Campaign to save the Seanad launched

ressem

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I know these are government reforms here; but I would like to ask this question. If the Seanad was eventually reformed in the future; how in your view; would EU Regulations be debated there in adequate time if they were already enacted into law?

My own view is that if our government gave time to the Seanad to debate on upcoming EU legislation in the future. Would it not require a treaty change to do that in terms of debating EU regulations within national parliaments?

It is somehow useful in one way when debating on EU Directives though.

I also don't like the system of The Taoiseach of the day having to keep all of the 11 nominees in any circumstance. I think that the way it is handled in the past is too corrupt & misguided for a Modern Ireland.

I like the idea to see all nominated people to run for Senator (not past senators) on a independent basis by being voted through the public system via the local & European Elections. We can do this as a people by getting rid of a system where past or present senators do have votes (albeit a very small number) from universities and the like.

The idea of having to attempt to get say about 1,500 votes to get into a political institution does not even stand up to scrutiny in any other proper democracy.

I am not of abolishing the Seanad myself now as I am in favour of reform.

But; I do believe that this plan from the current government is an ambitious one to make our state parliament ungovernable (If the situation came to light that our Seanad was completely abolished).

How could our parliament function in this manner? It is just simply a ludicrous idea.

The EU law has to be interpreted into Irish law, amending existing legislation and allocating responsibility. Often this is a single line in some existing act, but the FG whip has mentioned that this goes straight through, undiscussed and unamended and that is a risk.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/statutory.html

The suggestion is that the replacement to the senate will be made up entirely of the taoiseach's special advisers. I fail to see how that proposal is more democratic or accountable, than an elected Seanad amended using the Seanad Reform bill currently waiting for Dail debate.

The Dail would function in the same manner as today, but I can't see that there would be an improvement of the quality of legislation without major reform. I suspect that we're unlikely to see the new voting system suggested by the constitutional convention, nor even the suggestion to remove the Dail whip at committee stage when drafting legislation.

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

3. deletes Article 27, the reference of bills to the people by the President.

I can actually see why: the President never had the power to do so on his or her own initiative, but only if petitioned by a majority of senators and a third of TDs. Absent the Senate, a bill that had reached the President for signature would already have been passed by a majority in the single chamber, so there's no reasonable prospect of such a petition happening.

4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.

This is a more serious concern for me. It opens the possibility of a Finance bill being blatantly and self-evidently unconstitutional, but immune from challenge by the Supreme Court. It comes across as another attack on the already limited separation of powers.

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

4. makes money bills immune from constitutional scrutiny.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It opens the possibility of a Finance bill being blatantly and self-evidently unconstitutional, but immune from challenge by the Supreme Court

Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.

The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.

The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.

Fair enough - I hadn't had time to read the bill when I commented earlier and was reacting to Scofflaw's interpretation, but now that I've had a look, the situation doesn't seem to have changed: it already isn't possible for the President to refer money bills to the Supreme Court, but - as you say - that doesn't inhibit an ordinary challenge.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Money bills are not immune from an ordinary Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, nor have they been, nor will they be if this amendment is passed. Money bills have been challenged in the past.

The applicant may run into locus standi issues, but these are not insurmountable.

Yes, I should really wait on interpretation until I have a consolidated version of Bunreacht, because that's two out of the three points I made incorrect so far! The point with this one is more that there is no longer any separate check on whether a bill is a money bill.

cordially,
Scofflaw

_Kaiser_

PRAF wrote: »

Woah there! A bit over cynical here I think. Fair enough if you think that abolishing the Seanad is just rearranging the deck chairs. However, to say that we are incapable of self-governance and should go back to being (presumably) a part of the UK without our own govt is quite frankly ludicrous.

Explain to me then why we should continue to have our own government then? Genuine question - can you defend or contradict any of the points I made for not having it?

I'd argue that the Irish Government has in fact done more harm than good to the citizens of this country over the last 100 years, and between the last lot selling us out completely and the current lot determined to follow the same course there can be no justification for retaining either House.

All Home Rule has done is provide an easy way for local gombeen men to fill their pockets (alongside the occasional pothole), inflate a civil/public service to ridiculous proportions that we could never afford (and no that's not a pot-shot at the PS as I worked there for almost 5 years myself, but I can still recognize the problems), allowed the Catholic Church to hold back the social development of the country for decades (which is a big part of why we are so incapable of effective self-governance.. we were conditioned for generations to accept the word of our "betters" unquestioningly), and when we finally got past that, we sold the whole lot off to the EU for some new roads and money for farmers and STILL managed to piss away the biggest windfall/boom this country is ever likely to see!

I'm not saying we need to go back to the UK as a subjugated nation, but it's clear to me that we just aren't ready for the responsibility and duty of care that should come with running a country. It's equally clear the EU hasn't got our interests at heart and never will - a problem that'll only get worse as more countries join with THEIR own agendas until it collapses under its own weight.

