Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
View Poll Results: What position should Northern MPs occupy in the Dáil?
We should maintain the status quo 72 85.71%
We should give them speaking rights 8 9.52%
We should give them equal rights with TDs in the Republic 4 4.76%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
14-06-2017, 03:46   #16
AnGaelach
Registered User
 
AnGaelach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnyThePoo View Post
Why would we give the British speaking rights in our Dail?.. Makes no sense
We've given British citizens resident in Ireland a vote in Irish elections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
Notably, this would exclusively benefit Sinn Féin.
Unless, of course, FF and FG decide to get off their asses and run candidates as FF have said they intend to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
So you would give Leitrim (population 31,972) or Longford (40,810) the same representation as Antrim (618,108) or Dublin (1,345,402). That's a bit 19th century United Kingdom / 18th century USA, isn't it? Combined Dublin, Antrim, Cork, Down, Galway have slightly more than half the population, but you would only give them 16% of senators. People should have votes, not counties.
Because the discussion was about the Seanad, not the Dáil. Having it weighted by population would merely replicate the Dáil, making the reform utterly pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
All told, is this Sinn Féin supporters endorsing the anti-democratic British voting system?
I'm a FFer, do you just presume everyone in favour of a United Ireland to be a Shinner?
AnGaelach is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
14-06-2017, 05:15   #17
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 18,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnGaelach View Post
What with this furore over the DUP-Tory government alignment threatening the peace in Northern Ireland, surely a way to balance Nationalist concerns is to allow Northern MPs to simultaneously sit in Dáil Éireann?

This would include both Unionist and Nationalist MPs being given speaking (and voting?) rights in the Dáil. The Unionists could abstain from their seats in the Republic just as SF abstains from their seats in Westminster. It at least brings some kind of balancing between the Irish and British Governments rather than the Nationalists being left out in the cold by the Government.

Personally, I'm in favour of extending full voting rights to Northern TDs/MPs.
By "Northern MPs", do we mean people elected to Westminster from NI Constituencies, or people elected to the NI Assembly?

Logic would suggest the latter, since these two bodies are elected to govern the two parts of Ireland, and if there is to be joint or co-operative action over all-Ireland matters these are the two bodies that should be involved. I'm not sure it make sense to admit Westminster MPs, who have taken an oath of allegiance to the British Queen, to the Oireachtas of an Irish Republic.

Plus, obviously, any such arrangement should be mutual and reciprocal. No participation in the Oireachtas for members of any parliamentary assembly that does not itself afford participation to members of the Oireachtas!
Peregrinus is offline  
14-06-2017, 09:25   #18
HalloweenJack
Registered User
 
HalloweenJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,738
Politicians in the North should have no say in how the Republic is run. Letting them have Irish passports, if they want, is just fine. I have no interest in giving the DUP any say in how our country is run. This is a group that have no interest in our country, they see us as the enemy. Why give them any semblance of power?

The problem with a successful Border vote is that it would likely be as divisive as Brexit was. If it passes, which depending on how its done is far from certain, you have a reasonable minority that have no interest in being part of our country. Why would you want that? At the same time, I don't think it's fair that Nationalists up North have to be part of the UK for the same reason.

We are lucky that we have a population who want to be Irish. Why risk another basket case like NI, the UK or Spain or any other country where politics is influenced by dissenting minorities who don't want to be part of the state? It will just lead to more trouble down the line.

For me, the best working solution for NI at the moment is to break away from the UK and go the way of Belgium or Bosnia and try have a two-nation state. Far from a perfect solution but I don't think there is one in this particular case. Centuries of interference from the British authorities with no forward planning has already made it a mess. I don't see why we should take responsibility for that mess out of some misguided Nationalist sentiment. I say this as a 32-county man but I won't let my feelings get in the way of the complicated logistics of the North.

NI needs to sort itself out first and reach some kind of stability. At the moment, they don't even have a proper Government up there, it is far from a stable place. First, they need to find a way to work together then, much further down the line, we can talk about a United Ireland but, personally, I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

As for your Seanad reform ideas, it would just give more power to parish-pump politics.

Just imagine we have two senators for each county. Straightaway, I can see two Healy Raes getting in as they see they can have more influence in the Seanad than they ever will in the Dail.

Any proposal that benefits Dublin? You can guarantee that the senators from Cork, Galway, Antrim (if they were allowed in your case) and other places will vote against it and not to mention all the senators from the far-flung parts of the country. At best, you'll get the two votes from Dublin in favour and some of the votes from those in the commuter belt. It would be massively skewed in favour of those in areas with lower populations.

I'm no fan of the Seanad in its current form but your suggestion would cause a massive, undemocratic imbalance.
HalloweenJack is offline  
(3) thanks from:
14-06-2017, 09:33   #19
realdanbreen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by awec View Post
What are they going to speak about?

There are loads of things they could speak about, like how to stack pallets for a big bonfire or the correct way to wash diesel.
realdanbreen is offline  
14-06-2017, 12:09   #20
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
Notably, this would exclusively benefit Sinn Féin.

So you would give Leitrim (population 31,972) or Longford (40,810) the same representation as Antrim (618,108) or Dublin (1,345,402). That's a bit 19th century United Kingdom / 18th century USA, isn't it? Combined Dublin, Antrim, Cork, Down, Galway have slightly more than half the population, but you would only give them 16% of senators. People should have votes, not counties.

