Legal Discussion: *Seanad Referendum*

Tom Young

Three options:

1. Abolish the Seanad entirely - leave sole authority to [Dail] - Vote Yes in real life;

2. Heavily reform Seanad - Retaining bicameral system of supervision - Vote No in real life;

3. Retain existing Status Quo - Do nothing - Vote No in real life.

Victor

Tom Young wrote: »

1. Abolish the Seanad entirely - leave sole authority to Oireachtas - Vote Yes in real life;

Do you mean "leave sole authority to Dáil"?

I wonder if such a situation arises if presidential powers should be beefed up?

Dandelion6

Hmmm. Ideally I'd prefer Option 2, but I'm likely to vote Yes in real life. I don't really trust the people running this country to come up with a decent reform. So I guess I can't really vote in this poll

Dandelion6

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Hmmm. Ideally I'd prefer Option 2, but I'm likely to vote Yes in real life. I don't really trust the people running this country to come up with a decent reform. So I guess I can't really vote in this poll

You don't trust the people who run this country to fix the Seanad so instead you'll abolish the 2nd House and effectively leave the Dail to do whatever it likes without even the perfunctory checks offered by the upper house?

hullaballoo

Practically every other progressive democracy in the world has two houses of parliament. There's a good reason for that. Abolition of the Senate is a political power-grab. Give the Senate some teeth to advance the democratic process.

Aside, I wonder is it a stroke of political genius for FG to install certain people in the Senate to give the referendum a greater chance of passing? Like the people who regularly make fools of themselves in public esp. relating to the phenomenon of when young people get raped on facebook?

Dandelion6

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't trust the people who run this country to fix the Seanad so instead you'll abolish the 2nd House and effectively leave the Dail to do whatever it likes without even the perfunctory checks offered by the upper house?

The "perfunctory" checks are just that. They aren't worth the expense of the place.

Marcusm

Unfortunately being resident broad for a number of years despite owning/maintaining property in Ireland and returning there each month, I am not entitled to vote on a change in the constitution I call home and expect to return to permanently. Maybe I feel there are better things to put to a referendum and I have little doubt that the mooted savings will not arise from any abolition. The problem with the Seanad is the gombeen nature of the bulk of its electorate which results in the bulk of seas gong to persons regarding it as a stepping stone into or away from the Dail. As a consequence, party whips have more influence and the desired plurality of opinions does not eventuate.

Cody Pomeray

I would reject abolition of the Seanad, and reject any reform of the Seanad that I have seen.

Most people seem to want universal suffrage. I don't think that's sensible. What's the point of just having a second Dáil Eireann? If anything, the Dáil twin would be even more impotent than the present Dáil, becoming its servile facilitator instead of its adversary. Why? Because of the party whip, mainly.

I believe in an Upper House with a more selective membership capable of facilitating complex solutions to administration. Ideally, this house would be house the cabinet, but not the Taoiseach, and would enjoy a significant influence, but not have the final say on democratic application of Cabinet policy.

I would also like to see a relaxation or abolition of the whip, whereby there would be an offence to forcibly compel a TD or Senator to vote in a certain way on pain of threatening his membership of a political party.

This would require a referendum, but most of the reforms would be non-constitutional.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Most people seem to want universal suffrage. I don't think that's sensible. What's the point of just having a second Dáil Eireann?

Potentially you allow a different voting system, e.g. have the citizenship subscribe to one of the vocational panels and elect people on that basis.

If anything, the Dáil twin would be even more impotent than the present Dáil, becoming its servile facilitator instead of its adversary. Why? Because of the party whip, mainly.

The party whip in the Seanad exists already.

I believe in an Upper House with a more selective membership

Sure.

capable of facilitating complex solutions to administration.

Parliaments don't do administration - that is the job of ministers and departments.

Ideally, this house would be house the cabinet, but not the Taoiseach, and would enjoy a significant influence, but not have the final say on democratic application of Cabinet policy.

Ministers have enough to do. Having them doing the checking of legislation would be meaningless - one should never do the checking of their own work.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Potentially you allow a different voting system, e.g. have the citizenship subscribe to one of the vocational panels and elect people on that basis.

I don't understand. What would be the ultimate goal of such a system - what's the actual point of the above?

The party whip in the Seanad exists already.