If we rejoined the UK, not much would really change .. we'd still watch the same TV, still follow the same Premier League clubs, still shop in the same stores (which I dare say would cover the concerns of 90% of the electorate), but we might benefit from a system which has shown it's not afraid to put its own national interests first and has the clout to be taken seriously when it does so and where when politicians and others do wrong, they actually DO face real consequences - as opposed to the expensive and ultimately toothless tribunals we hold (remember CJH's state funeral? Bertie doing the lecture circuit, Bruton being paid a fortune from state coffers while he lobbies for his banking buddies, Cowen retired with his fat pension while the general public's has been raided and decimated.. and those are just the tips of the multiple icebergs!)

Seriously, I challenge ANYONE here to defend that record and tell me we are capable of self-governance

PRAF

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'd argue that the Irish Government has in fact done more harm than good to the citizens of this country over the last 100 years

Firstly, I'm not a staunch republican by any means and I couldn't give a rats backside about the Catholic church. However, I find the whole "lets rejoin the UK" thing a little bit offensive. Are you seriously saying that Irish governments over the last 100 years have done more harm to the Irish people than what happened in the previous 100 years:
- The famine
- The conscription of young Irish people to fight colonial wars
- Religious persecution

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

All Home Rule has done is provide an easy way for local gombeen men to fill their pockets (alongside the occasional pothole), inflate a civil/public service to ridiculous proportions that we could never afford (and no that's not a pot-shot at the PS as I worked there for almost 5 years myself, but I can still recognize the problems), allowed the Catholic Church to hold back the social development of the country for decades (which is a big part of why we are so incapable of effective self-governance.. we were conditioned for generations to accept the word of our "betters" unquestioningly), and when we finally got past that, we sold the whole lot off to the EU for some new roads and money for farmers and STILL managed to piss away the biggest windfall/boom this country is ever likely to see!

I actually agree with some of the above. I detest parochialism, "Rome Rule", and the addiction of Irish farmers to CAP payments. However, it's not all bad. Having an Irish government has allowed for the saving of the Irish language, the rebirth of Irish culture (literature, music, etc), the building of the Irish economy, investment in Irish sports, etc. Would you prefer if Dingle was a bit more like Doncaster? How about if Connemara was a bit more like Coventry? No thanks for me

Also lets not forget that we are not the only country with problems. The UK has massive problems with social inequality, high incarceration rates, racial tensions, etc.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'm not saying we need to go back to the UK as a subjugated nation

What exactly are you suggesting then?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If we rejoined the UK, not much would really change .. we'd still watch the same TV, still follow the same Premier League clubs, still shop in the same stores (which I dare say would cover the concerns of 90% of the electorate), but we might benefit from a system which has shown it's not afraid to put its own national interests first

How would rejoining the UK help us to further our national interests? We'd either be ruled by the English Conservatives or the English Labour party. We'd have no voice in Europe. Kiss goodbye to Ireland chairing any EU discussions.

Why, when Scotland is seeking more independence, do you think we should seek less independence.

_Kaiser_

PRAF wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not a staunch republican by any means and I couldn't give a rats backside about the Catholic church. However, I find the whole "lets rejoin the UK" thing a little bit offensive. Are you seriously saying that Irish governments over the last 100 years have done more harm to the Irish people than what happened in the previous 100 years:
- The famine
- The conscription of young Irish people to fight colonial wars
- Religious persecution

Religious persecution continues to this day (albeit thankfully in a much reduced form) not so many miles up the road. You could equally argue the Catholic Church still holds undue influence over our education system as well necessitating many parents to have their kids baptised so they can be given a place in the local primary school.

Conscription is a normal thing in many countries but what about those who volunteered for service and were treated as traitors as a result?

I actually agree with some of the above. I detest parochialism, "Rome Rule", and the addiction of Irish farmers to CAP payments. However, it's not all bad. Having an Irish government has allowed for the saving of the Irish language, the rebirth of Irish culture (literature, music, etc), the building of the Irish economy, investment in Irish sports, etc. Would you prefer if Dingle was a bit more like Doncaster? How about if Connemara was a bit more like Coventry? No thanks for me

The Irish language is one of the biggest wastes of resources and drain on our education system there is. Forcing generation of kids to learn a practically dead language that most will have forgotten 2 years after completing the LC and is of virtually zero value to them afterwards. We'd be a lot better teaching kids useful skills like Computers and languages like German, French, Spanish etc that might help them compete for the jobs that are currently being filled by others from the EU.

The Irish economy??! Have you missed the last 5 years or the fact that our "boom" was built on a house of cards that the next generation will still be paying for. The country is bankrupt - even though there are many who are still in denial.

Given that many of our main streets resemble British High Streets as it is (have a wander down Grafton St next time you're in town), the presence of Tesco in most large towns and other UK chains, I'd argue we're already there with the resemblance.

Also lets not forget that we are not the only country with problems. The UK has massive problems with social inequality, high incarceration rates, racial tensions, etc.

And we don't? Have a look through last week's news reports about the fighting on the beach on the north side with gangs of black vs white kids facing off.

We have taken in a lot of foreign nationals but very little effort has been made to encourage or assist these people with integrating into their new country and this is a situation that will only escalate as our "PC" left-wing attitudes mean that anyone who even raises this as a concern is immediately branded a xenophobic racist and marginalised regardless of how valid their opinions may actually be.

How would rejoining the UK help us to further our national interests? We'd either be ruled by the English Conservatives or the English Labour party. We'd have no voice in Europe. Kiss goodbye to Ireland chairing any EU discussions.

