NO " ";
-Finland and Sweden - As above. Sweden has about 50,000 people involved in local, regional and national politics.

There are no preconditions in place for moving to a single house. It's centralised Governance 101.

4. End to Elitism & Austerity. Removing the Seanad will create a new elite and speed up austerity. That is a fact.

SF want to bring back the Seanad according to senior party sources. That's great! Just like happening prior to 1937 - no. Gerry Adams called the Referendum 'a sham' the speech is here: http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26925

Legal Concerns:

1. Removal of referral and delay powers - not future proofed into new modus op. Arts 23/27 - gone. The countries mooted as exemplars all have delay powers for the equivalent of TDs (TDs should not be happy about that);

2. Categorisation of Money Bills and priority legislation with reference to the President - gone;

3. Technocratic appointments to cabinet - Art 28.8.2 - instead, this could have been edited to have a member of the Dáil be appointed - again no future proofing.

4. 75 mentions and edits required for Seanad's removal, no 32 in the abolition Bill.

5. Seanad Abilition - 32nd Amendment is a total distraction from the Court of Appeal 33rd Amendment. Voters likely to hit out at FG/LAB may vote NO to both. Stupid planning on the part of Government.

6. The Constitution is been tinkered around with by this Government now, just enough. It is not something that should be just tippexed at a moments notice. The electorate are almost delirious and tired from Referendums - turnout likely to be white collar - who will see this for what it is. STUNT.

7. The proposed amendments for the removal of a Judge or the President are in the gift of the whip system - Taoiseach.

8. Government proposed Reform's this week, as a carrot to Seanad abolition only bring the state in to the late 1980's, no further.

The Referendum is:

1. A power grab;

2. The most deep and intrusive Constitutional change in 76 years;

3. Not future proofed, which may effect the Dáil in the future - and rights;

4. Designed to remove an inconvenience from the legislative process for the Government - Why so many amendments - 500+ ....?

5. Pitched to be reform at committee level in Dáil. Everyone knows what that means - patronage, whips, etc.

6. Costing €14 Million separately that could actually have gone elsewhere. The Government figures simply not stacking up.

Very telling sign was this week when those associated with the One House movement decried the Dáil reform plans as being insignificant and to little to late.

I still say No is the only option.

This Referendum is, and should be, an anathema to self-respecting voters, who have even given this a cursory glance.

Tom

andrewdeerpark · 30-09-2013 11:12AM

Any chance Enda Kenny will turn up for the live TV debate and get out from the clutches of his PR bunnies and goons?

Love the poster on today's indo....
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/enda-kenny-politics-must-do-more-with-less-so-seanad-has-to-go-29620415.html

I am voting no because he in incapable of selling his argument on his own two feet.

He must be the worst leader we ever had when it comes to open debate and access.... he is more like a incompetent dictator.

Roger_007 · 30-09-2013 11:22AM

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Any chance Enda Kenny will turn up for the live TV debate and get out from the clutches of his PR bunnies and goons?

Love the poster on today's indo....
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/enda-kenny-politics-must-do-more-with-less-so-seanad-has-to-go-29620415.html

I am voting no because he in incapable of selling his argument on his own two feet.

He must be the worst leader we ever had when it comes to open debate and access.... he is more like a incompetent dictator.

So you are voting on the basis of what Enda Kenny's opinion is. Do you not have an opinion of your own on which to base your vote?

ArmaniJeanss · 30-09-2013 11:22AM

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Any chance Enda Kenny will turn up for the live TV debate and get out from the clutches of his PR bunnies and goons?

Love the poster on today's indo....
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/enda-kenny-politics-must-do-more-with-less-so-seanad-has-to-go-29620415.html

I am voting no because he in incapable of selling his argument on his own two feet.

He must be the worst leader we ever had when it comes to open debate and access.... he is more like a incompetent dictator.

In fairness I don't particularly see why a countrys leader need be an eloquent verbal debater. And absolutely no reason why he should be the person who fronts every debate for the government.
Give me a thinker/planner/coordinator any day of the week rather than an empty orator.

Grudaire · 30-09-2013 11:40AM

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Love the poster on today's indo....
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/enda-kenny-politics-must-do-more-with-less-so-seanad-has-to-go-29620415.html

Jaysus as much as I want a no vote I really do hate the Indo's pro FF stance. They paused briefly for the Anglo tapes, but they're back trying to portray the FF's in a good light again :mad:

andrewdeerpark · 30-09-2013 01:54PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In fairness I don't particularly see why a countrys leader need be an eloquent verbal debater. And absolutely no reason why he should be the person who fronts every debate for the government.
Give me a thinker/planner/coordinator any day of the week rather than an empty orator.

He NEVER is seen standing on his own 2 feet away from his minders, he is the most inaccessible Taoiseach in history that is a FACT. The media management and layers of PR he places in front of all media is unbelievable do you think that is the way a leader of a 1st world democratic country should behave?

oscarBravo · 30-09-2013 02:29PM

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

He NEVER is seen standing on his own 2 feet away from his minders, he is the most inaccessible Taoiseach in history that is a FACT.

