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

FG will cut 20 TDs and abolish Senate, says Kenny

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    If Fine Gael and Labour with Enda Kenny and Eamonn Gilmore get into power after the next General Election, i perdict here that you will not have to wait till 2017 or five years after whenever the election takes place, because they will have the county fcked up more than it is now in 15 months or less.

    I don,t think so.The incompetence of the FF lead governments over the last 5 years has been awe-inspiring.It was the kind of all encompassing arrogance and stupidity which comes along only once every few generations.While I,m sure a FG/labour goverment will make some terrible mistakes the lions share of the damage has already been done.We are close to rock bottom as it stands.Theres not a whole lot left to destroy.


  • Options
    #93
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    Taxipete29 wrote: »
    Spoken like a true FF man.


    The truth is spoken.

    History shows that Fine Gael lead Governments are all fairly short lived.


  • Options
    #94
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    jonsnow wrote: »
    I don,t think so.The incompetence of the FF lead governments over the last 5 years has been awe-inspiring.It was the kind of all encompassing arrogance and stupidity which comes along only once every few generations.While I,m sure a FG/labour goverment will make some terrible mistakes the lions share of the damage has already been done.We are close to rock bottom as it stands.Theres not a whole lot left to destroy.


    but to dig the hole we are in even deeper. And it will happen.


  • Options
    #95
    Taxipete29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    The truth is spoken.

    History shows that Fine Gael lead Governments are all fairly short lived.

    The last one ran to its natural conclusion. It was also the one that laid the foundations for the celtic tiger era.


  • Options
    #96
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    but to dig the hole we are in even deeper. And it will happen.

    Whats your logic so.To let Fianna "Fail" run the country indefinetly.They are an exhausted and incompetent party who have lost the trust of the people.From where I,m standing excluding Sinn fein any other party would make a better effort of running the country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    jonsnow wrote: »
    Theres not a whole lot left to destroy.
    Tell that to the 2 million people with jobs!


  • Options
    #98
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Deise Tome
    Enda Kenny or any other polition can call all they want for the Senate etc to be banned, but it will not happen, as the politions, senators or councillors will not vote for it.

    The only way it will happen is if it is put to the people of Ireland. Which polition is going to vote for it because they could be the one that will loose out come election next time round.

    On upthedeise.com when McCarthy recommended that town and city councils be merged with county councils, i said it was a good idea. However some people who i suspect may be a councillor on such a committee was toltally against it and gave a sermon on how much good they do.

    If the person as i suspect is a member of the Fine Gael Party, i wonder how they greated Enda Kenny's statement.

    Funny then that Enda Kenny isnt asking for politicians, senators or councillors to vote for it. He is arguing that it be put to the people as a referendum.

    [EDIT] I'd like to apologise to Deise Tom for the below paragraph - the tone was uncalled for and OTT. [/EDIT]

    On upthesand.com (thats not a real website btw as I'm not that much of a ****ing idiot) I said it was a good idea to recognise the difference between a referendum and the judgement of a legislature. You can follow up on my views on the same imaginary website.

    Cheers,
    Sand.

    @ninty9er
    Originally Posted by jonsnow
    Theres not a whole lot left to destroy.

    Tell that to the 2 million people with jobs!

    Jesus, are Fianna Fail not satisified with 13% unemployment? Is it their mission to return us to 20 -30% unemployment? Is that their version of "Yes, we can!"?


  • Options
    #99
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Nodin wrote: »
    I know its fairly irrelevant, but it'd be messy to remove it. Personally I'd like to see it replaced by an upper house that had a pair, like the American or Brit one.

    Fair enough on cutting wages....Not sure about the cutting of 20 TDs...that might just be a bit of the oul gerrymander that would suit the two larger parties-I'd want to see detail.

    pardon any ignorance, but wouldn't several articles in the constitution need to be amended? see article 16 in relation to boundaries per head and take a look at the high court case of catherine murphy and finian mcgrath case of 2007.also there are alot of references in the constitution to the senand. actually while we are at it, maybe no harm in actually doing a complete revision of the constituion. the seanand do have some important roles (on paper) as it, as you know has a role in legislation (bar money bills), is involved in the procedure in removing a judge.

    i think we should first reduce numbers and their pay & expenses (same goes for the dail), make the seanad directly electable, give more power / influence/ be a better institute that is not infected by party politics (good luck with that) give it a role dealing with EU law related matters, let it be a proper avenue for local councillors (after all, its mostly them to vote these people in) remove or reduce the taoiseach's nominations, let it be for only one term renewable for one further term only?, make it into a tribunal / investigation committee dealing with national scandals/issues of an important nature, allow and allocate a better number to the senators to initiate private members bills

    i believe its a cyncial attempt by enda. if he is concerned, let him. maybe enda really believes fianna fail are really on the way out to extinction. i am sure he would love to completely wipe out of the oireachtas parties like fianna fail and sinn fein. if he is soooo concerned, let him demand his senators to walk out of the upper house now. then we will see if he means business.

    i would be more concerned that the whole political spectrum see change. what has he to say about standing orders etc in the dail? why is there a need for the chief whip?

    i would like to see a real reform of the institution first along with the dail before talk of abolishment


  • Options
    #100
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    Sand wrote: »
    @Deise Tome


    Funny then that Enda Kenny isnt asking for politicians, senators or councillors to vote for it. He is arguing that it be put to the people as a referendum.