And what exactly is chairing EU discussions doing for us other than costing us money - or did you not see the report that 900! Gardai are to be tasked to the G8 summit?
Have we won any real concessions on this debt that wasn't ours to begin with? Have we seen real ground-level improvements in the local economy, unemployment, emigration etc? Of course not.. it's merely another opportunity for our "ruling class" to show what good Europeans they are (usually at the expense of the people they're supposed to be representing!)

Why, when Scotland is seeking more independence, do you think we should seek less independence.

Because we've shown time and again that we're too interested in strokes, lining our own pockets and looking after our mates when we're let at the controls to behave in a responsible manner that puts the good of the country and the people (rather than the elite) first.

Scofflaw

Kaiser, PRAF, perhaps a separate thread? As far as I know we're only having a referendum on abolishing the Seanad, not on rejoining the UK.

moderately,
Scofflaw

dublinman1990

ressem wrote: »

The EU law has to be interpreted into Irish law, amending existing legislation and allocating responsibility. Often this is a single line in some existing act, but the FG whip has mentioned that this goes straight through, undiscussed and unamended and that is a risk.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/statutory.html

The suggestion is that the replacement to the senate will be made up entirely of the taoiseach's special advisers. I fail to see how that proposal is more democratic or accountable, than an elected Seanad amended using the Seanad Reform bill currently waiting for Dail debate.

The Dail would function in the same manner as today, but I can't see that there would be an improvement of the quality of legislation without major reform. I suspect that we're unlikely to see the new voting system suggested by the constitutional convention, nor even the suggestion to remove the Dail whip at committee stage when drafting legislation.

Thanks for replying back to my post Ressem.

I will make the point that I have understood already that EU law has to be amended with the Irish Constitution. I did learn only on the key points of this during my time while studying a course in Accountancy (In which I unfortunately subsequently failed).

One of the modules learned in that course btw was Law & Ethics. The Constitution was part of that curriculum in Business Law.

I thought it would be nice to just share that point with you.

I do agree with you however that this unchanged interpretation would be a risk that this could be in my view could be toxic in not resolving the accountability in the Dail.

But, IMO it could be open to any interpretation from any person either with a elitist view or not. We just have to find out & see what form that risk could be.

Also did you Ressem or anyone see Prime Time on RTE 1 last night where there was an interview between Transport Minister Leo Varadkar and Senator Sean Barrett chaired by Miriam O'Callaghan?

The point that struck me from that programme is that how can it add up that Sean Barrett got 55,000 votes to himself elected into the Seanad in which not one single vote was deemed democratic by the public.

He is a Trinity College Senator & I would suppose that he would have gotten Votes from probably some members of staff & some others who had other connections with him. To get that amount of votes & at that volume really is shocking. It is hard to believe that even today a TD who is elected into the Dail can only get a fraction of that vote from the public.

How can some people in this Society think that in can just allow this to go ahead. How could that could be logically possible to carry out such a large number of votes on one person?

ressem

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The point that struck me from that programme is that how can it add up that Sean Barrett got 55,000 votes to himself elected into the Seanad in which not one single vote was deemed democratic by the public.

He is a Trinity College Senator & I would suppose that he would have gotten Votes from probably some members of staff & some others who had other connections with him. To get that amount of votes & at that volume really is shocking. It is hard to believe that even today a TD who is elected into the Dail can only get a fraction of that vote from the public.

How can some people in this Society think that in can just allow this to go ahead. How could that could be logically possible to carry out such a large number of votes on one person?

Hope I don't cause unintentional offense again by misreading your question.
Is this question regarding Varadkar's 8 Seanad votes for various panels, or Barrett's numbers?

Barrett was elected without reaching the quota on the 18th count with 1051 first preferences out of 15,557 voters and a constituency of 53,583 current and past pupils of Trinity.
If apples to oranges comparisons are made, David Norris received a higher first preference vote in absolute numbers (5623) than Ruairi Quinn with a similar sized constituency.

ressem

These arguments and counter arguments have been researched before.
The 1997 report on Seanad reform vs abolition.

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%202nd-Report-Seanad%201997.pdf page 88 Section 5.1 wrote:

We feel that the case for abolition must obviously be taken seriously, but that
this should only be considered in the context of simultaneous reforms of Dáil
procedures that significantly increase the Dáil’s capacity to deliberate
carefully on new legislation. This is likely to require improvements to the
committee system, an extension of Dáil sittings, a relaxation of the guillotine
procedure and a general opening up of the business of the Dáil to constructive
input from backbenchers, currently Ireland’s most under-utilised legislative
resource.

The stuff that Dep. Kenny and the cabinet have been stating appear to be selective extracts from that document.