He's the only one I've met more than once, and there were no "minders" present on any occasion. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.

It's also got pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum question.

30-09-2013 04:56PM

I'm unsure which of the 2 referendum forums this question should go in, so i'll post it here as it relates to both referenda and this is the busier of the two threads.

Could anyone explain whether there's any correlation between the 2 proposals which the government is making to amend the constitution, in particular in areas relating to judges and their disposition towards/against the government's position in major cases of constitutional importance in the supreme court?

It's my understanding so far that (1) should An Seanad be abolished on Friday, this will result in a great deal of power over the apointment/replacement of judges coming to rest ultimately with the person of the Taoiseach and his front bench decision makers, by means of the party whip and a government majority.

It's also clear from one of the "tacked on" provisions of the appeals court referendum, that (2) should that amendment be passed, the "one judgement" rule of the high court which stipulates that one of the five judges deliberating over a verdict delivers the majority verdict on behalf of all five (with the exception of bills referred by the president) so as to give confidentiality to the views of all five, will be removed and each judge would/could then have to give their individual deliberation and reasons for their judgement.

What I'm trying to get an answer to, in essence, is, should both amendments be passed, would it not leave us in a position where the Taoiseach of the day would effectively have sole power over which judges in the supreme court sat, or were removed, while at the same time being privvy to their individual stance on whatever issues based on their past judgements and deliberations?

Is there potential for the Taoiseach of the day to design a supreme court bench which could be more "sympathetic to the government's position" in it's rulings?

marienbad · 30-09-2013 06:02PM

I am voting yes on this , my parents paid tax for 50 years years but were deemed not 'fit to vote , I have paid tax for 4o years and and I am not fit to vote. I have never met anyone who has voted or had a vote .

Why reform it now ? Every party had plenty of opportunity to do so and never did. Why bother now ? If it never worked why fix it ?

mada999 · 30-09-2013 06:48PM

seligehgit wrote: »

We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.

you know that will be done away with if a yes vote is passed?

Money Bills:

The President has the power to refer Bills to the Supreme Court for a decision
on whether or not they are constitutional except in the case of Money Bills.

The Constitution contains provisions for the Seanad to dispute whether or
not a Bill is a Money Bill

If this referendum is passed:
The final decision on whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill will be for
the Dáil alone.

andrewdeerpark · 30-09-2013 07:47PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

He's the only one I've met more than once, and there were no "minders" present on any occasion. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.

It's also got pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum question.

A friend of mine says when buying a second hand car you look at the owner as much as the car. Similar principal here, can you trust Enda Kenny not to use this occasion as a power grab and weaken the checks and balances within our system of government?

mada999 · 30-09-2013 08:24PM

The Seanad should not be abolished but reformed. If you vote to abolish the Seanad it is not coming back.

For the people will say "the Seanad does not have any power". This is TOTALLY WRONG, the fact is that members of the Seanad have tabled 529 amendments to 14 Bills that have been passed over the past two years. Also, see points 4,5 and 6 below. IT DOES HAVE POWER and that is why the Government wants to do away with it.

For the people who say, "It's a waste of Money", The Seanad costs less than €10m a year to run, not the €20m the Government suggests. Also, if they really wanted to go on costs then they should ring fence the money. Pathetic argument from the Government. €20m is less than €0.02% of the budget and it will not even kick in for another while anyway.

Please do not vote to abolish the Seanad as it is not only the Seanad you are doing away with, you are giving one chamber (The Dáil) a lot of power. This Government has pledged to reform only if we vote to abolish the Seanad, that's not fair is it ?

Remember past election promises such as "not another red cent" and "it is moraly unjust to tax a person's house" - Enda Kenny.

Also if Enda Kenny is so opposed to the Seanad why cant he come out like a man and debate it?

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YES ON TO ABOLISH THE SEANAD...

IF A YES VOTE WINS - Key POINTS
==================

1 . Laws will be made if passed by the Dáil and the president. No amendments or changes can be offered up by anyone else. *** Do you want the current Government to have this power?

2. By voting to abolish the Séanad, you also could take away the President's power to refer Money Bills(laws relating to public finances, ie. matters relating to TAXATION) to the supreme court for a decision on whether or not they are consitutional. **More Power to Government**

3. The constitution currently provides the option for the president to refer bills to the people. If a yes vote is gained, THIS OPTION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSTITUITON.
** More power for Government**

4. Currently, Ireland may adopt and implement certain EU laws and decisions and certain amendments to EU treaties ONLY if this is approved in advance by BOTH the Dáil and the Seanad.
IF A YES VOTE IS GAINED - ONLY THE APPROVAL OF THE DÁIL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR PASSING EU LAWS AND DECISIONS. **More power to Government and EU** ?

5. Currently Oireachtas has the power to pass laws for the purpose of securing
public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed
rebellion. These laws may not be challenged in the Courts on the basis
that they are unconstitutional.

