Legal Discussion: *Seanad Referendum*

Tom Young

A lawyers, many are agog at the lack of information arising from the RefCom and also, this is the most significant constitutional amendment via Referendum ever.

I agree that it's a power grab. FG/SF campaigns are crass and populist.

If I could, I'd ask you all to vote NO.

to99

Tom Young wrote: »

A lawyers, many are agog at the lack of information arising from the RefCom and also, this is the most significant constitutional amendment via Referendum ever.

I agree that it's a power grab. FG/SF campaigns are crass and populist.

If I could, I'd ask you all to vote NO.

How can you grab power off something that has no power?

The only thing the Seanad can do is delay a bill by 90 days and the last time it did this was in 1964.

It is literally a pointless talking shop for failed TDs and a crèche for wannabe politicians which costs us millions every year.

dubrov

Have to agree.
Repeatedly using the term "power grab" is just scaremongering.
Having a Dáil-controlled Seanad as a second line of defence against the Dáil is no protection at all.

A two house system did nothing to prevent Hitler's ascension to power in Germany.

Looks like the Seanad is here to stay though. A large proportion of the electorate are in favour of reform and it looks like they will vote against the referendum

Tom Young

to99 wrote: »

How can you grab power off something that has no power?

The only thing the Seanad can do is delay a bill by 90 days and the last time it did this was in 1964.

It is literally a pointless talking shop for failed TDs and a crèche for wannabe politicians which costs us millions every year.

Fine Gael would not bother scrapping something that didn't have power. Don't be fooled.

In the past 2.5 years when the current Government had time to Reform, they did nothing. The announcements last week are insulting, even to many sensible voices in their own party.

Wider voting franchise has been ready for implementation since 1979, this Government denied the electorate that ability.

Power: Originating legislation - 43 Bills since life of current Government. 1 non Government sponsored.

Amendments: 529, that would otherwise not have happened with the whips, guillotine and codology that goes on in the Dáil.

Government amendments argument is weak, mostly the Government says that the amendments are 'theirs' ...fine, but they didn't have them in prior to the final stage. Ergo, NO Seanad - No amendments.

A staggering 245 amendments were made to the Personal Insolvency Bill - in the Seanad It remains imperfectly formed.


The Flawed Basis:

1. €20 Million is not being saved, its being diverted. The real figure in the short term is €9.3 Million as stated and on record by the clerk of the Dáil who is also on RefCom. FG stating on Facebook that €20 Million could employ 100 secondary teachers, it won't. Nobody buys it - FG received €2 Million which should be returned if the Seanad goes and further, the pensions for former Senators only time out 5 years after they die.

2. Fewer politicians, no, more patronage and expert committee nonsense, paid for by the above - no saving at all.

3. Single House, all of the countries cites by FG as examples of unicameral excellence are with the exception of New Zealand, not common law and have highly devolved local and regional Government structures. Ireland does not. Primarily due to savage austerity.

-NZ due to move back to bicameralism;
-DK massive devolved power;
-NO " ";
-Finland and Sweden - As above. Sweden has about 50,000 people involved in local, regional and national politics.

There are no preconditions in place for moving to a single house. It's centralised Governance 101.

4. End to Elitism & Austerity. Removing the Seanad will create a new elite and speed up austerity. That is a fact.

SF want to bring back the Seanad according to senior party sources. That's great! Just like happening prior to 1937 - no. Gerry Adams called the Referendum 'a sham' the speech is here: http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26925


Legal Concerns:

1. Removal of referral and delay powers - not future proofed into new modus op. Arts 23/27 - gone. The countries mooted as exemplars all have delay powers for the equivalent of TDs (TDs should not be happy about that);

2. Categorisation of Money Bills and priority legislation with reference to the President - gone;

3. Technocratic appointments to cabinet - Art 28.8.2 - instead, this could have been edited to have a member of the Dáil be appointed - again no future proofing.

4. 75 mentions and edits required for Seanad's removal, no 32 in the abolition Bill.

5. Seanad Abilition - 32nd Amendment is a total distraction from the Court of Appeal 33rd Amendment. Voters likely to hit out at FG/LAB may vote NO to both. Stupid planning on the part of Government.

