Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why do we have a Citizens' Assembly?

  • 17-10-2020 10:51am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭


    I see a few TDs tweet about awaiting something or other from the Citizens' Assembly. Can someone explain to me why we have this organisation? My understanding is that it’s a group of 100 citizens, randomly selected, who hold referendums on various policies. Minus the non-democratic element of random selection, isn’t this why we have the Dáil? What is the point of holding elections and electing representatives in a democracy when they in turn just take their decisions from a non-elected body of citizens.


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    It's a panel to inform our governments of the experiences of ordinary people and what they think and why they think it. We need more of this not less. They are not strictly random - they are selected to represent the demographic profile of the population.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,370 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    At its essence the Dail is a chamber for addressing laws. Its purpose is primarily to propose, debate and create new legislation. It's not really suited to large scale, less tangible, matters, especially ones that would require constitutional changes.
    It is also hamstrung by the fact that it is an inherently political body. Often times the members will be whipped into voting for things that they do not believe serve the greater good for reasons of political expediency.

    I also don't think that the Dail membership is a true representation of the electorate, despite being chosen by them. Members of political parties are a small sub-section of society and successful Dail candidates are an even smaller sub-section again. It is extremely time consuming to run for an election and as such people who have careers that allow them to take time off or have fewer working hours have an advantage. That is one of the reasons why teachers and landlords are over-represented in the Dail.

    I was initially skeptical about the Conventions but having watched some of their sessions live over webcam and seen their recommendations I think they serve a valuable role and I trust them to consider complex and difficult matters
    in a manner that is representative of the electorate as a whole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭mobileforest


    It's a panel to inform our governments of the experiences of ordinary people and what they think and why they think it. We need more of this not less. They are not strictly random - they are selected to represent the demographic profile of the population.

    The problem is that this is what a democratic government is suppose to be. Ordinary people not professional politicians (we have civil servants for this) is what TDs are meant to be. As for representing the demographic profile, this is why we each get one vote in an election. If the “government” needs a CA to understand what the average citizen wants then perhaps we have the wrong government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    You put far too much store in professional elected politicians. Most of them are from a narrow range of backgrounds - white, middle class, farmers/teachers/professions. Ireland's population has changed enormously in the last 20 years, the TD's profile hasn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,370 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    You put far too much store in professional elected politicians. Most of them are from a narrow range of backgrounds - white, middle class, farmers/teachers/professions. Ireland's population has changed enormously in the last 20 years, the TD's profile hasn't.

    Not to mention that the majority of people in Ireland, women, are massively under-represented.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,630 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    How are people chosen for the CA?
    Are they paid?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Not to mention that the majority of people in Ireland, women, are massively under-represented.
    They're represented as much as the electorate (comprised of over 50% women) has chosen them to be. Same with any other "underrepresented" groups.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,651 ✭✭✭growleaves


    I see a few TDs tweet about awaiting something or other from the Citizens' Assembly. Can someone explain to me why we have this organisation? My understanding is that it’s a group of 100 citizens, randomly selected, who hold referendums on various policies. Minus the non-democratic element of random selection, isn’t this why we have the Dáil? What is the point of holding elections and electing representatives in a democracy when they in turn just take their decisions from a non-elected body of citizens.

    They aren't randomly selected. They are selected from the lists of people who are registered to vote for starters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,370 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    They're represented as much as the electorate (comprised of over 50% women) has chosen them to be. Same with any other "underrepresented" groups.

    That's a simplistic take that papers over a raft of complex, structural hurdles preventing people from underrepresented groups from getting a realistic shot of winning a seat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    You put far too much store in professional elected politicians. Most of them are from a narrow range of backgrounds - white, middle class, farmers/teachers/professions. Ireland's population has changed enormously in the last 20 years, the TD's profile hasn't.

    The people elect TDs. If the supposed “profile” of TDs is wrong, the blame lies with the electorate.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭mobileforest


    You put far too much store in professional elected politicians. Most of them are from a narrow range of backgrounds - white, middle class, farmers/teachers/professions. Ireland's population has changed enormously in the last 20 years, the TD's profile hasn't.