So the Dail reforms suggested are

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/06/government-announces-its-proposals-for-the-thirty-second-amendment-of-the-constitution-abolition-of-seanad-eireann-bill-2013/?cat=12 wrote:

In this context, it is proposed that following reforms will be advanced by the Government Chief Whip, in consultation with the Opposition and the Ceann Comhairle, as appropriate:

1. As a general rule, major non-emergency legislation will first be submitted to the relevant Dáil committee in Heads of Bill format.
2. To allow for extra consideration and scrutiny, each Bill will be referred back to the committee which considered it at Pre-Legislative and Committee Stages for a final examination after Report Stage and before the Bill is passed by the House. This new stage will be known as Pre-Enactment Stage. It will be provided for in Dáil Standing Orders.
3. It is proposed that a Minister will revert to the relevant select committee within 12 months of the enactment of a Bill, to discuss and review the functioning of the law and to allow for a debate from members and stakeholders as to whether the legislation is fulfilling its intended purpose.
4. As part of a strengthened committee system, there will be 14 Dáil committees: four strategic committees on issues of major strategic and political importance (including PAC, Finance and EU scrutiny); seven sectoral committees to shadow Government Departments; and three thematic committees which will focus on specific issue (petitions, Good Friday Agreement, members’ interests). It is envisaged that each committee will have twelve members and will invite external experts to provide specialist input to its work.
5. When enacted, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill will enable Oireachtas committees to once again undertake parliamentary inquires into certain matters of major public importance. Since such inquires can involve unique and complex legal and policy issues a separate administrative system will ensure that they function smoothly. Once an inquiry is established, it will be undertaken by a sub-committee of the relevant select committee in order to ensure that the work of the select committee can continue uninterrupted.
6. A proposed new Dáil schedule will increase time spent on deliberating legislation.
7. The d’Hondt system will be introduced to distribute chairs of key committees on a proportional and equitable basis. This proposal, if agreed by the House, will go hand in hand with a revised Dáil schedule to allow committees to do as much work as possible when the House is not sitting.
8. A new ‘10 Minute Bills’ procedure will be introduced.

Things that appear to be missing or are unclear...
A) The '97 document suggests that there should be a cooling down period on legislation to restrict the executive from railroading bills through the Dail.
Point 1 suggests that they will still be able to put through panic written bills into law in the dead of night and guillotine debate.

What can be used to limit invited corporate lobbyists from being invited into and driving the committees focus?

C) After a TD has been allocated a major or sectoral committee by lucky dip, will they have any on-the-record facility to input into the workings of another, or will they have to do so using off-the-record external discussions or shouts from the visitors gallery?

4) "10 Minute Bills".

Ozymandius2011

At the moment I am inclined to vote yes, despite in the past having favoured reform.

If I actually believed the politicians who claimed to favour reform were serious in their pronouncements, I might yet vote no. After 76 yrs and repeated ignoring of Oireachtas reports (most recently Mary O'Rourke's 2004 report) on Seanad reform, I hope I will be forgiven for having no such confidence.

The primary reasons I wish to abolish Seanad Eireann are as follows:

- I don't believe a no vote will lead to reform. The politicians have still not used the power granted them in the 1979 constitutional amendment to expand the university franchise.

- Scandinavian countries of similar size to Ireland manage comparatively well with unicameral parliaments.

- Seanad Eireann has tended to be used as little more than a mechanism for raising the profile of up-and-coming party stars and a retirement home for politicians on the way out of frontline politics.

- It has failed to use its powers in such a manner as to truly constitute an effective check on the government. The power to petition for a referendum has never been used.

- The chamber is undemocratic and elitist, being elected by politicians and only a select segment of university graduates, and 20% appointed by An Taoiseach.

- Seanad Eireann's existence prolongs the passage of much needed legislation.

- The system of panels reflects outdated 1930's ideas of corporatism imported from Fascist Italy's "corporate state" at the time in vogue wiht the Catholic Church but out of place in 21st century Ireland. Indeed it could be argued that Social Partnership was a form of corporatism at work, with disasterous consequences for the economy in terms of inflating public sector pay to unsustainable levels and helping bankrupt the country. As such corporatism hardly recommends itself to post-Celtic Tiger Ireland.

Cody Pomeray

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- I don't believe a no vote will lead to reform.

That's fine, but the Seanad still has two important roles
(i) professionals/ specialists who might otherwise fail to get elected amending and proposing legislation - giving this power solely to the Dáil means that only full time politicians legislate. Surely it's better that part-time politicians with their legs in the Seanad and their necks in the real world should also get an input
(ii) experts, like Prof John Crown, using their vocational expertise in shaming or embarrassing the Government. I am thinking specifically of his role in the Cystic Fibrosis beds scandal at St. Vincent's University Hospital.

- Scandinavian countries of similar size to Ireland manage comparatively well with unicameral parliaments.

Everyone mentions the similar size!

Nobody mentions to completely different parliamentary system.

I think it's Norway where they don't even sit in the Parliament on a party basis! They sit in accordance with regions. Here, we have rules that if you don't vote with your party just one time, you will lose the whip, you may be expelled from the Parliamentary Party,and you might never progress to Ministerial office in your political career.

In the absence of the Government reforming this (and they show no signs of doing so) we need all the little helps we can get, and that means retaining a sometimes inconvenient Upper House.

- It has failed to use its powers in such a manner as to truly constitute an effective check on the government. The power to petition for a referendum has never been used.

The Seanad is not constitutionally designed to act as a "check" on government and for it to do so would be wholly undemocratic, it being a house that is not open to universal adult suffrage.

Rather it must act as an embarrassment and advisory service.

- Seanad Eireann's existence prolongs the passage of much needed legislation.