    On upthesand.com (thats not a real website btw as I'm not that much of a ****ing idiot) I said it was a good idea to recognise the difference between a referendum and the judgement of a legislature. You can follow up on my views on the same imaginary website.

    Cheers,
    Sand.

    @ninty9er


    Jesus, are Fianna Fail not satisified with 13% unemployment? Is it their mission to return us to 20 -30% unemployment? Is that their version of "Yes, we can!"?

    Kenny wont ask, because he knows what will happen. Turkeys dont vote for churstmas do they. That man is so full of waffle. Its easy to talk while you are in opposition but no so easy if he got in. He and Guilmore think by waving their hands around will distract from the shyte they come out with.


  • Options
    #101
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    Couple of points here after reading recent posts.

    Firstly, I don't believe that currently, reducing the number of TD's would involve a referendum. This would be needed should the population approach the 5 million mark - with this in mind and after the ESRI's recent report on population trends I am really wondering about their independence, it seems way too coincidental.

    Secondly, with regards the issue of scrapping the Seanad, I believe there may be a legal question as to whether such a move may be constitutional at all. There is a question mark over the status of entrenchment which may arise when an institution is mentioned in the text of the constitution thus preventing it's abolition or subsequent transformation.

    To give some examples - would it be possible to abolish Jury's or change their composition?

    What of the system of taking a census (Art. 16.2.3) would it be ok to compute the population by applying a mathematical formula to cheaply & readily available data?

    Would it be possible to disband the defence forces?

    It would appear that these questions have not yet been judicially considered. There would appear to be a train of thought which holds that the mere mention of an institution does not per se operate to entrench it's existence but as Kelly points out:

    " ... it is worth noting that on the enactment of the Seventh Amendment in 1979 a subsection was expressly added in Article 18 (as Article 18.4.3) reading:
    'Nothing in this Article shall be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of a university mentioned in subsection 1 of this section'
    Evidently therefore the specific references to the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin were felt to give those institutions (unless those subsections were inserted) a certain security of existence."

    [J.M. Kelly: The Irish Constitution, fourth ed. pg 33]

    I think there may well be a challenge on this issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    The truth is spoken.

    History shows that Fine Gael lead Governments are all fairly short lived.

    And history also shows that ff governments have plunged this country into years of recession due to their populist policies that are desiugned just to get elected.
    "Party first, country second" is the unspoken motto.

    Or maybe you are not old enough to remember the fallout form Lynch's spending spree in 1977 ?

    Oh and history also shows us that ff have a huge majority of unethical (and possibly corrupt) politicans, who are very often promoted to high office, or maybe you would rather forget haughey, ahern, burke, lawlor, flynn snr and jnr, stroke fahy, etc ?
    ninty9er wrote: »
    Tell that to the 2 million people with jobs!

    And while you are at it, why not remind the hundreds of thousands who have the anchor of huge 40 year mortgages around their necks thanks to the ff property bubble that enriched the sponsors of the party. :rolleyes:

    Better still remind the poeple that they probably won't have a pension, don't and won't have proper healthcare, that their kids will have sh*** education with probablility of paying heftly for their third level to be followed by emigration thanks to the ff party that destroyed a vibrant economy post 2001. :rolleyes:

    Oh wait almost missed this ... ff are responsible for all the jobs but not responsible for the unemployment, the state of the finances, the state fo the financial institutions or anything remotely bad :rolleyes:
    Deise Tom wrote: »
    Kenny wont ask, because he knows what will happen. Turkeys dont vote for churstmas do they. That man is so full of waffle. Its easy to talk while you are in opposition but no so easy if he got in. He and Guilmore think by waving their hands around will distract from the shyte they come out with.

    As opposed to the sh*** that coughlan comes out with about smart economy and us having paid off all our national debt, or the sh*** that lenihan came out with about the people having to be patriotic and shop at home, or fahy and the sh**e about that NAMA would cost us nothing and bring 30 odd billion into the economy, nevermind that house prices were recovering,
    Now we have minister dicking around with drink drive limits, just like he did with his immediate ban on a few hundred thousand learner drivers, when everyone knows that the issue is not with someone havig two pints and driving, but some young fellows skulled out of their heads on drugs and 15 pints.
    :rolleyes:
    Enforce the law as it is and not during daylight on a motorway either, but of course that would cost money for extra gardai resources, wouldn't it ?

    ffers have some f**king neck accusing other parties of coming out with sh*** when that is all their party has come out with for the last 2 years, nevermind the arrogance and stupidity that they have exhibited over the last 12 odd years.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Options
    #103
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #104
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I am saying that according to Professor Kelly the most respected constitutional scholar the country has ever seen, that this is a possibility. If you look at the rest of the argument, there seems to be a point worth arguing at least. Would it be constitutional to propose an ammendment that would do away with jury trials?

    The Seanad is mentioned in about 20 places in the constitution, it seems to be entwined in the constitution itself. I am not saying (nor indeed was Kelly) that this is a good situation, but the fact remains that there may be a valid legal point which has yet to be explored.


  • Options
    #105
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #106
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Long Onion wrote: »
    Would it be constitutional to propose an ammendment that would do away with jury trials?

    Jury trials are a cornerstone of our democracy-the seanad isn,t.And having said that we have non-jury trials.So if we can suspend jury trials when necesscary it should be relatively easy to abolish the seanad.The courts won,t stand in the way of a referendum.


  • Options
    #107
    Taxipete29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    There was an interesting piece by Fiona O'Malley in the Times the other day. She was talking about the PD pledge to abolish the Seanad in the 80s. She made the point that when the PDs explored the idea they were advised that with over 100 references to the Seanad it would not be as simple as a constitutional question. They came to the conclusion that constitutional reform was the only way this could be achieved long term.

    This will be unlikely to be achieved within the lifetime of a new government never mind the year which Enda so confidently proclaimed at the weekend.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1020/1224257055159.html


  • Options
    #108
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #109
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Taxipete29 wrote: »
    There was an interesting piece by Fiona O'Malley in the Times the other day. She was talking about the PD pledge to abolish the Seanad in the 80s. She made the point that when the PDs explored the idea they were advised that with over 100 references to the Seanad it would not be as simple as a constitutional question. They came to the conclusion that constitutional reform was the only way this could be achieved long term.

    This will be unlikely to be achieved within the lifetime of a new government never mind the year which Enda so confidently proclaimed at the weekend.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1020/1224257055159.html

    Yeah Senator O,Malley is right.We can,t really change anything in our political system and even if we can it will take ages and ages and ages.So lets not be naive.

    Or maybe if we have the will and have some creative thinking we will be able to change our political system for the better.


  • Options
    #110
    Taxipete29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I agree, scarily enough lol


  • Options
    #111
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    jonsnow wrote: »
    Jury trials are a cornerstone of our democracy-the seanad isn,t.And having said that we have non-jury trials.So if we can suspend jury trials when necesscary it should be relatively easy to abolish the seanad.The courts won,t stand in the way of a referendum.

    I am not saying that I agree with the arguments proposed, I am merely saying that they are valid points which would have to be dealt with. I do believe that our judiciary have always shown a great degree of deference to the Legislature and I doubt very much if that will change.

    That being said, Kelly raises an interesting point - are there some things that are of such importance to the constitution and that had such an impact on the original drafters of the document that it may be said run to the heart of the constitution itself?

    If I was to pose the question as to whether the constitution could be ammended to allow the judiciary to actually make laws - would this change unravel the aim of the original drafters to the extent that the constitution itself become unconstitutional?

    I realise this is mainly an academic argument, but the law often turns on sematics so I think the issue will have to be confronted if Kenny is to plough ahead with his proposals - he may find it more difficult than he first thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Long Onion wrote: »
    I am not saying that I agree with the arguments proposed, I am merely saying that they are valid points which would have to be dealt with. I do believe that our judiciary have always shown a great degree of deference to the Legislature and I doubt very much if that will change.

    That being said, Kelly raises an interesting point - are there some things that are of such importance to the constitution and that had such an impact on the original drafters of the document that it may be said run to the heart of the constitution itself?

    If I was to pose the question as to whether the constitution could be ammended to allow the judiciary to actually make laws - would this change unravel the aim of the original drafters to the extent that the constitution itself become unconstitutional?

    I realise this is mainly an academic argument, but the law often turns on sematics so I think the issue will have to be confronted if Kenny is to plough ahead with his proposals - he may find it more difficult than he first thought.

    Fair enough point.But this happens every time we try to change the constitution or even the law.Some constitutional scholar pops up and says "careful now this areas a lot more complicated than you think".It may take longer than Kenny is promising (not a shocker hes a politician) but I believe that this one is very doable.


  • Options
    #113
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #114
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    I would broadly agree, but the crux of the matter is how will the courts choose to interpret the articles which are in situ. There are numerous approaches to constitutional interpretation from strict construction to harmonious interpretation, the decision the ultimately reach has to balance with the body of case law and precedent thus far built up whilst still giving effect to what is percieved to be the spirit of the constitution itself.

    Again, not saying that entrenchment is a good thing, but it is an interesting point which i suspect will have to be dealt with.


Advertisement