6. The Constitution is been tinkered around with by this Government now, just enough. It is not something that should be just tippexed at a moments notice. The electorate are almost delirious and tired from Referendums - turnout likely to be white collar - who will see this for what it is. STUNT.

7. The proposed amendments for the removal of a Judge or the President are in the gift of the whip system - Taoiseach.

8. Government proposed Reform's this week, as a carrot to Seanad abolition only bring the state in to the late 1980's, no further.

The Referendum is:

1. A power grab;

2. The most deep and intrusive Constitutional change in 76 years;

3. Not future proofed, which may effect the Dáil in the future - and rights;

4. Designed to remove an inconvenience from the legislative process for the Government - Why so many amendments - 500+ ....?

5. Pitched to be reform at committee level in Dáil. Everyone knows what that means - patronage, whips, etc.

6. Costing €14 Million separately that could actually have gone elsewhere. The Government figures simply not stacking up.

Very telling sign was this week when those associated with the One House movement decried the Dáil reform plans as being insignificant and to little to late.

I still say No is the only option.

This Referendum is, and should be, an anathema to self-respecting lawyers, who have even given this a cursory glance.

Tom

Tom Young

Also, the Government should have sent this to their much praised Constitutional Convention, there we go again, more proof - afraid of results and debate.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

to99

Tom Young wrote: »

Amendments: 529, that would otherwise not have happened with the whips, guillotine and codology that goes on in the Dáil.

Those 529 amendments were all Government amendments.

Also, the previous administration who are now hysterically advocating for a yes vote did absolutely nothing with 3 reports on reform given to them in the last 16 years.

The Seanad can in no credible way be said to “hold the Government to account” now. How then does it suddenly become a “dissenting voice”, or a “check and balance”? The Seanad has little or no power – it is the Dáil and Dáil committees that will hold the Government to account.

Tom Young

This is a very illconceived plan.

The Seanad has power, saying otherwise is wrong. It ain't perfect but that's no reason to kill it.

Government amendments argument is weak, mostly the Government says that the amendments are 'theirs' ...fine, but they didn't have them in prior to the final stage. Ergo, NO Seanad - No amendments.

A staggering 245 amendments were made to the Personal Insolvency Bill - in the Seanad. It remains imperfectly formed.

Michael Noonan on written PQ answer stating that plenty of amendments come cross house, in Seanad Éireann.

We are being sold a pup. Don't buy it.

dubrov

Tom, your main argument seems to be "abolition = savage austerity" but you fail to back it up with any real evidence, just a load of opinion.

Your opinion may or may not turn out to be true but scaremongering with phrases like "savage austerity", "anathema", "new elite" etc. does not really add anything to your argument.

Your "Flawed Basis" seems to have a few flaws of its own:

Tom Young wrote: »

The Flawed Basis:

1. €20 Million is not being saved, its being diverted. The real figure in the short term is €9.3 Million as stated and on record by the clerk of the Dáil who is also on RefCom. FG stating on Facebook that €20 Million could employ 100 secondary teachers, it won't. Nobody buys it - FG received €2 Million which should be returned if the Seanad goes and further, the pensions for former Senators only time out 5 years after they die.

OK, I accept the saving is debatable but it is still a saving. Even if it the saved money is not spent, it will go to reducing the budget deficit. Anyway, this is hardly a reason to keep the Seanad

Tom Young wrote: »

2. Fewer politicians, no, more patronage and expert committee nonsense, paid for by the above - no saving at all.

Fewer politicians is an improvement in my opinion. I'd much prefer an expert committee doing the analysis than msot of the current Seanad lineup. In reality Seanad members already consult experts anyway.

Tom Young wrote: »

3. Single House, all of the countries cites by FG as examples of unicameral excellence are with the exception of New Zealand, not common law and have highly devolved local and regional Government structures. Ireland does not. Primarily due to savage austerity.

-NZ due to move back to bicameralism;
-DK massive devolved power;
-NO " ";
-Finland and Sweden - As above. Sweden has about 50,000 people involved in local, regional and national politics.

There are no preconditions in place for moving to a single house. It's centralised Governance 101.

Since when is NZ due to move back to bicameralism. The last serious attempt I can see is back in 1990 (23 years ago) and that seems to have died due to lack of support/interest.