Not any emergency legislation I can think of.

Pete_Cavan

Some seem to think that abolishing the Seanad and removal of the whip system will sort out most (if not all) of the problems with our parliamentary system. Removing the whip will only allow TDs to act in a more self-serving, short term, locally focused manner in order to ensure re-election. Being forced to vote with the party forces them, through the party, to look beyond their own constituencies. Without it every piece of legislation would be reduced down to its effect on the locally with TDs being blackmailed to vote against it. Every TD would use the party to get elected and then work independently to get hospitals/schools/roads/swimming pools/whatever built or upgraded in their locality. At least the party is forced to look to gain/retain seats in all constituencies.

The problem is the electorate generally seems to value local prosperity over national development and this is reflected in the TDs we elect. This is unlikely to change any time soon and is why the Dail on its own is not enough and why we need a second house. The problem with the Seanad is that it is mainly selected by the government which makes it a toothless puppet and is the main element of the Seanad that must change for it to become effective. I like the Vocational Panels system but would like to see these extended and the electing procedure changed. Senators for each Vocational Panel should be elected by those directly involved in that area, eg. Industrial and Commercial Panel elected by members of IBEC, ISME, SFA, Chambers Ireland, etc; Labour Panel elected by union members, etc. Additional Panels such as Finance & Economic Panel (elected by The Irish Economic Association, CPA, etc.), Infrastructure & Planning (elected by members of RIAI, Engineers Ireland, SCSI and Irish Planning Institute) and so on. This would give us an upper house consisting of industry leaders and experts instead of career politicians and would not be tied to any geographical location so interested in the performance of the country as a whole. It would ensure legislation is scrutinised by qualified professionals before being passed.

I would like to see the number of Senators reduced to around 30 with most elected through Vocational Panels as explained above, some elected by all university graduates and possibly some elected nationally (no constituencies) by the general population. Certain standards would have to be set out for Senators (wrt previous convictions, financial irregularities, etc.) and maximum two terms.

Ozymandius2011

In 1979 93% of the voting public passed the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the government to expand the university franchise beyond the existing NUI and TCD panels. 34 yrs later they still have not done so. Yet some naively expect a sudden surge of reformist seal if we vote no.

PRAF

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Some seem to think that abolishing the Seanad and removal of the whip system will sort out most (if not all) of the problems with our parliamentary system. Removing the whip will only allow TDs to act in a more self-serving, short term, locally focused manner in order to ensure re-election. Being forced to vote with the party forces them, through the party, to look beyond their own constituencies. Without it every piece of legislation would be reduced down to its effect on the locally with TDs being blackmailed to vote against it. Every TD would use the party to get elected and then work independently to get hospitals/schools/roads/swimming pools/whatever built or upgraded in their locality. At least the party is forced to look to gain/retain seats in all constituencies.

The problem is the electorate generally seems to value local prosperity over national development and this is reflected in the TDs we elect. This is unlikely to change any time soon and is why the Dail on its own is not enough and why we need a second house. The problem with the Seanad is that it is mainly selected by the government which makes it a toothless puppet and is the main element of the Seanad that must change for it to become effective. I like the Vocational Panels system but would like to see these extended and the electing procedure changed. Senators for each Vocational Panel should be elected by those directly involved in that area, eg. Industrial and Commercial Panel elected by members of IBEC, ISME, SFA, Chambers Ireland, etc; Labour Panel elected by union members, etc. Additional Panels such as Finance & Economic Panel (elected by The Irish Economic Association, CPA, etc.), Infrastructure & Planning (elected by members of RIAI, Engineers Ireland, SCSI and Irish Planning Institute) and so on. This would give us an upper house consisting of industry leaders and experts instead of career politicians and would not be tied to any geographical location so interested in the performance of the country as a whole. It would ensure legislation is scrutinised by qualified professionals before being passed.

I would like to see the number of Senators reduced to around 30 with most elected through Vocational Panels as explained above, some elected by all university graduates and possibly some elected nationally (no constituencies) by the general population. Certain standards would have to be set out for Senators (wrt previous convictions, financial irregularities, etc.) and maximum two terms.

Interesting point about the whip system. Perhaps the system would descend into chaos if it were totally abandoned. However, on balance I think it has a negative effect on politics in this country.

Cody Pomeray

Yes I agree on the abolition of the whip in itself being inadequate. It should be part of an overall process.

To overcome what would otherwise merely displace the power in parliament, the Oireachtas should be headed by a political President, who appoints a Cabinet, sitting in the Seanad and forming Cabinet Committees. The President, his (or her) Cabinet, and the Seanad would propose legislation, and this would be subject to Dáil ratification.

The Dáil would itself be made up of committees with representatives from the main parties, who would meet in congress with Seanad sub-committees on specific days. The Dáil sub-committees would recommend or reject Seanad proposals to Dáil Eireann, who would also have to hear an address from the President. This would allow for more effective cross-party decision-making, and less clientelism in the legislative process.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In 1979 93% of the voting public passed the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the government to expand the university franchise beyond the existing NUI and TCD panels. 34 yrs later they still have not done so. Yet some naively expect a sudden surge of reformist seal if we vote no.