I am aware of that...

The point is that if it elected on the same basis, as has been suggested by some in the media, with the whip remaining, it becomes a mirror of the Dáil, and probably even less relevant.

Parliaments don't do administration - that is the job of ministers and departments.

What's this got to do with my suggestion? If you read the post, I clearly said the Senate would house the cabinet, the Cabinet would not ordinarily be involved in the democratic validation of the Lower House, barring the Taoiseach.

Ministers have enough to do. Having them doing the checking of legislation would be meaningless - one should never do the checking of their own work.

Sorry I have no idea what this means, it has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

To be clear: the Cabinet would form part of the upper house, where well informed and appropriately qualified members would debate matters of policy on a non-party basis (technically this is, in part, the present purpose of the Seanad). The political and democratic validation of their activities and proposals would arise in the lower house, by the regional representatives (TDs)

househero

Could we please add a 4th option???

ASK US what we want. That would keep the house in check.

Tom Young

The people will be asked abolish or not.

Yes or No.

Option two does what you ask above. Comment below.

househero

is there any available literature on the changes?

Tom Young

This is about the Seanad. Yes, a set of reform recommendations have been made and a counter abolition Bill.

househero

Tom Young wrote: »

This is about the Seanad. Yes, a set of reform recommendations have been made and a counter abolition Bill.

Where can I get a copy?

Are they online?


And you missed the point of my previous post. Instead of the Seanad, WE should be asked. After all the gov is there to fulfiil OUR wants.

shanered

Sure if we said no, they could always say we didn't understand and re-run it, sure thats the way votes happen in this country when we vote the "wrong" thing.

Marcusm

househero wrote: »

Where can I get a copy?

Are they online?


And you missed the point of my previous post. Instead of the Seanad, WE should be asked. After all the gov is there to fulfiil OUR wants.

ISn't it being discussed int he constitutional convention?

Tom Young

No, not presently on the agenda. Seanad Reform are trying to have it raised there.

dubrov

The poll is poorly worded and suggests something sinister if the Seanad is abolished.

The Dail are constrained by the constitution and ultimately, in modern day politics, by their popularity with the people.

hullaballoo

dubrov wrote: »

The poll is poorly worded and suggests something sinister if the Seanad is abolished.

The Dail are constrained by the constitution and ultimately, in modern day politics, by their popularity with the people.

The abolition of the upper house is something sinister.

I didn't understand your second remark so cannot comment on that.

househero

dubrov wrote: »

The poll is poorly worded and suggests something sinister if the Seanad is abolished.

The Dail are constrained by the constitution and ultimately, in modern day politics, by their popularity with the people.

If the upper house is abolished and WE the people are not given a veto vote on new laws. I see a danger if an extremest gov (nazis/religious extremists) were in power, there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from pushing through damaging/restrictive/backwards laws.

In fact, the current gov has already done exactly this, with the rushed midnight vote on the selling off of our national assets, appeasing the Europeans by quickly and secretly voting through our adoption of the Anglo Irish banks debt as a public burden (when other European countries such as Spain did not). Its dangerous with the current gov, never mind about a real right wing gov.

Tom Young

A note on the hidden agenda within the Seanad Abolition Bill:

Yesterday the government launched its campaign to abolish Seanad Éireann. During the course of their press conference both the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste emphasised that the question facing the people of Ireland in the referendum would be whether or not the people wished to retain or abolish Seanad Éireann.

This morning the 32nd amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 was published. Hidden within the detail of this Bill, which proposes 42 significant changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann, is a proposal that goes far beyond abolishing Seanad Éireann. Amendment No. 26 proposes the deletion of Article 27 from Bunreacht na hÉireann. Article 27 is the very innovative provision that permits legislation to be referred to the people. Article 27 is entitled “Reference of Bills to the People”. Article 27 gives power to the people of Ireland to express their views on a piece of legislation which contains “a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.”

Article 27 contains references to “both Houses of the Oireachtas” and, therefore, could have been subject to proposed amendments in the government’s Bill to exclude all references to Seanad Éireann. Strangely, the government has sought to remove this Article in its totality even though it has no bearing on the question of Seanad abolition. This can only be viewed as another power grab by an over powerful government. In this instance, however, the attempt to grab power is not from other parts of the Oireachtas but from the people. Article 27 and article 47.2, which the Government is also seeking to delete, invest in the people real power to veto legislation that contains proposals of national importance.