It does highlight that abolition of the Seanad does not rule out reform at a future stage though.

Tom Young wrote: »

4. End to Elitism & Austerity. Removing the Seanad will create a new elite and speed up austerity. That is a fact.

I think you need to recheck your definition of the word "fact".

Tom Young

dubrov wrote: »

Tom, your main argument seems to be "abolition = savage austerity" but you fail to back it up with any real evidence, just a load of opinion.

Your opinion may or may not turn out to be true but scaremongering with phrases like "savage austerity", "anathema", "new elite" etc. does not really add anything to your argument.

Your "Flawed Basis" seems to have a few flaws of its own:



OK, I accept the saving is debatable but it is still a saving. Even if it the saved money is not spent, it will go to reducing the budget deficit. Anyway, this is hardly a reason to keep the Seanad



Fewer politicians is an improvement in my opinion. I'd much prefer an expert committee doing the analysis than msot of the current Seanad lineup. In reality Seanad members already consult experts anyway.



Since when is NZ due to move back to bicameralism. The last serious attempt I can see is back in 1990 (23 years ago) and that seems to have died due to lack of support/interest.

It does highlight that abolition of the Seanad does not rule out reform at a future stage though.



I think you need to recheck your definition of the word "fact".

Well I don't agree. You can nitpick all you like.

Having a cabal of unelected patron experts review legislation is unfavourable.

Despite constitutional difficulties, number of TDs hasn't been reduced as promised.

New Zealand: "as recently as 2010 the influential New Zealand Policy Unit of the Centre for Independent Studies proposed the readoption of a bicameral parliamentary structure (again in the context of abandoning the mixed-member proportional system)." http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/seanad-abolition-would-not-close-the-issue-of-bicameralism-1.1522474

There are other examples. This is a project for fully central governance.

Taking the Seanad out, or attempting to do it is costing us all 14 million Euro. Hardly going to shore up national debt, but might employ someone. Removing it now will consign it to the history books.

Abolition is not reform.

I stand over my remarks about a new elite.

A responsible vote, is a No vote.

Tom Young

RefComm confirm that the FG €20 Million claim is unsupported.

http://referendum2013.ie/referendum-commission-writes-to-houses-of-the-oireachtas-commission-on-seanad-costs/

Vote No.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dubrov

Tom. It's hardly nitpicking. I thought this was a discussion and I was simply providing a counter to some of your arguments which I believe are exaggerated and in some cases fabricated.

For example, your last post implies that the "New Zealand Policy Unit of the Centre for Independent Studies" are implementing a project to re-establish the Senate. Alll they are is an independent think tank. It may stimulate some debate on the issue but it looks like that hasn't even happened.

Using your logic, the senate in the United States will be abolished shortly.

There are plenty of good reasons to have a Seanad, although very few to retain the Seanad in its current form.

Tom Young wrote: »

Having a cabal of unelected patron experts review legislation is unfavourable.

Sounds like you are in favour of abolition.

Can you please quote a source indicating that the abolition of the Senate will cost us all €14 million?

Tom Young

Parliamentary Question Reply on 30th April 2013 on Referendum Expenditure
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): The

Referendum on the Protection of Children was held on the 10th November, 2012.

Returning Officers are required to submit their accounts for the Referendum to the Minister for Finance not later than six months after the date on which the poll was conducted and so the total cost of the Referendum is not available at this time.

An estimated breakdown of the costs is as follows:
Advances to Returning Officers
€10,503,309.00
OPW:
€342,696.00
An Post:
€1,496,182.00
Referendum Commission:
€1,700,000.00
Total:
€14,042,187.00

This gives a minimum estimate of the costs of the forthcoming Seanad referendum of €14.5m at the very least (including Civil Appeals Court

Referendum being run on the same day)
• The total gross annual salary costs for the 60 members of the Seanad is €4.2million – the net cost is about €3million.
• It would take over four years to save in net salary costs what the government proposes to spend in one day on a referendum – except that it is spending the €14+m now and won’t get any of the supposed savings until 2016 at the earliest.

dubrov

Ah ok, you are referring to the staging of the referendum.
I agree it is expensive but if we waited to bundle it in with other referendum issues, I'm sure there would be complaints that this issue doesn't receive enough attention.