The way I think I'd look at that is that either the government is responding to public pressure in offering to abolish the Seanad, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I would vote No.

If it is responding to public pressure, then I will vote No and expect the public pressure to produce some reform.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pete_Cavan

PRAF wrote: »

Interesting point about the whip system. Perhaps the system would descend into chaos if it were totally abandoned. However, on balance I think it has a negative effect on politics in this country.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes I agree on the abolition of the whip in itself being inadequate. It should be part of an overall process.

Yes the Dail should be reformed, along with local government, to allow the Dail to focus on national issues which would allow the removal of the whip system. However, I dont believe there is any desire amongst the general public, nevermind TDs, to reform the Dail in this way. Most people like to be able to turn to their local TD when they have a problem and I dont think there will be much support among the great unwashed for those calling for this to change. This is why we need a second chamber which is not appointed by the government and is not elected by a general popularity contest. Nobody wants the Seanad to remain as it is and there is a lot of support for reforming it. The first step in this is to tell the government that we want to keep (as reform is not an option in the referendum), then we can have a debate on what shape this reform takes. As has been said before, abolishing the Seanad does not solve the problem we need solved.

geeksauce

To me it seems the proposed abolition of the Seanad is nothing more than a vote winning exercise by Fine Gael, they seem to decide on policies that are more populist than practical. I do understand the Seanad in its current form is not working but surely reform is better.

Enda himself said they did nothing to object to the harmful policies of the past government, so his solution is just to abolish it, meaning there will be no second house to object to the harmful policies of his government or any future government. Clearly if this was the actual reason for the calling of the referendum then reform would be on the table.

He sees that the public are unhappy with the cost of the Seanad so by abolishing it he thinks his party will gain some votes.

Harry Angstrom

Marc MacSharry's hissy-fit outburst in The Seanad today should hopefully put another nail in the coffin for the Senate. Absolutely pathetic.

Judgement Day

A pity that this thread isn't in AH where we could rant about it properly instead of all the posting about the nuts and bolts of the Seanad's operation, and possible reforms.

spank_inferno

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Marc MacSharry's hissy-fit outburst in The Seanad today should hopefully put another nail in the coffin for the Senate. Absolutely pathetic.

Exactly.... roll on referendum day.

dublinman1990

I do agree with some posters that the whip system in the Dail should be abolished as the type of Politicians who do get voted out are trying to reform it with out the consequence of being kicked out in the process.

The names that come up in my head are Denis Naughten (Roscommon Hospital) and Tommy Broughan (Former Spokesperson) & Roisin Shortall (Former Junior Minister).

However it should be part of reform of the Irish Political system. Reform of the Seanad is the first part of the process.

One reform that I believe if the Seanad was satisfactorily reformed with the most recent Local Government Act; it should be voted through via every member of the voting public during the Local & European Elections.

Harry Angstrom

Why on earth would the Government want to reform the Seanad? Are they really going to down a road where, if the government party/parties don't have a majority in the Seanad, there would be a considerable risk of legislation being stymied, blocked or nit-picked to a ridiculous degree?

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Anybody who votes in favour of retaining The Seanad (for the quixotic ideals of wishing to see reform instead of abolition) will only be unwittingly prolonging the life of this doss-house for has-beens, never-have-beens, wannabes and sycophantic arse-lickers. If the referendum is defeated, the Government will leave it as it as. Simple as that.

spank_inferno

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

the Government will leave it as it as. Simple as that.

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Javan

spank_inferno wrote: »

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Political self-serving aside, I don't think many people are really of the opinion that a 'No' is a guarantee of reform (or even a vote in favour of reform). It is a vote against making the system worse.

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes. Would you consider that a good idea?

A major problem with our oireachtas at the moment is that there is far too much power concentrated in the party leadership and cabinet. Individual members have sweet f.a. influence in either house. Abolishing the Seanad can only make that problem worse.

Even as broken as the system is; the Seanad has still made some important contributions to legislation in this term, with over 500 amendments to 14 bills according to Noel Whelan (Irish Times)

So from what I can see a vote on Seanad abolition is a choice between a broken system and a more broken system. I don't hold out any hope for real reform, but I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Harry Angstrom

spank_inferno wrote: »

Exactly.

Though there has been a plethora of reform bills, this government (or any previous) have shown no interest in reform.

Why do some people thing a "No" vote will change that all of a sudden?

Today on the Radio I heard Sen Healy-Eames claiming a no vote was a vote for reform..... well Senator, of course you would say that.

Turkeys will never vote for Christmas

Harry Angstrom

Javan wrote: »

Political self-serving aside, I don't think many people are really of the opinion that a 'No' is a guarantee of reform (or even a vote in favour of reform). It is a vote against making the system worse.

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes. Would you consider that a good idea?

A major problem with our oireachtas at the moment is that there is far too much power concentrated in the party leadership and cabinet. Individual members have sweet f.a. influence in either house. Abolishing the Seanad can only make that problem worse.

Even as broken as the system is; the Seanad has still made some important contributions to legislation in this term, with over 500 amendments to 14 bills according to Noel Whelan (Irish Times)

So from what I can see a vote on Seanad abolition is a choice between a broken system and a more broken system. I don't hold out any hope for real reform, but I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

At least the Dail is made up of democratically elected people - for good or ill. The Seanad is, for the most part, made up of people who could/will never get themselves elected. Why should we take a blind bit of notice of these people? What gives them the right to decide what's best for us?