The government must explain why it is seeking to amend the constitution in this way.

By Jim O'Callaghan - Senior Counsel.

househero

Tom Young wrote: »

A note on the hidden agenda within the Seanad Abolition Bill:



By Jim O'Callaghan - Senior Counsel.

They are trying to sneakily remove our written right in the constitution, to vote on matters of national importance???

Or just how they are raised?

Tom Young

It's fairly clearly laid out in the quoted text. Here are some further aspects: http://lfsr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Seanad-Weakening.pdf

dubrov

Article 27 allows the Seanad to refer new legislation to a referendum.
It makes no sense if there is no Seanad.

It all comes down to how independent you view the Seanad to be from the Dail.
In recent years it has become a retirement scheme for failed politicians who always tow the line of the chief whip.

In an extremist government, I can't see the Seanad providing any additional protection as they would vote in line with their Dail colleagues.

It bewilders me why people think adding more politicians to the mix means more protection for the people.

The constitution protects the people from any crazy laws being passed int he Dail and a referendum would be required to change it.

Looking at the polls so far, it looks liek this will be rejected with most people looking for reform rather than abolition. I think that is kind of sad as it is the first step towards meaningful reform of our political system.

The next step should be to reduce the number of TDs to about 100 and we'll start seeing law making that is fair to all in this country. I can't see it happening though

Cody Pomeray

dubrov wrote: »

Article 27 allows the Seanad to refer new legislation to a referendum.
It makes no sense if there is no Seanad.

Article 27 makes very little sense.

The Seanad is effectively guaranteed a Government majority, except in quite exceptional circumstances. If Government representatives are willing to break the whip (which is an extreme step in Irish parliamentarianism), there is bound to exist a major enough party opposition to a bill simply to vote it down.

This probably explains why Article 27 has never been used to refer a bill to Ordinary Referendum.

And lets remember, it is just an ordinary Referendum whereby the Government could come back with a similar bill. This mechanism cannot be instigated to amend the Constitution.

hullaballoo

dubrov wrote: »

The constitution protects the people from any crazy laws being passed int he Dail and a referendum would be required to change it.

What provision(s) of the Constitution protect the people from "crazy laws" being passed?


I genuinely cannot understand anyone advancing the view that abolition is better than or even equivalent to reform. It's just bizarre.

dubrov

hullaballoo wrote: »

What provision(s) of the Constitution protect the people from "crazy laws" being passed?


I genuinely cannot understand anyone advancing the view that abolition is better than or even equivalent to reform. It's just bizarre.

The constitution as a whole protects the people. Propose a crazy law and I'm sure someone here will point out where it is unconstitutional.

Why not have a third house and maybe even a fourth house to keep the legislators in check?

Norway and Sweden operate with a single legislative chamber and are hardly bastions of corruption.

There are just too many politicians per head in this county.

hullaballoo

Really what you want is reform of the political system here i.e., reduce the overall costs to the people of government by reducing the number of politicians on the payroll.

Abolishing a fundamental aspect of a democratic republic (the upper house) is one way of doing that, but the cost to the democratic process is too high. Reducing the number of TDs and Senators will reduce the payroll and only have a minor effect on the democratic process.


I'm extraordinarily worried by the blatant power-grabbing and assassination of fundamental principles on which the State was built by the current government, but I'm even more worried about the people who are perfectly happy to go along with it. I cannot express how I think of people who actually defend what's going on. It would be unmannerly.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Corkbah

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

possibly the best idea would be reform the seanad - but we're not asked that .... the politicians are asking get rid or keep.

if we keep then the money is wasted on friends/family of politicians, if we get rid the politicians can change everything to benefit them and their families/friends ..... so as per usual the politician wins and the ordinary punter suffers.

ideally .... the seanad would not be politically affiliated people - and none of this shote that they donated but were not affiliated ...any links ...and its a no job scenario, they would be made up of different sectors of society - leaders in their areas or elected representatives in their field and should be replaced/voted on after X amount of years.

dubrov

hullaballoo wrote: »

the cost to the democratic process is too high. Reducing the number of TDs and Senators will reduce the payroll and only have a minor effect on the democratic process.

I have to disagree. Reducing the number of politicians would have a large impact on the democratic process. Parish pump politics would no longer work as TDs would need to make decisions that impacted positively on a much larger group of people.

Politicians can't just pass any law they want. They need to be in line with the constitution. Anyway, even if they did pass laws that were bad for the people, they would lose their support and be out of a job.

Victor

dubrov wrote: »

I have to disagree. Reducing the number of politicians would have a large impact on the democratic process. Parish pump politics would no longer work as TDs would need to make decisions that impacted positively on a much larger group of people.

For that to work properly, you also need a power shift towards local/regional government.

Politicians can't just pass any law they want. They need to be in line with the constitution. Anyway, even if they did pass laws that were bad for the people, they would lose their support and be out of a job.

All they would need to do is declare war on Mongolia and they can suspend 99% of the constitution.

Cody Pomeray

dubrov wrote: »

Norway and Sweden operate with a single legislative chamber and are hardly bastions of corruption.

True, but there are two problems with this assertion.

1. If people want to live under Swedish policy, they are quite free to go and live in Sweden. Here in Ireland, we have to decide what legislative framework best suits our needs and respects our standards.

2. One of the major reasons for maintaining the Seanad is that it is a "bloody headache" for the Cabinet in the words of one former Government Minister (Eamon Ryan). We have what may be the a more powerful cabinet than any other EEA state in its own jurisdiction. This cabinet threaten their party colleagues with career paralysis in the event of any legislative dissent, and compliance is strictly enforced.

Given the Cabinet's apparent unwillingness to resolve this quasi-authoritarian intervention in combatting ordinary parliamentary dissent, the least we can do is inform the Government that we are unhappy about any further concentration of power in their hands.

GerardKeating

househero wrote: »

If the upper house is abolished and WE the people are not given a veto vote on new laws. I see a danger if an extremest gov (nazis/religious extremists) were in power, there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from pushing through damaging/restrictive/backwards laws.

The Weimar Republic was effectivilly a Bicameralism system, with the Reichstag and the Reichsrat, but Hitler still came to power

househero wrote: »

In fact, the current gov has already done exactly this, with the rushed midnight vote on the selling off of our national assets, appeasing the Europeans by quickly and secretly voting through our adoption of the Anglo Irish banks debt as a public burden (when other European countries such as Spain did not). Its dangerous with the current gov, never mind about a real right wing gov.

All all this happend with the Seanad, so it does not give the protection you expect.

to99

The question is how will you vote in the Seanad referendum.

There is no vote to reform.

Voting 'no' is to retain not reform.

Thus, in my opinion the thread is disingenuous or misleading or simply misinterpreted the referendum.

There are only two options in the referendum; vote yes to abolish the Seanad or vote no to maintain the Status quo.

It's too late now but there should be a disclaimer in the initial post by the OP that the options given in the poll are not actually on offer in the referendum. It simply confuses people who couldn't be bothered to do their own research. The Government has not officially stated that it will reform the Seanad if people reject the referendum.

IMO the way the poll is even worded has a hint of unfairness. It's like saying 'You don't like that, do you?' As opposed to 'Do you like it, yes or no?'

A fairer poll would be to ask people how they are going to vote; yes or no and then people can give their reasons for doing so underneath the poll as they would normally do.

Tom Young

to99 wrote: »

The question is how will you vote in the Seanad referendum.

There is no vote to reform.

Voting 'no' is to retain not reform.

Thus, in my opinion the thread is disingenuous or misleading or simply misinterpreted the referendum.

There are only two options in the referendum; vote yes to abolish the Seanad or vote no to maintain the Status quo.

It's too late now but there should be a disclaimer in the initial post by the OP that the options given in the poll are not actually on offer in the referendum. It simply confuses people who couldn't be bothered to do their own research. The Government has not officially stated that it will reform the Seanad if people reject the referendum.

IMO the way the poll is even worded has a hint of unfairness. It's like saying 'You don't like that, do you?' As opposed to 'Do you like it, yes or no?'

A fairer poll would be to ask people how they are going to vote; yes or no and then people can give their reasons for doing so underneath the poll as they would normally do.

This poll was put up in advance of the final debates and indeed the question formulation for the referendum.