All told, is this Sinn Féin supporters endorsing the anti-democratic British voting system?
In what way is have the upper house directly elected a British system? It's close to the American system but if you had half a clue what you were on about you'd know that.
Jayop is offline  
Advertisement
14-06-2017, 12:33   #21
Victor
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 72,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayop View Post
In what way is have the upper house directly elected a British system? It's close to the American system but if you had half a clue what you were on about you'd know that.
I'm talking about grossly unequally-sized constituencies, with limited numbers of seats (making things very difficult for smaller parties) resulting in severe under / over representation and a bias for larger parties.
Victor is offline  
Thanks from:
14-06-2017, 12:36   #22
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
I'm talking about grossly unequally-sized constituencies, with limited numbers of seats (making things very difficult for smaller parties) resulting in severe under / over representation and a bias for larger parties.
You're talking crap then. Compare it to the American system of that's your point because it had no bearing to the British system.

Our current system is closer to the British system where we have an unelected unaccountable upper house.
Jayop is offline  
14-06-2017, 12:50   #23
Victor
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 72,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayop View Post
it had no bearing to the British system.
OK, I accept your point. The suggested constituencies would be much worse than anything in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...constituencies

ConstituencyElectorate 2015
Na h-Eileanan an Iar21,769
Orkney and Shetland34,552
Arfon40,492
Dwyfor Meirionnydd44,394
North West Cambridgeshire90,318
West Ham90,640
Bristol West91,236
Ilford South91,987
Isle of Wight108,804
Victor is offline  
14-06-2017, 12:52   #24
jmayo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnGaelach View Post
This post had been deleted.
There is a current thread in After Hours discussing people's intelligence that this could be put in as an entry

When are people going to get it into their heads we are different jurisdictions and different countries.
This isn't the GAA or IRFU no matter how much one dreams.
Voters in Northern Ireland get to vote for politicians in elections to their local assembly and their parliament in Westminister.

At the moment they can't sort out their own assembly and no one is talking or voting on anything there.
Also one of the major parties still refuses to sit, talk or vote in their actual national parliament in London.

And yet you think these people should be allowed speak and even worse vote in our parliament in a separate country.
They are NOT ELECTED by people in this country and those have no rights to have their say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayop View Post
Issues that effect Irish citizens on the Island of Ireland. Cross border issues, joint healthcare, lots of things.
Until such time as there is a united Ireland people, no matter if they are unionist, republican, black, white, catholic, protestant should not have the right to have their public representatives speak or make decisions for the people that live and pay taxes in a separate country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Permabear View Post
This post has been deleted.
No I would safely bet they are not the Northern politicians that most have in mind.
jmayo is offline  
Advertisement
14-06-2017, 12:53   #25
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
OK, I accept your point. The suggested constituencies would be much worse than anything in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...constituencies

ConstituencyElectorate 2015
Na h-Eileanan an Iar21,769
Orkney and Shetland34,552
Arfon40,492
Dwyfor Meirionnydd44,394
North West Cambridgeshire90,318
West Ham90,640
Bristol West91,236
Ilford South91,987
Isle of Wight108,804
Why are you comparing it to the lower house? Do you have some mental deficiency?
Jayop is offline  
14-06-2017, 13:36   #26
Quin_Dub
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayop View Post
Why are you comparing it to the lower house? Do you have some mental deficiency?
##Mod Note##

3 day ban.

Quin_Dub is offline  
Thanks from:
14-06-2017, 13:38   #27
Buttonftw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 19,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
So you would give Leitrim (population 31,972) or Longford (40,810) the same representation as Antrim (618,108) or Dublin (1,345,402). That's a bit 19th century United Kingdom / 18th century current USA, isn't it?
Fixed that for you.
Buttonftw is offline  
Thanks from:
14-06-2017, 14:12   #28
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 7,338
As we have an undemocratic Seanad anyway, we should put some people from all parts of the country in it. Also certainly give all Ireland a vote in Presidential elections.
No Dail representation as the idea was taxpayers vote for representatives so having people from currently another political jurisdiction would be pointless.
For Reals is offline  
Thanks from:
14-06-2017, 14:24   #29
VinLieger
Registered User
 
VinLieger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,556
How would this solve anything at all?

Simply fact is the North is a basket case and either sides solutions will do nothing to change this.

On the unionist side they want to continue as is cus somehow that will result in things getting better.....

And on the nationalist side their solution is somehow a UI will magically turn the north into a commercially viable, socially calm utopia because..... patriotism.

The ONLY solution is for either side to put their differences aside, sit the **** down at a table and form a stable assembly. Until this is done and they can manage their own **** for 10-20 years without having to be bailed out by Dublin or London every time one side looks at the other funny nothing is gonna change.
VinLieger is offline  
14-06-2017, 16:03   #30
_Kaiser_
Registered User
 
_Kaiser_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 21,770
No they shouldn't.. Whatever about the future, as it stands today NI is a separate country whose representatives (rightly) have no jurisdiction over ROI and vice versa

IF.. again IF.. that changed in a border/unification vote then yes, the citizens of those counties would be entitled to a voice in the Dail/Seanad, but outside of Republican romanticism and Irish TDs playing to their electorate, there is no evidence to suggest that a majority on EITHER side would want such a thing.

We have enough problems running the 26 counties we have, let alone taking on the problems (and expense!) of the North... and why would they want to join the Republic anyway given those issues? (retaining EU membership is not a valid reason IMO)
_Kaiser_ is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Forum Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet