Constitutional Convention

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

?

Any of the various 66 [past and present] that I've spoken to were canvassed at in person not over the phone. Sorry, that was a response to a very old but directly previous post. I have yet to speak to someone who was canvassed over the phone.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

Any of the various 66 [past and present] that I've spoken to were canvassed at in person not over the phone. Sorry, that was a response to a very old but directly previous post. I have yet to speak to someone who was canvassed over the phone.

rang, knocked doesn't make difference never really addressed the point that if you accepted people partners then it would get less and less random

SB2013

RangeR wrote: »

Anyway, we were made aware today that our standing orders are going to change slightly. It was always envisaged that #ccven would have at least one meeting outside Dublin. This is proving to be too expensive. On average, each weekend costs in the region of €60,000. To have it outside Dublin was going to cost in the region of €130,000.

Is this for real?

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

rang, knocked doesn't make difference never really addressed the point that if you accepted people partners then it would get less and less random

I disagree

SB2013 wrote: »

Is this for real?

That's what we were told today and of course it's all under FOI.

There are about 170 people to account for each weekend [members / facilitators / note takers / tv crew / Secretariat etc] accommodation and food. Then there are wages / expenses. I'm sure that there are other costs to take into account.

My VERY quick calculations average is out at about €350 per person for the weekend.

Also bear in mind, they said average per weekend. I'm sure this also includes the day to day wage expenses that the Secretariat etc cost. CCVEN is not just 2 to 3 day weekend every month. There are ongoing daily expenses.

Technoprisoner

i seen on the news today that a vote passed to keep the voting system as is but with a slight change...what i did find unusual was there was no mention of the vote on direct democracy even though 83 voted in favour of direct democracy. Was there much discussion on the pros and cons of direct democracy?

RangeR

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i seen on the news today that a vote passed to keep the voting system as is but with a slight change...what i did find unusual was there was no mention of the vote on direct democracy even though 83 voted in favour of direct democracy. Was there much discussion on the pros and cons of direct democracy?

I don't know. I couldn't attend this month as I had a private function to attend. The media only reports on the main headline and very rarely on the detail. Did you watch any of the plenary sessions on youtube? The detail would be in there.

Regardless, I'm sure we'll all be privy to the detailed report in the coming weeks.

Technoprisoner

RangeR wrote: »

I don't know. I couldn't attend this month as I had a private function to attend. The media only reports on the main headline and very rarely on the detail. Did you watch any of the plenary sessions on youtube? The detail would be in there.

Regardless, I'm sure we'll all be privy to the detailed report in the coming weeks.

i wasnt aware that these where available on youtube....time to do some searching

RangeR

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i wasnt aware that these where available on youtube....time to do some searching

No need. Here's the channel

They are made available soon after recording. They are also streamed live on constitution.ie

PRAF

Have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the results from the latest constitutional convention meeting. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the convention voted to (1) Retail the current voting system and (2) Maintain the status quo in terms of numbers of TDs. Even worse, they voted to increase the size of constituencies. We'll likely end up with more inter-party rivalry to out-promise each other in order to secure election.

I think this is a missed opportunity to change parochial, parish pump politics in this country. I hope I'm not being unfair but it seems to me that the convention has reviewed the system that has brought us to the point of national bankruptcy on a number of occasions and decided that everything is just fine as it is.

The supposed changes are very disappointing on the whole. Extended polling hours?? Give me a break

Technoprisoner

PRAF wrote: »

Have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the results from the latest constitutional convention meeting. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the convention voted to (1) Retail the current voting system and (2) Maintain the status quo in terms of numbers of TDs. Even worse, they voted to increase the size of constituencies. We'll likely end up with more inter-party rivalry to out-promise each other in order to secure election.

I think this is a missed opportunity to change parochial, parish pump politics in this country. I hope I'm not being unfair but it seems to me that the convention has reviewed the system that has brought us to the point of national bankruptcy on a number of occasions and decided that everything is just fine as it is.

The supposed changes are very disappointing on the whole. Extended polling hours?? Give me a break

to be fair this wont happen if it does go to a referendum and the people decide to go with direct democracy. This should make all politicians accountable and they could lose there seat to somebody else if the people decide

_Kaiser_

Something else I picked up on is that 3/4% had no opinion on some of the recommendations.

What are they doing there then if not to express an opinion??!

Zillah

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Something else I picked up on is that 3/4% had no opinion on some of the recommendations.

What are they doing there then if not to express an opinion??!

Do you think they should just pretend to support a particular position even if it is something they don't have an opinion on?

SB2013

PRAF wrote: »

Have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the results from the latest constitutional convention meeting. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the convention voted to (1) Retail the current voting system and (2) Maintain the status quo in terms of numbers of TDs. Even worse, they voted to increase the size of constituencies. We'll likely end up with more inter-party rivalry to out-promise each other in order to secure election.

I think this is a missed opportunity to change parochial, parish pump politics in this country. I hope I'm not being unfair but it seems to me that the convention has reviewed the system that has brought us to the point of national bankruptcy on a number of occasions and decided that everything is just fine as it is.

The supposed changes are very disappointing on the whole. Extended polling hours?? Give me a break

Surely larger constituencies would reduce the parish pump politics as candidates cant just localise their campaigns, they have to compete on a wider scale.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Something else I picked up on is that 3/4% had no opinion on some of the recommendations.

What are they doing there then if not to express an opinion??!

To represent the will and views of the nation. I think a lot more than 3-4% of the population is apathtic to be honest.

PRAF

SB2013 wrote: »

Surely larger constituencies would reduce the parish pump politics as candidates cant just localise their campaigns, they have to compete on a wider scale.

A vastly more effective way of reducing parish pump politics would be to reduce the number of TDs. Quite simply, if you still have 1 TD for every 30k eligible voters then you are at high risk of parish pump politics IMO. You have too much access to TDs. As a result, people bypass their local politicians and go straight to their TD in order to fix their potholes, fix them up with medical cards, fix a grant for their local sports club, etc. The result is weak local govt and a bastardised version of national democracy.

While its great for individual voters, its a disaster when applied on a national scale. It's also bad for the TDs who becomes trapped in the parish pump system. The problem is much worse in 5 seat constituencies where TDs have to compete with other party members for votes. It's down to simply self interest on the part of the voter. If you have two equally capable politicans from the same party but one is a fixer who promises to fix your potholes and the other is a policy hack. Who will you vote for? History has shown us that most Irish people will vote for the fixer.

If you had 1 TD for every 50k or 60k votes, all of a sudden you are servicing much larger geographic areas and therefore you reduce the likelihood of parish pump politics prevailing. In order to get elected, you have to offer more than being able to get your voters a medical card.

The more I think of it, the more I think that failing to reduce the number of TDs is probably the biggest missed opportunity to reform Irish politics in years.

PRAF

Technoprisoner wrote: »

to be fair this wont happen if it does go to a referendum and the people decide to go with direct democracy. This should make all politicians accountable and they could lose there seat to somebody else if the people decide

Direct democracy? Don't know enough about it to be honest. It could probably work in certain limited scenarios. However, I'd be a bit concerned that it might encourage followership rather than real leadership. I'd hate to end up with a system where a fickle public could reverse correct but unpopular decisions just because the media whip them into a frenzy over some issue. In the end you could have a system where TDs just go around courting popular opinion and refuse to make any decisions themselves.

Technoprisoner

PRAF wrote: »

Direct democracy? Don't know enough about it to be honest. It could probably work in certain limited scenarios. However, I'd be a bit concerned that it might encourage followership rather than real leadership. I'd hate to end up with a system where a fickle public could reverse correct but unpopular decisions just because the media whip them into a frenzy over some issue. In the end you could have a system where TDs just go around courting popular opinion and refuse to make any decisions themselves.

give the people what the people want....Switzerland have direct democracy and they dont seem to be doing so bad

PRAF

Technoprisoner wrote: »

give the people what the people want....Switzerland have direct democracy and they dont seem to be doing so bad

If there was direct democracy in the 1860s, Lincoln probably wouldn't have been able to abolish slavery. Sometimes we need our politicians to lead (not that we've that many real leaders in Irish politics).

Technoprisoner

PRAF wrote: »

If there was direct democracy in the 1860s, Lincoln probably wouldn't have been able to abolish slavery. Sometimes we need our politicians to lead (not that we've that many real leaders in Irish politics).

so our politicians where "leading" when they decided to bail out the banks.....and they were "leading" when they decided to hold a late night sitting to dissolve IBRC. If we had direct democracy we would of had a say in both these cases and i have a feeling the outcome would have been slightly different

PRAF

Technoprisoner wrote: »

so our politicians where "leading" when they decided to bail out the banks.....and they were "leading" when they decided to hold a late night sitting to dissolve IBRC.

Quite right, there are times when direct democracy could be useful. What exactly is the proposal though? Does it mean that the public can refer certain decisions to some other body or does it mean the public can refer anything they like? You can't govern a country with a decision making body of 4.5 million citizens dissecting each and every decision. That would be a recipe for disaster.

Technoprisoner

PRAF wrote: »

Quite right, there are times when direct democracy could be useful. What exactly is the proposal though? Does it mean that the public can refer certain decisions to some other body or does it mean the public can refer anything they like? You can't govern a country with a decision making body of 4.5 million citizens dissecting each and every decision. That would be a recipe for disaster.

there are a number of different ways it could be done. But it has to be a good thing if our representatives are held accountable for what they do...and what better way of doing it than removing them power if they go back on the promises they made when they canvased the populous .

RangeR

PRAF wrote: »

Quite right, there are times when direct democracy could be useful. What exactly is the proposal though? Does it mean that the public can refer certain decisions to some other body or does it mean the public can refer anything they like? You can't govern a country with a decision making body of 4.5 million citizens dissecting each and every decision. That would be a recipe for disaster.

The way I proposed it back in May was that the people could attempt to counter a decision if they could get, say, 50,000 signatures. Having that many signatures prevents Joe public going against every decision Gov makes.

RangeR

EMail from Secretariat

To each member of the Convention,

I hope this finds you well and that you’re enjoying the summer break and the good weather.

I hate to bother you during August but the Chairman, Tom Arnold, has asked me to contact you about a matter that has arisen recently. As you know, the final meeting of the Convention is scheduled for the weekend 30 November - 1 December to discuss the "Any other amendments" element of the work programme. However, it now transpires that this meeting clashes with the Labour Party Conference in Killarney and we have received a request that we might consider postponing our meeting as all 7 members of the Labour will be unable to attend.

Any such postponement will require a change to the Oireachtas resolution which established the Convention as it means that we will be unable to complete our work programme within the year. If the Oireachtas is willing to extend the Convention timeframe to facilitate the postponement, it may also provide us with an opportunity to spend more time on the final element of the work programme. It would also give us more time to hold our series of regional meetings - we could do them over 6 weeks rather than the more frantic 7 meetings in 2 weeks which are currently planned.

The December meeting is still 5 months away and we have already received over 100 submissions on a variety of topics. It is ambitious to assume that we might do these subjects justice during the course of a single weekend so it may be opportune to request further time to schedule an additional meeting in the early part of next year.

The Chairman consulted with the Steering Group on the issue and it seems that there are strong views on both sides of the proposal, so it makes sense for him to ask the wider Convention for a view on whether we should:

(a) agree to postpone the December meeting until January: and

(b) seek extra time for an additional meeting to consider the “Any other Amendments” element of the work programme.


I would be grateful if you could respond to me on the two questions as soon as possible.

Kindest regards,

Now, I don't have an inherent problem with pushing this out, especially if we can use the original date for "any other business" but that also sort of defeats the purpose of the original request.

It does remind me of a meeting I attended when I was on the provisional Steering Group in that Sinn Fein made the same request. While the response wasn't an absolute, it was to the affect that time was not on our side and they should attempt to work around it. In the end, to their credit, they always made sure that there was at least one Sinn Fein member at the convention during the weekend of their Ard Fheis.

While I don't have an inherent problem with the request, I'm a stickler for the rules. If Sinn Fein were told no, Labour should be told no. I'm already pissed that rules were broken over the Seanad vote.

I will be responding No to [a] and Yes to

expectationlost

is there a chance AOB meeting might not happen is it too dangerous for Kenny's blood?

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

is there a chance AOB meeting might not happen is it too dangerous for Kenny's blood?

AOB will happen. We're looking for an extra date. AOB is already pencilled in for one weekend [along with blasphemy, I think, can't remember].

But we're also planning a "roadshow" type event where some of us, along with Tom, will be travelling to different towns in order to engage some of that AOB with the general public.

EDIT : The only way Kenny can stop AOB is to disband ccven before we get to it. That's highly unlikely.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

AOB will happen. We're looking for an extra date. AOB is already pencilled in for one weekend [along with blasphemy, I think, can't remember].

But we're also planning a "roadshow" type event where some of us, along with Tom, will be travelling to different towns in order to engage some of that AOB with the general public.

EDIT : The only way Kenny can stop AOB is to disband ccven before we get to it. That's highly unlikely.

why wasn't religious oaths for office holders and the other religious aspects of the constitution _specifically_ put along side blasphemy, we can see last week that this is a live issue with Gilmore having to swear to something he doubts.

Sand

expectationlost wrote: »

why wasn't religious oaths for office holders and the other religious aspects of the constitution _specifically_ put along side blasphemy, we can see last week that this is a live issue with Gilmore having to swear to something he doubts.

I don't think swearing to something he doubts has ever presented a problem to Gilmore.

RangeR

eMail back regarding allowing Labour delay and asking for time extension.

Thanks to all who responded to my e-mail last week.....

(a) Results

The results of the ballot were as follows from the 76 replies:

Should we postpone the December meeting until January?
Yes No Don’t know
66 - 9 - 1


Should we seek extra time for an additional meeting to consider the “Any other Amendments” element of the work programme?
Yes No Don’t know
72 - 4 - 0

The Chairman will therefore write to the Taoiseach this week seeking an extension to our terms of reference and I’ll talk to the Grand Hotel about getting weekends in January and February, 2014......the Steering Group will have a look at how best to manage the 2½ meetings for the final element of the work programme with a view to making a proposal to the full Convention meeting in September........

(b) Regional meetings in the Autumn

We’ll now have some additional time to organise the regional meetings over a 6-week period in October and November.......the dates arranged thus far are:
- Cork: 23rd October; and
- Galway: 30th October.

We’ll sort out dates for the remaining meetings in the next couple of weeks.

(c) Dail Electoral system report

For those of you who were with us for the meetings in May and June, I’ll shortly be circulating a draft report with our recommendations. As always, I’d be grateful for observations and suggestions – I’d like to send it to the Oireachtas Library before the end of the month.......

RangeR

More info via email.

As you know, the Convention decided to postpone December’s meeting and hold 2 meetings in the early part of next year to look at the “Any other Amendments” element of the work programme.....you might stick the following dates in your diaries for 2014 please - 1st & 2nd February and 22nd & 23rd February......the Steering Group will be meeting in a couple of weeks to decide how to organise these weekends to make best use of our time;

We’re organising the our regional meetings at the moment – the dates confirmed so far are:

§ Cork – 23rd October
§ Galway – 30th October
§ Waterford – 7th November
§ Dublin – 11th November

We’re working on further dates and venues for Sligo, Athlone, Dublin and Monaghan. When you get a chance, can you please let us know which venue will be most suitable for you to attend?

RangeR

I'm a little pissed. I'm starting to hear rumblings that Gov.ie gave the Presidential [and maybe voting for under 18's] little or no consideration and just drafted a report... Just went through the motions. I believe it was barely even discussed "in the round". They are also late on a few subsequent submissions and don't seem to be giving it any urgency whatsoever.

I'll try to get more founded info at the weekend.

expectationlost

so what are the chances of the seanad being discussed at the CC (even if they take legislative steps in the meantime anyway)

your booked up till xmas arn't you

is everyone tired giving up their weekends, hows the attrition rate

I think it would be useful to have a discussion on it, on both houses, executive dominence, legislation, the whip etc

you've got these regional open meetings atleast https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=32a1876f-f82c-e311-96d5-005056a32ee4