Ivana Bacik is a perfect case in point. She has failed at every general election she's run for. She couldn't even get elected on the coat-tails of Eamon Gilmore last time. What gives her the right to pontificate to us - apart from getting a "mandate" from the NUI elites??

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

At least the Dail is made up of democratically elected people - for good or ill. The Seanad is, for the most part, made up of people who could/will never get themselves elected. Why should we take a blind bit of notice of these people? What gives them the right to decide what's best for us?

Ivana Bacik is a perfect case in point. She has failed at every general election she's run for. She couldn't even get elected on the coat-tails of Eamon Gilmore last time. What gives her the right to pontificate to us - apart from getting a "mandate" from the NUI elites??

You are making a great argument for reform, and I agree that reform is needed. Reform is not an option. Can you argue that abolishing the Seanad will lead to better government? Having no-one to review the (often sloppy) work of the Dail cannot be better than having the Seanad.

Harry Angstrom

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

Actually I think there is clear evidence that having the current Seanad, broken as it is, gives us better law than having no Seanad.

One case in point: The personal insolvency legislation. The Seanad has contributed to the delay in getting this legislation passed, but they used that time to close loopholes and remove ambiguity that would most likely have caused even longer delays in court. Is your dislike of Ivana Bacik so strong that you would prefer to see insolvent people forced into more court battles?

A vote no will not make things better, but a vote yes will make things worse.

oscarBravo

Javan wrote: »

Imagine you are in a car and the steering is not working. Someone comes along and suggests the best thing for you to do is destroy the brakes.

Unfortunately, the analogy is made slightly more accurate by them suggesting you destroy the fuzzy dice hanging from your mirror rather than your brakes.

Javan

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unfortunately, the analogy is made slightly more accurate by them suggesting you destroy the fuzzy dice hanging from your mirror rather than your brakes.

The furry dice are not responsible for reducing the likely court challenges to the personal insolvency bill or reducing the likely administrative cost of the animal welfare bill.

The Seanad as-is is not entirely useless. It is not as good as it could or should be, but it is better than nothing. In a choice between the existing Seanad and nothing, the Seanad is clearly the better option.

PRAF

I'm still undecided about the Seanad. I started out with a positive view of it mainly because of the good work done by various high profile senators over the years such as Shane Ross and David Norris.

In theory, it should have a positive effect on our system of government and at worst it should have a benign effect. Having a second house in place to scrutinise the work of the first house is a good idea. Unfortunately, we have never really had a proper second house in place. By design, it has never been able to properly hold the second house to account. That is because:

1. The Govt dominates the Dail via the whip system. The Constitution states that the Oireachtas makes laws and that the Government must answer to Dáil Éireann. We all know that this is not how it works in practice.

2. The Govt also dominates the Seanad via the Taoiseachs ability to nominate his own senators in order to have the balance of power. While the Seanad can propose amendments to various bills, in reality, it is unable to make any substantial changes to anything.

In theory, a flawed Seanad is better than no Seanad. However, in practice the Seanad has proved to be close to useless. Moreover, certain senators have disgraced the house over the years. I'm 50/50 on it right now

Pete_Cavan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Abolishing the Seanad may not lead to a better government, but retaining it will not lead to a better government either. As I said, it will never be reformed, and it galls me to see the likes of Ivana Bacik, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Eamon Coghlan propping up the place, and if that isn't bad enough, remember Eoghan Harris and his reward for defending Bertie Ahern?? I say close the place and be done with it.

And do you believe the Dail will be reformed? Because in the absence of Dail reformation, abolishing the Seanad only gives more power to our seriously flawed lower house. What positives are there to abolishing the Seanad (apart from saving a few million a year and your personal dislike of individual senators). Everyone supporting retention of the Seanad is also calling for reform, saving the Seanad also gives a mandate for reform, whether the government acts on this is another question but it is better than giving additional powers to a woefully inadequate lower house. The main problem here, which the government is doing a good job of distracting us from, is the Dail, removing the Seanad solves a lesser problem but increases the main problem (lack of scrutiny of the Dail).

Judgement Day

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

Sierra Oscar

Judgement Day wrote: »

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

Important to note that the savings figure is disputed, the Oireachtas have indicated that the figure is closer to €10 million if even.

Judgement Day

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Important to note that the savings figure is disputed, the Oireachtas have indicated that the figure is closer to €10 million if even.

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?

Sierra Oscar

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?

Yes, I can. I would trust the word of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, Kieran Coughlan, much more than the political figures who are actively involved in the campaign. There is an audit currently under way to highlight the potential savings - and the early indications are that the figures will be no where near to what the government is proposing.

Currently things like office upkeep, maintenance etc. are being included in the savings even though those costs will persist should Seanad Éireann be abolished.

Enda is on the record as having insisted that it would save €30 million, then the figure was €25 million and now he claims 'up to €20 million'. However it is looking like the actual figure will be much lower than that.

Javan

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?

If saving money is your only goal then why not get rid of the Dail and save the Seanad. You could save over €100 million (conservative estimate) that way.