I disagree with your opinion, but you are entitled to it. The Reform question is in the poll for a clear reason.

Seanad doesn't work in current form and should be reformed. That is a valid question and position to underpin the No movement.

to99

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't trust the people who run this country to fix the Seanad so instead you'll abolish the 2nd House and effectively leave the Dail to do whatever it likes without even the perfunctory checks offered by the upper house?

The Seanad hasn't referred a bill in 49 years. It's only function is to act as a filibuster. It doesn't in reality provide any meaningful form of check or balance.

Since 1928, 12 reports on reform have been made on the Seanad, not a single reform has ever been introduced.

It is a little known fact that in 1979, a referendum was passed by a whopping 93% to reform the Seanad and in the 30+ years since, that reform has never been introduced.

It will never have any meaningful reform. It is a home for failed TD wannabes and rejects. The notion, that despite past failure to reform it, we will suddenly see meaningful reform because of this referendum is a fallacy.

In Europe, Ireland is the only small, unitary state with a second house and ludicrously only 1% of the population elected the current Seanad. It is undemocratic and ineffectual.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

to99 wrote: »

Since 1928, 12 reports on reform have been made on the Seanad, not a single reform has ever been introduced.

That's hardly accurate.

Lets not forget the Seanad has previously been abolished in its history.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The original senate ofthe Irish Free State was abolished in May 1936. De Valera reintroduced the concept of the Seanad in the 1937 constitution.

Cody Pomeray

They didn't even have to have a referendum last time around. It was abolished by an Act of the Oireachtas, via quite an amazing level of power wielded by that parliament.

Plus ca change.

Grolschevik

I'm in favour of reform of both Houses of the Oireachtas, but my preferred reform is so unlikely as to be in the realms of speculative political philosophy.

Ideally, though, I'd like to see a Seanad directly elected by county by STV. So one (or two?) Senators elected by STV per county. These would focus on the representation of local clientelistic issues that we Irish seem to love so much -- potholes, passoports and the like.

The Dail: I would reduce in numbers to around 100 and elect solely on a a PR list system, thus removing localistic concerns from this chamber.

But... never gonna happen!

Dani Pacheco

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTEnNnFIcAAcbuU.jpg:large

Incredibly cynical posters pro-abolition. Really lowest common denominator populist stuff.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

People had enough cop on to reject full investigative powers for for Oireachtas Inquiries already, presumably fearing an abuse of process. All they needed was a glimpse into a dangerous vista opened to them by the former A.G's.

I think another solemn column of A.G's should be sufficient to beat populist rhetoric once again.

Tom Young

The Seanad Abolition Bill goes far further than simple Seanad Abolition. The 75 + mentions in the Seanad are removed, but so to are some extremely important provisions, without traige and reimplementation in the dysfunctional lower house.

The Irish system of politics is completely different to NZ and DK, unicameral systems require larger local politicians and governance, as well as devolved power. Newsflash: FG nixed that recently with Labour support.

Further, the 529 + Amendments to legislation that would otherwise be subject to the whip, during the lifespan of the current Government are a major tell. The Seanad is broken, killing it should not be an option.

The cost saving argument is lost already, no savings at all. Redirection to Dail committees, and the €20 million figure is completely at odds with the €10 million evidenced by the Clerk of the Dail recently.

This is a power grab, bringing power to a chamber that itself is broken beyond recovery.

Tom

Sysmod

The Referendum booklet p6 says that the possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed.
I thought this referendum was only about removing the Seanad? If the current rule is to require one third of members to the Dail to ask the president, why is that power of the Dail being removed, rather than being retained or maybe extended to say one half?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

Sysmod wrote: »

The Referendum booklet p6 says that the possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed.
I thought this referendum was only about removing the Seanad?

At present, the Seanad has a role in referring bills to the President, which it shares with (a minority of) the Dáil.

If the President refuses to sign that Bill at the request of the Seanad (and a minority of the Dáil), then there will be what is called an "ordinary referendum".

We have never had an "ordinary referendum" because this tool has never been used by the Senators.

So while we may have had non-activist Seanad members in the past, the institution is itself capable of enhancing the voice of the Irish people.

Lets not blame the institutional design for the democratic torpidity of its membership. Time to shoot them in the foot, not us.