A few other things, you talk about gross spend on the referendum but then net saving on the Seanad. You need to compare like with like to be fair.

Surely, the Seanad's cost of running is more than just the Senator salaries as well.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the €14m is a once off cost while the cost of running the seanad is recurring. This will probably increase in line with inflation at infinitum.

Even if the referendum cost €50m, there would still be a long term saving to the state in axing the Seanad.

Tom Young

The pitched 'savings' are not being saved but channeled in to committees chock full of expert patrons.

€14 million of our money being spent; no savings. Period.

This is (unusually to quote Gerry Adams) "A Sham".

There is no dispute, the crass campaign has been debunked.

Vote No. Stop the lies and power grab.

to99

Tom Young wrote: »

The pitched 'savings' are not being saved but channeled in to committees chock full of expert patrons.

€14 million of our money being spent; no savings. Period.

This is (unusually to quote Gerry Adams) "A Sham".

There is no dispute, the crass campaign has been debunked.

Vote No. Stop the lies and power grab.

Tom, that is simply untrue and has never been established. It's grossly unfair to throw out a line like that as if it were fact.

FG have already suggested that the money saved by reducing the no. of TDs (which is part of the Dail reform) would be more than enough to cover the cost of the committees.

Please don't make blanket statements like that, when no one (and no, paraphrasing Howlin and twisting it in the way that John Crown did) has said that.

Tom Young

Let me just find the PQ to and answer from Minister Howlin on that and we'll see.

johnnyskeleton

1. Keep the Seanad

2. Reduce the senator pay to nothing - people have to volunteer their time to assist the country.

3. Reduce expenses to vouched trainfare and reasonable hotel expenses.

4. Parties can pay their senators if they wish

5. Likewise with parliamentary aides etc

6. Reduce the number of tds significantly and allow them to run on a national level on a party basis.

7. Senators to be appointed to specific roles eg doctor, lawyer, victims of crime support, social welfare advocate, minority rights advocate etc and be given a platform to advise on anything that affects their specific area of expertise.

Why can't some or all of the above be done to achieve greater democracy, save costs and prevent the Seanad being a place to dump unwanted politicians?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Dandelion6 wrote: »

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

The "expense" is a drop in the bucket and a distraction to avoid the holes in the "yes" campaign's arguments.

FreudianSlippers

One of the things that has been wrecking my head is the non-stop line that it will be "more democratic" if we abolish the Seanad. Oh really? Is it "more democratic" that despite calls for a reform option on the referendum, the Taoiseach just decided he didn't want to do that? We're really going to give the government all of the cards here?

dubrov

Well in fairness, proposed reforms would take a long time to agree so would've delayed any referendum significantly. There is nothing to rule out a reformed Seanad at a later stage whichever way the vote goes.

Whatever people think of TDs in the Dáil, they are still democratically elected officials. All Irish citizens are entitled to a vote. The same cannot be said of the Seanad.

The main question is whether the Seanad has really delivered any value to the Irish people.
It is not good enough to simply state that they keep the Dáil in check when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why not have a 3rd house that could debate the debates that are debated in the Seanad?
We could also have a 4th house to debate the furniture and fittings of the 3rd house.

Tom Young

Simple: Abolition is not Reform.

Seanad has power, otherwise they wouldn't be abolishing it.

Origination of legislation - 43 Bills in this Government's term;

Amendments to Legislation - 529, again in this term.

It's rubbish to suggest that the amendments were simply Government as they weren't but are usually accepted as Government amendments which allows the FG propaganda machine spin that yarn.

Noonan & Howlin both confirmed cross house amendments occur frequently.

Vote No. This Referendum should be abhorrent to anyone with half a legal brain or a scintilla of respect for our Constitution.

This is a power grab and a crassly campaigned for one at that.

No Savings; No pre-conditions for a single house; No fewer politicians.

Don't believe the mendacious hype that's being channelled through every vent of the media by FG.

Grolschevik

Less representation and debate, regardless of the nature of that representation and debate, is never more democratic.

dubrov

Grolschevik wrote: »

Less representation and debate, regardless of the nature of that representation and debate, is never more democratic.

