Whats the point of abolishing the Seanad?

Capt'n Midnight · 03-10-2013 11:36PM

Just a reminder of the "€20m" 13.3m is for support services and staff who would have to be redeployed (Dail question last year) , €2m is for pensions and that figure would go up if there were more unemployed senators.

So probably less than €5m saving if any.

The Lisbon referendum's cost about €20m each btw.

Uriel. · 03-10-2013 11:38PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes I suppose I am a bit cynical and do not trust Enda at all.
It probably has something to do with all the lies and U-turns he has done.

Thankfully, in our democracy, constitutional amendments provide one of the greatest choices, free from political influence if you want it to be. you view the proposed changes and consider whether you see benefits or negatives, weigh them up and make your Yes/No decision. Independent research is do able as well.

A Taoiseach proposing a constitutional amendment needn't have an agenda and doesn't have to have a right or wrong agenda, just because of the position they hold.

Uriel. · 03-10-2013 11:39PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just a reminder of the "€20m" 13.3m is for support services and staff who would have to be redeployed (Dail question last year) , €2m is for pensions and that figure would go up if there were more unemployed senators.

So probably less than €5m saving if any.

The Lisbon referendum's cost about €20m each btw.

Monetary concern in the short term should be one of the last considerations in deciding which way to vote, IMO.

steddyeddy · 03-10-2013 11:40PM

Absolutely nothing. Abolishing the Seanad without considering reforming it is the equivalent of cutting of your head because you have a headache. Blunt crude instruments for blunt crude people.

zenno · 03-10-2013 11:44PM

There you have Enda and the crew telling us that the Seanad is undemocratic, but what I see as undemocratic, is the fact that the government did not give us a democratic choice as to reform the Seanad. Cut it's head off, or keep it. I'll be voting NO. I'd rather reform but i don't have this choice, Why ?.

I still think the option of reform should have been included.

steddyeddy · 03-10-2013 11:45PM

zenno wrote: »

There you have Enda and the crew telling us that the Seanad is undemocratic, but what I see as undemocratic, is the fact that the government did not give us a democratic choice as to reform the Seanad. Cut it's head off, or keep it. I'll be voting NO. I'd rather reform but i don't have this choice, Why ?.

I still think the option of reform should have been included.

Undemocratic yet he fails to lessen the whip system?

Uriel. · 03-10-2013 11:52PM

zenno wrote: »

There you have Enda and the crew telling us that the Seanad is undemocratic, but what I see as undemocratic, is the fact that the government did not give us a democratic choice as to reform the Seanad. Cut it's head off, or keep it. I'll be voting NO. I'd rather reform but i don't have this choice, Why ?.

I still think the option of reform should have been included.

Actually, he did give a democratic decision...If you favour reform, vote no. And lobby for reform in the future. Seanad reform was not part of the FG manifesto - abolish was - (section 17.1 among others). Enda and FG has been very clear about it, very democratic. YOU decide the position in reality.

I am not sure what reform would provide an essential use and value for having the Seanad tbh.

Pushtrak · 03-10-2013 11:57PM

zenno wrote: »

Everyone should vote NO, because like all other referenda in Ireland... we will be asked to vote on it again, but next time we will get the option to force-reform it.

Yep, democracy in action... By means of the scenic route.

dxhound2005 · 03-10-2013 11:59PM

zenno wrote: »

There you have Enda and the crew telling us that the Seanad is undemocratic, but what I see as undemocratic, is the fact that the government did not give us a democratic choice as to reform the Seanad. Cut it's head off, or keep it. I'll be voting NO. I'd rather reform but i don't have this choice, Why ?.

I still think the option of reform should have been included.

It was reformed. Or actually abolished by Fianna Fail in 1936 and then revived in 1937.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1936/en/act/pub/0026/print.html

Difference being that the original version proved to have too much power. And we got the useless current version. Which is fair enough, real power has to reside in the Dail.