IF A YES VOTE IS PASSED - The Dáil alone will have the power to pass national emergency laws
and to decide a national emergency exists **YES more power the Government.

6. Currently, Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court may be removed from office
for stated misbehaviour or incapacity only if a simple majority of the members
present and voting in each of the Dáil and Seanad pass resolutions to that effect.

IF A YES VOTE IS PASSED - The Dáil alone decides the above.

Can someone who is going to vote yes please tell me if I'm wrong on any of the above?

30-09-2013 08:27PM

mada999 wrote: »

If this referendum is passed:
The final decision on whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill will be for
the Dáil alone.

...you mean for Enda Kenny and Eamonn Gilmore by way of the party whip...

echo beach · 30-09-2013 09:01PM

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

A friend of mine says when buying a second hand car you look at the owner as much as the car. Similar principal here, can you trust Enda Kenny not to use this occasion as a power grab and weaken the checks and balances within our system of government?

It isn't quite the same thing. Even if you completely trust Kenny and all our current politicians, do you trust EVERY Dail that will be elected from now on?

Democracy has flaws. Large groups of people can be swayed by self-interest or fear or any number of other factors to vote in a particular way. A large proportion don't vote at all. In the future there may be means of advertising, PR and influencing the media that we can't imagine now and that could distort an election. Look at the impact of social media in a few short years. Look back at how the promise of removing domestic rates and car tax resulted in a landslide for one party. Nobody can predict the result of the next election, much less the outcome in decades from now.
Checks and balances are needed and however imperfect the ones we have are they are better than none at all.

Blondie919 · 30-09-2013 10:28PM

mada999 wrote: »

The Seanad should not be abolished but reformed. If you vote to abolish the Seanad it is not coming back.

For the people will say "the Seanad does not have any power". This is TOTALLY WRONG, the fact is that members of the Seanad have tabled 529 amendments to 14 Bills that have been passed over the past two years. Also, see points 4,5 and 6 below. IT DOES HAVE POWER and that is why the Government wants to do away with it.

For the people who say, "It's a waste of Money", The Seanad costs less than €10m a year to run, not the €20m the Government suggests. Also, if they really wanted to go on costs then they should ring fence the money. Pathetic argument from the Government. €20m is less than €0.02% of the budget and it will not even kick in for another while anyway.

Please do not vote to abolish the Seanad as it is not only the Seanad you are doing away with, you are giving one chamber (The Dáil) a lot of power. This Government has pledged to reform only if we vote to abolish the Seanad, that's not fair is it ?

Remember past election promises such as "not another red cent" and "it is moraly unjust to tax a person's house" - Enda Kenny.

Also if Enda Kenny is so opposed to the Seanad why cant he come out like a man and debate it?

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YES ON TO ABOLISH THE SEANAD...

IF A YES VOTE WINS - Key POINTS
==================

1 . Laws will be made if passed by the Dáil and the president. No amendments or changes can be offered up by anyone else. *** Do you want the current Government to have this power?

2. By voting to abolish the Séanad, you also could take away the President's power to refer Money Bills(laws relating to public finances, ie. matters relating to TAXATION) to the supreme court for a decision on whether or not they are consitutional. **More Power to Government**

3. The constitution currently provides the option for the president to refer bills to the people. If a yes vote is gained, THIS OPTION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSTITUITON.
** More power for Government**

4. Currently, Ireland may adopt and implement certain EU laws and decisions and certain amendments to EU treaties ONLY if this is approved in advance by BOTH the Dáil and the Seanad.
IF A YES VOTE IS GAINED - ONLY THE APPROVAL OF THE DÁIL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR PASSING EU LAWS AND DECISIONS. **More power to Government and EU** ?

5. Currently Oireachtas has the power to pass laws for the purpose of securing
public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed
rebellion. These laws may not be challenged in the Courts on the basis
that they are unconstitutional.

IF A YES VOTE IS PASSED - The Dáil alone will have the power to pass national emergency laws
and to decide a national emergency exists **YES more power the Government.

6. Currently, Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court may be removed from office
for stated misbehaviour or incapacity only if a simple majority of the members
present and voting in each of the Dáil and Seanad pass resolutions to that effect.

IF A YES VOTE IS PASSED - The Dáil alone decides the above.

Can someone who is going to vote yes please tell me if I'm wrong on any of the above?

Thank you for this post. I was going to post a question asking what the Seanad abolition means in layman's terms and this just about tells me what I need to know.

mada999 · 30-09-2013 11:07PM

Blondie919 wrote: »

Thank you for this post. I was going to post a question asking what the Seanad abolition means in layman's terms and this just about tells me what I need to know.

If you have facebook or something, can you please share it so people know what they are voting on ?

Thanks,

mada

Blondie919 · 30-09-2013 11:32PM

mada999 wrote: »

If you have facebook or something, can you please share it so people know what they are voting on ?

Thanks,

mada

I've put it on my fb wall and cited your username if that's ok?

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

Comments