    I dont put any 'store' in the professional elected politicians. I put it with the voters. And when I last checked, every citizen, regardless of skin colour, gender, profession, or wealth, gets exactly one vote each.

    I agree it would be nice to see more diversity in the TDs, but surely that would be better served by encouraging more individuals to enter politics and perhaps put support behind candidates who support polices that might bring about changes (for example, policies to block money and influence from larger donors who might be giving some established candidates an unfair advantage with campaigning). Saying there is a lack of women, non-white, etc in our democratic government so lets make an unelected body to 'correct' that is short sighted. Once we have a non-democratic method of governance in place, what is there to prevent some future there this is stacked with people who's intentions are less than noble.

    The same inefficient democratic system that has made it a slow battle for change towards some goal like diversity is also the same system that prevents it from completely crushing and oppressing these same political minorities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭mobileforest


    That's a simplistic take that papers over a raft of complex, structural hurdles preventing people from underrepresented groups from getting a realistic shot of winning a seat.

    Agreed. But creating a non-elected body to subvert the system is an even more simplistic (and short sighted) solution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    View wrote: »
    The people elect TDs. If the supposed “profile” of TDs is wrong, the blame lies with the electorate.

    I agree! But you're dealing with an ingrained "legacy" where too many still troop out to vote for the same old, it'll take decades before FF and FG look like the wider population, esp in the larger population centers. Hard to know how to speed up change, it's more likely that those parties will just wither in the cities and be replaced by a pick'n mix of small parties, independents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It's a panel to inform our governments of the experiences of ordinary people and what they think and why they think it. We need more of this not less. They are not strictly random - they are selected to represent the demographic profile of the population.

    I don't think it is random at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,380 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Oh Jesus this is conspiracy level nonsense.

    .who in their right mind would argue against a citizens assembly.
    . absolutely bizarre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,370 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Agreed. But creating a non-elected body to subvert the system is an even more simplistic (and short sighted) solution.

    How exactly is it subverting the system?

    The findings from the conventions get send to an Oireachtas committee and from there, in cases where changes to the constitution are required, they are sent to the people where they can have their say via referendum.

    You're making it out to be some sort of rogue body that is undermining the democracy of the state. In reality it's more like an adjunct body that is separate from the Oireachtas but is entirely under its control. The Oireachtas determines what topics will be put to the assembly and when the assembly comes up with recommendations they are fed back to the Oireachtas for consideration. At no point does the Assembly get to bypass the Oireachtas.

    In some cases such as the Referenda on Same Sex Marriage, Presidential Age and Repealing the 8th amendment, the Oireachtas were happy to go with the recommendations and put them to the people. In other cases though, such as the recommendations on Electoral Reform and a Fixed Term parliament the Oireachtas hasn't been so quick to implement the recommendations.


    The final thing I'll say is that many politicians love the Assembly for the simple reason that it gives them cover when it comes to making extremely difficult decisions.
    In 2018 the latest abortion referendum passed with 66% of the vote. I remember when the Assembly gave their recommendations many people were surprised because they thought the findings were too liberal.
    There's no way in hell an Irish government would have legislated for that without the Assembly. It took them 20 years to legislate for the Supreme Court findings on the X case. It probably would have taken them another 20 years to come up with what the Irish people eventually agreed to in overwhelming numbers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭mobileforest


    How exactly is it subverting the system?

    The findings from the conventions get send to an Oireachtas committee and from there, in cases where changes to the constitution are required, they are sent to the people where they can have their say via referendum.

    You're making it out to be some sort of rogue body that is undermining the democracy of the state. In reality it's more like an adjunct body that is separate from the Oireachtas but is entirely under its control. The Oireachtas determines what topics will be put to the assembly and when the assembly comes up with recommendations they are fed back to the Oireachtas for consideration. At no point does the Assembly get to bypass the Oireachtas.

    In some cases such as the Referenda on Same Sex Marriage, Presidential Age and Repealing the 8th amendment, the Oireachtas were happy to go with the recommendations and put them to the people. In other cases though, such as the recommendations on Electoral Reform and a Fixed Term parliament the Oireachtas hasn't been so quick to implement the recommendations.


    The final thing I'll say is that many politicians love the Assembly for the simple reason that it gives them cover when it comes to making extremely difficult decisions.
    In 2018 the latest abortion referendum passed with 66% of the vote. I remember when the Assembly gave their recommendations many people were surprised because they thought the findings were too liberal.
    There's no way in hell an Irish government would have legislated for that without the Assembly. It took them 20 years to legislate for the Supreme Court findings on the X case. It probably would have taken them another 20 years to come up with what the Irish people eventually agreed to in overwhelming numbers.

    Subverting probably not the word I'm looking for. Also, I dont think there is anything sinister about the current CA and like you I agree that its current purpose is more for the govt to bring forward controversial policies while keeping their hands clean. My issue is one, "why do we need it seeing as we hold a 'citizen's assembly' every time we have an election?" and yes, two, I do believe at some point it could be used towards undermining the democratic state. As you said, it is under the control of the Oireachtas. So the group who are described as somehow expressing the will of the people despite being unelected is under the control of the Oireachtas. Doesn't that sound backwards. Surely the government in a democracy should be under the control of the people (via elections) and not vice versa?

    I'm not a libertarian, deep state nut, etc. But I do think such an arrangement, although possibly a lazy benign gimmick by govt at present to avoid responsibility for controversial legislation, is bad for our democracy. Ireland's, like America's democracy came via the end of a barrel but even for the other former British English-speaking colonies, there was still a battle for what was called 'responsible government'. In this government form, its is parliament and its elected officials who are responsible for both bringing forward legislation and arguing for or against them. Letting elected officials pretend they dont have a side on an issue but are simply following the recommendations of the people (ie CA) is a dangerous path in my opinion. I get that so far they've only argued for progressive changes hence people have been happy with the results but what happens when say 30 yrs from now and this is an entrenched part of our system and we happen to have a govt with much stronger conservative and authoritarian undertones. A similar CA could say its the will of the people that we should join an EU army, or restrict immigration or rights for certain individuals. I get this sounds silly or tinfoil hat at present but that fact is as you pointed out that the CA was used successfully to bring through progressive changes in record time while there is likely significant resistance to it more than suggests the opposite could happen as well just as easily.


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Mules


    It was set up under the advice/ advocacy of Chuck Feeney (American philanthropist). I'm not sure why exactly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Mules


    Subverting probably not the word I'm looking for. Also, I dont think there is anything sinister about the current CA and like you I agree that its current purpose is more for the govt to bring forward controversial policies while keeping their hands clean. My issue is one, "why do we need it seeing as we hold a 'citizen's assembly' every time we have an election?" and yes, two, I do believe at some point it could be used towards undermining the democratic state. As you said, it is under the control of the Oireachtas. So the group who are described as somehow expressing the will of the people despite being unelected is under the control of the Oireachtas. Doesn't that sound backwards. Surely the government in a democracy should be under the control of the people (via elections) and not vice versa?

    I'm not a libertarian, deep state nut, etc. But I do think such an arrangement, although possibly a lazy benign gimmick by govt at present to avoid responsibility for controversial legislation, is bad for our democracy. Ireland's, like America's democracy came via the end of a barrel but even for the other former British English-speaking colonies, there was still a battle for what was called 'responsible government'. In this government form, its is parliament and its elected officials who are responsible for both bringing forward legislation and arguing for or against them. Letting elected officials pretend they dont have a side on an issue but are simply following the recommendations of the people (ie CA) is a dangerous path in my opinion. I get that so far they've only argued for progressive changes hence people have been happy with the results but what happens when say 30 yrs from now and this is an entrenched part of our system and we happen to have a govt with much stronger conservative and authoritarian undertones. A similar CA could say its the will of the people that we should join an EU army, or restrict immigration or rights for certain individuals. I get this sounds silly or tinfoil hat at present but that fact is as you pointed out that the CA was used successfully to bring through progressive changes in record time while there is likely significant resistance to it more than suggests the opposite could happen as well just as easily.

    Seeing as the EU army is now widely acknowledged to be something that is in the process of happening by EU leaders. It's not tin foil hat at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭mobileforest


    How exactly is it subverting the system?



    I should add Im not implying any sinister alternative motive by the current members of the CA and like you mentioned earlier I'm sure I'd be impressed watching them as well. My issue is more that I think such a instrument is not a good thing for a democracy. I think all citizen's opinions should be obtained via elections and then let TDs decide what to do with that. If they weren't listening they won't have long to regret it before the next election comes around.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,370 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I get that so far they've only argued for progressive changes hence people have been happy with the results but what happens when say 30 yrs from now and this is an entrenched part of our system and we happen to have a govt with much stronger conservative and authoritarian undertones. A similar CA could say its the will of the people that we should join an EU army, or restrict immigration or rights for certain individuals.

    Well the Assembly is representative of the people so they aren't likely to stray too far from the opinion of the population as a whole. Who knows, Ireland could lurch to the right in the next 50 years and those sort of things could very well be the will of the people. Either way, and this is the crucial bit, the Assembly won't get to have the final say. At a minimum, their recommendations will go back to the Oireachtas and for anything massively controversial, such as the examples you outlined above, there would have to be a referendum involving the entire electorate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Mules wrote: »
    Seeing as the EU army is now widely acknowledged to be something that is in the process of happening by EU leaders. It's not tin foil hat at all.

    It isn’t happening. People have been trotting that nonsense out since our 1972 referendum on accession to the then European Communities and it is no more set up (or about to be set up) today than it was back then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    I agree! But you're dealing with an ingrained "legacy" where too many still troop out to vote for the same old, it'll take decades before FF and FG look like the wider population, esp in the larger population centers. Hard to know how to speed up change, it's more likely that those parties will just wither in the cities and be replaced by a pick'n mix of small parties, independents.

    That legacy is who the electorate chose to represent them. It wouldn’t exist or survive unless it represented the electorate and the electorate fundamentally don’t want to change it as can be seen by both parties continuing to enjoy widespread support.


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Mules


    View wrote: »
    It isn’t happening. People have been trotting that nonsense out since our 1972 referendum on accession to the then European Communities and it is no more set up (or about to be set up) today than it was back then.

    From an Independent article in 2018
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-army-angela-merkel-macron-germany-france-military-european-commission-juncker-a8633196.html


    'The European Commission has said it is “delighted” that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a “real” EU army
    A spokesperson for the commission’s president Jean-Claude Juncker said he was “pleased” that the argument for the force seemed to be “going in our direction”.'


    'Addressing the European Parliament on Tuesday Angela Merkel said she supported a “real, true” European army, echoing an identical call by her French counterpart Emmanuel Macron the week before.'

    EUFOR is the EU peacekeeping form that Ireland is a member of. That seems to be the building blocks of it.

    Similarly, not so long ago federalism was said to be a fairy tale but many EU leaders and institutions are openly in favour of it now. Big changes like an army and federalism don't happen out of the blue. Succesive small changes towards those ends are made so as not to frighten the population.

    There was also an interesting Wikileaks cable that showed the German Chancellor, at the time (Gerhard Shroeder) putting a lot of pressure on Bertie Ahern to join NATO.
    We subsequently joined NATO'S partnership for peace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Mules wrote: »
    From an Independent article in 2018
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-army-angela-merkel-macron-germany-france-military-european-commission-juncker-a8633196.html


    'The European Commission has said it is “delighted” that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a “real” EU army
    A spokesperson for the commission’s president Jean-Claude Juncker said he was “pleased” that the argument for the force seemed to be “going in our direction”.'


    'Addressing the European Parliament on Tuesday Angela Merkel said she supported a “real, true” European army, echoing an identical call by her French counterpart Emmanuel Macron the week before.'

    EUFOR is the EU peacekeeping form that Ireland is a member of. That seems to be the building blocks of it.

    Similarly, not so long ago federalism was said to be a fairy tale but many EU leaders and institutions are openly in favour of it now. Big changes like an army and federalism don't happen out of the blue. Succesive small changes towards those ends are made so as not to frighten the population.