I am actually in favour of keeping it on as it is because I like the idea of a useless talking shop with some interesting characters. It can never be reformed unless that means election by universal suffrage and giving it powers to override the Dail and that is a very bad idea.

If Fianna Fail want it back to can make that an election promise.

jobeenfitz · 04-10-2013 12:00AM

loseyourself wrote: »

Whats the point of abolishing the Seanad to save 20,000,000 a year when more than 20,000,000,000 is spent a year on Welfare. Anyone just find this whole Seanad thing just a big massive joke!

Only Enda knows, maybe he did this for a laugh?

Can I ask whats the point of keeping the Seanad?

steddyeddy · 04-10-2013 12:03AM

Uriel. wrote: »

Actually, he did give a democratic decision...If you favour reform, vote no. And lobby for reform in the future. Seanad reform was not part of the FG manifesto - abolish was - (section 17.1 among others). Enda and FG has been very clear about it, very democratic. YOU decide the position in reality.

I am not sure what reform would provide an essential use and value for having the Seanad tbh.

That manifesto means sweet F-A. A political party withholding an option from the people is undemocratic. You seem to assume that they deliberately exclude options based on the ideal if the people really wanted it they would lobby for it.

jobeenfitz · 04-10-2013 12:05AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. Abolishing the Seanad without considering reforming it is the equivalent of cutting of your head because you have a headache. Blunt crude instruments for blunt crude people.

Ah no, its not equivalent. The Seanad can be brought back again, hard to get the head back on properly. Shur thats just mad.

Filibuster · 04-10-2013 12:07AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

That manifesto means sweet F-A. A political party withholding an option from the people is undemocratic. You seem to assume that they deliberately exclude options based on the ideal if the people really wanted it they would lobby for it.

The Seanad was reformed in 1979 referendum but there zero political motivation to legislate for it. We need to get rid of the useless thing now

steddyeddy · 04-10-2013 12:12AM

Filibuster wrote: »

The Seanad was reformed in 1979 referendum but there zero political motivation to legislate for it. We need to get rid of the useless thing now

I would contest that political motivation supersedes electorate wishes.

steddyeddy · 04-10-2013 12:15AM

Ok lets look at what fine gael are saying. Save 20 million and have fewer politicians? That's weak to be honest.

Uriel. · 04-10-2013 12:18AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

That manifesto means sweet F-A. A political party withholding an option from the people is undemocratic. You seem to assume that they deliberately exclude options based on the ideal if the people really wanted it they would lobby for it.

No it isn't undemocratic, you're making a ridiculous argument. You can decide to maintain the status quo if you wish and vote in a party that has a reform strategy. Despite the flaws, should every EU treaty referendum also include the option to withdraw from the EU as well? Or have other options such as treaty amendments etc...

democracy is being given a clear idea of what to expect, been given the choice and then using that choice to determine the direction of a certain matter. As far as this referendum is concerned, democracy shines through

steddyeddy · 04-10-2013 12:19AM

Uriel. wrote: »

No it isn't a ridculous argument. You can decide to maintain the status quo if you wish and vote in a party that has a reform strategy. Despite the flaws, should every EU treaty referendum also include the option to withdraw from the EU as well? Or have other options such as treaty amendments etc...

democracy is being given a clear idea of what to expect, been given the choice and then using that choice to determine the direction of a certain matter. As far as this referendum is concerned, democracy shines through

So it's Ok that fine geal are not offering a choice to the electorate because we can vote them out if we don't like it?

Uriel. · 04-10-2013 12:23AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it's Ok that fine geal are not offering a choice to the electorate because we can vote them out if we don't like it?

they are offering a choice. abolish the seanad or not? YOU decide.

FG don't have a policy on the ownership of Rockall. The bastards should not even contemplate asking us to vote for something unless we see a policy on that.

Should tomorrow's referendum also include a choice on the continuation of the Dáil? Or perhaps the rights of the child as well?

zenno · 04-10-2013 12:28AM

In my opinion, this is like a doctor giving you two options, we can chop your leg off to stop gangrene spreading, or we can leave the leg and you will die, but we have option 3 that you do not need to know because it is irrelevant to you, and that is, we have an experimental vaccine of which is known to work in 50% of cases, would you like to try it ?