Well if that debate is performed by individuals who were not democratically elected, then you could argue it is more undemocratic.

Debates would be biased to represent the interests of a proportion of the population

Tom Young

Abolition is not Reform.

Open it, don't close it.

Vote No.

Cody Pomeray

dubrov wrote: »

Well if that debate is performed by individuals who were not democratically elected, then you could argue it is more undemocratic.

You could, if it were not for the pervasive nature of the whip in the Dáil.

At the moment, the Seanad acts as a counterweight, because the whip is less effective in the Seanad, and even party-affiliated Senators are more free in their debates.

So the Seanad might be less democratic than the Dáil at first glance, but in reality it provides a less whipped chamber, which is usually more reflective of public opinion than the whipped TDs are.

I'd settle for a compromise of abolition of Seanad Éireann if the British parliamentary whip system were introduced in Dáil Éireann.

Should we abolish the Seanad without the Government bringing anything like that to the table? No, that would be stupid. Why would we want to damage our democracy like that?

johnnyskeleton

dubrov wrote: »

Why not have a 3rd house that could debate the debates that are debated in the Seanad?
We could also have a 4th house to debate the furniture and fittings of the 3rd house.

Because experience has shown us that two levels is optimum - the first house drafts the legislation and the second house scrutinises it. Each one keeps the other in check.

Heads the ball

Something that just occurred to me yesterday is the whole issue that is made of the Seanad "cost." I havent seen the costings for the new Court of appeal though.

Now i get that the wider argument is probably something along the lines of "we dont need a Seanad or our Seanad doesnt really work and by the way it costs 20m a year which we will now "save""

Still, personally, it seems odd that there is no debate the Court of appeal in relation to its cost.

Cody Pomeray

The only ball park figure I've heard about the court of appeal is €2-3 million (David Nolan). It's not a significant enough amount of money, in national terms, to become a serious issue but it has been raised.

Heads the ball

Fair enough, although I think that could be open to scrutiny and debate. I mean if you pay 10 judges 200k I think you get to 2million (this is probably rounding upwards on the number of judges and rate of pay). But wouldnt you have similiar overheads compared to the Seanad too? Also, frankly, the bar council wouldnt exactly be ambivalent.

Im certainly not trying to hijack the Seanad thread but it seems that the political algebra might become interesting if the public became aware that the referenda proposals could potentially be cost-neutral. In other words, if someone accepts the lower cost estimate of the Seanad of 6.5 mill and say a court of appeal costs 5m (I made that figure up) those voters who are keen on "savings" might vote to abolish the Seanad and reject the COA.

Cody Pomeray

Well the difference with the court of appeal is that you have to balance the accounting cost of the court of appeal with the the opportunity cost of not investing in it.

In other words, what is the economic cost of long waiting lists under the current system? How many businesses' and individuals' economic success, projects and investments are destroyed or undermined by legal inefficiencies?

The commercial court is a great facility but its right of entry is limited (and should be).

To bring it back to the Seanad debate, the cost of the Seanad is pretty straightforward. The cost of not having a court of appeal may be greater than the accounting cost of that court.

Heads the ball

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well the difference with the court of appeal is that you have to balance the accounting cost of the court of appeal with the the opportunity cost of not investing in it.

In other words, what is the economic cost of long waiting lists under the current system? How many businesses' and individuals' economic success, projects and investments are destroyed or undermined by legal inefficiencies?

The commercial court is a great facility but its right of entry is limited (and should be).

To bring it back to the Seanad debate, the cost of the Seanad is pretty straightforward. The cost of not having a court of appeal may be greater than the accounting cost of that court.

I agree with your point re balancing the opportunity cost. But Im not sure there has been any debate on whether the cost/benefit of the court is favourable or not.

Also, surely there should be the same cost/benefit analysis of the Seanad. What would be the opportunity cost associated with the 500+ amendments to legislation proposed by the current Seanad? No such analysis was carried out as far as I am aware.

Overall my point is that it seems that it doesnt behove the academy to get into the cost debate for both limbs of the referenda. I think its something of a con-job personally and a very skewed debate. I think the powers are hoping that their populus drivel will get the amendments through.