    There was also an interesting Wikileaks cable that showed the German Chancellor, at the time (Gerhard Shroeder) putting a lot of pressure on Bertie Ahern to join NATO.
    We subsequently joined NATO'S partnership for peace.

    The personal views of spokesmen don’t mean a thing in EU politics.

    And if any head of government actually wanted an EU Army, unlike you or I, they are members of the European Council and they can formally propose changing the EU Treaties be it to ensure the creation of an EU Army or otherwise. None have ever done so at anytime since we joined.

    Equally, they could formally propose the creation of a European Army, outside the framework of the EU (ie with a separate stand alone body), which would be open to all EU countries to join. There would be no veto option in such a scenario, as those interested would join and those not, wouldn’t. Again though no one have ever made any such formal proposal to do so since we joined.

    Likewise, the same applies to “Federalism” at EU level, since the EU is not a Federation but rather an international organisation and in fact with the creation of European Council, the EU has if anything become more intergovernmental since we joined (The heads of states in a Federation do not get to meet and call the shots on what happens in a Federation. That’s the responsibility of Federal government).

    As such your theories just aren’t backed up by reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Mules


    View wrote: »
    The personal views of spokesmen don’t mean a thing in EU politics.

    And if any head of government actually wanted an EU Army, unlike you or I, they are members of the European Council and they can formally propose changing the EU Treaties be it to ensure the creation of an EU Army or otherwise. None have ever done so at anytime since we joined.

    Equally, they could formally propose the creation of a European Army, outside the framework of the EU (ie with a separate stand alone body), which would be open to all EU countries to join. There would be no veto option in such a scenario, as those interested would join and those not, wouldn’t. Again though no one have ever made any such formal proposal so since we joined.

    Likewise, the same applies to “Federalism” at EU level, since the EU is not a Federation but rather an international organisation and in fact with the creation of European Council, the EU has if anything become more intergovernmental since we joined (The heads of states in a Federation do not get to meet and call the shots on what happens in a Federation).

    As such your theories just aren’t backed up by reality.

    They aren't my theories and when the leaders of France and Germany advocate for it you can be pretty sure it will happen in the future.
    At any rate, the EU is so popular in Ireland I'm sure lots of people would welcome federalism and an army.

    I remember reading an article by Claire Daly. It was interesting because she said she stood as an mep because Europe is where all the important decisions are now being made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Mules wrote: »
    They aren't my theories and when the leaders of France and Germany advocate for it you can be pretty sure it will happen in the future.
    At any rate, the EU is so popular in Ireland I'm sure lots of people would welcome federalism and an army.

    I remember reading an article by Claire Daly. It was interesting because she said she stood as an mep because Europe is where all the important decisions are now being made.

    The leaders of France and Germany are, and have been, free to make formal proposals along those lines, either in an EU context or outside the EU, if they so choose. In the (almost) fifty years of our membership, none have ever done so and as the old saying goes “actions speak louder than words”.

    It is therefore fairly absurd to claim that “it will happen in the future” when, were anyone seriously interested, such proposals could have been made on numerous occasions, by the leader of any member state, since we joined. You are basically claiming that none of the leaders are willing to formally propose something they are all supposedly passionately committed to which is a nonsensical idea.

    That’s akin to claiming that the politicians in our current Oireachtas are all personally committed to the idea of turning Ireland into a communist state but for some bizarre reason, none of them are prepared to actually propose legislation to bring that about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,716 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I'd rather have Ireland participate in a combined EU standing military for the purposes of continental defence, security, emergency and humanitarian tasks than be tied into a structure the obliges us to the mutual defence of Turkey and the United States.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭sky6


    growleaves wrote: »
    They aren't randomly selected. They are selected from the lists of people who are registered to vote for starters.

    So who elects them.
    What are the selection criteria.
    How are they selected.
    Do TD have any influence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭Asdfgh2020


    sky6 wrote: »
    So who elects them.
    What are the selection criteria.
    How are they selected.
    Do TD have any influence.

    I’ve often wondered about the CA set up......when did it commence, why was it deemed necessary etc. is anyone eligible to become a member.....and if so how do you become one.......how is it covered in the constitution....?


Advertisement