Well i think nearly anything can be reformed so i'm going with a NO vote until i'm given the option to reform. I'm sick to death of listening to people constantly saying the Seanad cannot be reformed.

dxhound2005 · 04-10-2013 12:39AM

zenno wrote: »

In my opinion, this is like a doctor giving you two options, we can chop your leg off to stop gangrene spreading, or we can leave the leg and you will die, but we have option 3 that you do not need to know because it is irrelevant to you, and that is, we have an experimental vaccine of which is known to work in 50% of cases, would you like to try it ?

Well i think nearly anything can be reformed so i'm going with a NO vote until i'm given the option to reform. I'm sick to death of listening to people constantly saying the Seanad cannot be reformed.

It's not like that at all. This patient can die and if it proves that he was a really useful member of society and is sorely missed he can be revived Lazarus like. There is nothing stopping a new second chamber being set up again if it is the will of the people through another referendum.

Mergal · 04-10-2013 12:43AM

People vote no, as someone who is out of the country I was shocked to read that a recent opinion poll had the yes campaign at 62%. Why are so many people being fooled by these lying bastards. Cynically playing the undemocratic, elitist and too expensive card, as Zennno said in a previous post almost anything can be reformed. Michael McDowell, (not someone I personally would always agree with) wrote a very good piece for the Times that is essential reading for those who will be exercising their democratic right later today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/it-would-be-folly-to-deliver-a-single-chamber-into-the-hands-of-the-whips-1.1547828?page=2

Uriel. · 04-10-2013 12:46AM

zenno wrote: »

In my opinion, this is like a doctor giving you two options, we can chop your leg off to stop gangrene spreading, or we can leave the leg and you will die, but we have option 3 that you do not need to know because it is irrelevant to you, and that is, we have an experimental vaccine of which is known to work in 50% of cases, would you like to try it ?

Well i think nearly anything can be reformed so i'm going with a NO vote until i'm given the option to reform. I'm sick to death of listening to people constantly saying the Seanad cannot be reformed.

That is your democratic right.

I haven't yet seen any reform proposal from anyone be they from a political, legal, social, independent etc... that makes me believe that there is value in having a Seanad in the long-term.

But I can't agree with anyone that says the process is undemocratic to be perfectly honest.

Personally I'd favour something along the lines of:

No Seanad.
circa 100 member parliament, elected on a national basis
Taoiseach and Presidential duties largely merged to one office (can be called President or Taoiseach after that - with the person being elected in a national vote.
Greater decentralisation of power and responsibilities to local authorities, having local elections and councillors actually really matter

Uriel. · 04-10-2013 12:47AM

Mergal wrote: »

People vote no, as someone who is out of the country I was shocked to read that a recent opinion poll had the yes campaign at 62%. Why are so many people being fooled by these lying bastards. Cynically playing the undemocratic, elitist and too expensive card, as Zennno said in a previous post almost anything can be reformed. Michael McDowell, (not someone I personally would always agree with) wrote a very good piece for the Times that is essential reading for those thinking who will be exercising their democratic right later today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/it-would-be-folly-to-deliver-a-single-chamber-into-the-hands-of-the-whips-1.1547828?page=2

I'd say everything can be reformed, but the question must be asked as to whether a reformed entity is still a worthwhile, useful entity.

EDIT: I just read McDowell's piece. I would not call that essential reading at all. He has not provided any argument at all that points to the genuine usefulness of the Seanad or how having a Seanad negates the points raised in his piece

dxhound2005 · 04-10-2013 12:50AM

Mergal wrote: »

People vote no, as someone who is out of the country I was shocked to read that a recent opinion poll had the yes campaign at 62%. Why are so many people being fooled by these lying bastards. Cynically playing the undemocratic, elitist and too expensive card, as Zennno said in a previous post almost anything can be reformed. Michael McDowell, (not someone I personally would always agree with) wrote a very good piece for the Times that is essential reading for those thinking who will be exercising their democratic right later today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/it-would-be-folly-to-deliver-a-single-chamber-into-the-hands-of-the-whips-1.1547828?page=2

If that is what the opinion polls say who are you to call the people fools? Maybe you are being fooled by McDowell who wanted the Seanad abolished before.

Specialun · 04-10-2013 12:56AM

I personally hope that folk vote no

I find the governments arguement of cutting costs and saving 20 bags full. Complete garbage and imo it shows how weak their arguement is that they continue to beat this drum and then hide behind the fact that these numbers were not orignally calculated by them

The reason the savings drum is being beat is to appeal to the uninformed voter.nothing more,nothing less

Yes the seanad in its current form lacks value but no way should it be abolished.it should be reformed with young,hungry professionsals and field experts in various sectors....i think the likes of personalities that david norris are great for polotics.

Cody Pomeray · 04-10-2013 12:59AM

I fully expect the Government proposals to be carried today.

The No campaign never really got off the ground. I am convinced that in years to come we will look back on the Seanad and wonder at how much potential there was for that institution, how much could have been done with it - to weaken the Executive, to review EU legislation, to bring Northern Irish people to be involved in our democracy, to bring experts into Government.

But instead the voters will fall for some ridiculous Fine Gael con job, maybe saving the exchequer a drop in the bucket. The trajectory Irish politics is taking, there won't be a mood for enlarging the Oireachtas for many years, maybe many decades to come. We're stuck with the current shower, then. The opportunity to create a functional, valuable upper house is not going to arise again soon.

kowloon · 04-10-2013 12:59AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is nothing stopping a new second chamber being set up again if it is the will of the people through another referendum.

I wonder how easy this would be in reality.

dxhound2005 · 04-10-2013 01:04AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I fully expect the Government proposals to be carried today.

The No campaign never really got off the ground. I am convinced that in years to come we will look back on the Seanad and wonder at how much potential there was for that institution, how much could have been done with it - to weaken the Executive, to review EU legislation, to bring Northern Irish people to be involved in our democracy, to bring experts into Government.

But instead the voters will fall for some ridiculous Fine Gael con job, maybe saving the exchequer a drop in the bucket. The trajectory Irish politics is taking, there won't be a mood for enlarging the Oireachtas for many years, maybe many decades to come. We're stuck with the current shower, then. The opportunity to create a functional, valuable upper house is not going to arise again soon.

These experts, would they be anything like the Special Adviser experts that have proved so unpopular. Would they be allowed to have political connections? How would they be chosen/appointed? How much would they be paid? What powers would they have?

dark crystal · 04-10-2013 01:12AM

I'm still utterly undecided!

At first, I was leaning towards voting to abolish - the money saved would come in very handy, not entirely sure what benefits the Seanad brings to the country as a whole and there's more than a whiff of elitism about many of the unelected people sitting in it.

However, when FG and Enda supported the abolition, it got me thinking....what exactly is in it for them? Why are they so gung-ho about seeing it gone? There has to be some self serving motive behind them wanting the removal of the upper house. More power?

I'll be honest, FG having even more power unnerves me a lot.

Mergal · 04-10-2013 01:14AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If that is what the opinion polls say who are you to call the people fools? Maybe you are being fooled by McDowell who wanted the Seanad abolished before.

I didn't call anybody a fool, it may be wrong of me to think that the people are being fooled by those in the Yes campaign. If that is the way it goes so be it, I just believe it will be a big mistake. I had made my mind up on the issue long before I read his article. In its present form the Seanad is pretty redundant but is that not reason to reform rather than abolish.

Why does it matter if someone held a different position on a matter at a previous point in time, can people not change their minds. Sure you would have to question their motives, but if the point they are making is agreeable then I don't see the problem. This sort of argument wasted much of the time during the televised debates.

Whats the point of abolishing the Seanad?

Comments