Of course that is nonsense. Getting rid of the Dail would leave us without an effective government, so the 'saving' is irrelevant.
Getting rid of the Seanad would also leave us without an effective government, so the 'saving' from Seanad abolition is equally irrelevant.

Harry Angstrom

Even if they end up saving 5 euro from abolishing The Seanad, the fact remains that it's a deeply flawed house which is in serious need of reform, which will never happen if the referendum is defeated. Enda Kenny will basically come out and say "I gave you a choice and you've decided to keep it". He won't reform it, as it won't be in his interest to do so.
I wouldn't be expecting too much on the Dail reform front either, to answer a previous question. The only parties who ever call for Dail reform are the ones on the opposition benches. Once they get into power, they quickly forget about it. It was ever thus. It reminds me of the British Labour Party banging on for years about the unfairness of the "first past the post" electoral system and about their plans to introduce the proportional representation system if elected. Guess what happened after Labour's landslide victory in 1997? Bye bye to plans for PR.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Even if they end up saving 5 euro from abolishing The Seanad, the fact remains that it's a deeply flawed house which is in serious need of reform, which will never happen if the referendum is defeated. Enda Kenny will basically come out and say "I gave you a choice and you've decided to keep it". He won't reform it, as it won't be in his interest to do so.
I wouldn't be expecting too much on the Dail reform front either, to answer a previous question. The only parties who ever call for Dail reform are the ones on the opposition benches. Once they get into power, they quickly forget about it. It was ever thus. It reminds me of the British Labour Party banging on for years about the unfairness of the "first past the post" electoral system and about their plans to introduce the proportional representation system if elected. Guess what happened after Labour's landslide victory in 1997? Bye bye to plans for PR.

I don't understand your argument Harry, can you explain it to me?

I think everyone is agreed that Seanad reform will not happen. Either the house will be abolished or it will stay as-is. Similarly Dail reform is going to be window-dressing at best. Certainly any reform will not reduce the power of the Government parties or the party leadership.

So the choice before us is: Keep everything as it is, or get rid of the Seanad (which, I have argued, will make things worse).

So are you arguing that any saving, whether €5 or €20,000,000+ , should be taken regardless of the consequences?

Harry Angstrom

Javan, The Seanad is a complete affront to democracy. That is why I want to see it closed down. And we're pretty much agreed that it will not be reformed if the referendum is defeated. I would prefer to see it closed down, rather than see it continue on as the comfortable crony club that it is in its current state.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Javan, The Seanad is a complete affront to democracy. That is why I want to see it closed down. And we're pretty much agreed that it will not be reformed if the referendum is defeated. I would prefer to see it closed down, rather than see it continue on as the comfortable crony club that it is in its current state.

Thanks for that.

I think that is short-sighted and will give us a much worse government and bad law, but I appreciate you making your view clear.

Harry Angstrom

Javan wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I think that is short-sighted and will give us a much worse government and bad law, but I appreciate you making your view clear.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The funny thing is that I agree with you on just about everything (even Ivana Bacik ). I just don't think any of it is a good enough reason to make our lives worse in the future.

Pete_Cavan

Judgement Day wrote: »

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

One could also argue that there are better ways to save between €10 and €20m but again that is a matter for a separate thread. While reform may not happen immediately, at least the people of this country will have expressed a desire to have a second house (although a reformed second house) and they do not want power concentrated with the Dail. Abolishing the Seanad may save some money and may mean you are less likely to hear from Ivana Bacik but are these good enough reasons to radically alter the structure of our parliament? Obviously the system needs to improve; we need a better standard of TD with relevant experiences, we need national representatives who look beyond their constituency and work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, we need proper scrutiny of legislation and real accountability - how does getting rid of the Seanad achieve any of this or improve the system in any way?

The whole system, including Dail and Seanad needs to be fixed but getting rid of the Seanad just papers over the cracks and gives government an excuse not to enact any real reform ("Sure didnt we abolish the Seanad").

Harry Angstrom

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

One could also argue that there are better ways to save between €10 and €20m but again that is a matter for a separate thread. While reform may not happen immediately, at least the people of this country will have expressed a desire to have a second house (although a reformed second house) and they do not want power concentrated with the Dail. Abolishing the Seanad may save some money and may mean you are less likely to hear from Ivana Bacik but are these good enough reasons to radically alter the structure of our parliament? Obviously the system needs to improve; we need a better standard of TD with relevant experiences, we need national representatives who look beyond their constituency and work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, we need proper scrutiny of legislation and real accountability - how does getting rid of the Seanad achieve any of this or improve the system in any way?

The whole system, including Dail and Seanad needs to be fixed but getting rid of the Seanad just papers over the cracks and gives government an excuse not to enact any real reform ("Sure didnt we abolish the Seanad").

It's not just TD's in the Dail who are cynically playing the local issues game. There are people in The Seanad who are blatantly using their position as a stepping stone to The Dail by doing the same thing. There's a particular Senator, and if you check out their Facebook page, they constantly drone on about how they've fixed potholes and road signage in a certain area. I won't mention the name of this person but their motives for being in the Seanad are utterly cynical. Yet another reason to close the place down and throw away the keys.