Seanad abolition - does any one other than McDowell and the Senators really care?

Mouth of the South

Sleveen Martin wants a political football to be made out of the Seanad issue. Enda rightly seeing it as grandstaging by an opportunistic flipflopper like Meehole.

http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-micheal-martin-tv-debate-1089363-Sep2013

Copyerselveson

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Sleveen Martin wants a political football to be made out of the Seanad issue. Enda rightly seeing it as grandstaging by an opportunistic flipflopper like Meehole.

http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-micheal-martin-tv-debate-1089363-Sep2013

At the very heart of the matter is that the Taoiseach is proposing to rip the heart out of our Constitution and has now rowed back from his promise to debate this anywhere. So we are expected to vote yes to this proposal on the back of questionable costs and no debate.

If we scrap the Seanad as Enda wants, we will allow the Oireachtas to be dismantled, give professional lobbyists a direct route to lawmaking and undermine our already shaky democracy.

Mouth of the South

Copyerselveson wrote: »

At the very heart of the matter is that the Taoiseach is proposing to rip the heart out of our Constitution and has now rowed back from his promise to debate this anywhere. So we are expected to vote yes to this proposal on the back of questionable costs and no debate.

If we scrap the Seanad as Enda wants, we will allow the Oireachtas to be dismantled, give professional lobbyists a direct route to lawmaking and undermine our already shaky democracy.

Every constitutional referendum "rips the heart out of our Constitution" if you go by that logic. Denmark, Sweden, Portugal and New Zealand , amongst others, abolished their upper house talking chambers , what adverse effects did they suffer? As for professional lobbyists, Meehole's crowd have had more to do with them than anybody else and I doubt it'll make any change to how that shower operate either way.

Copyerselveson

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Every constitutional referendum "rips the heart out of our Constitution" if you go by that logic. Denmark, Sweden, Portugal and New Zealand , amongst others, abolished their upper house talking chambers , what adverse effects did they suffer? As for professional lobbyists, Meehole's crowd have had more to do with them than anybody else and I doubt it'll make any change to how that shower operate either way.

Have you read Bunreacht na hÉireann? Did you know that over 40 articles of the Constitution will need to be repealed or amended in order to abolish the Seanad? This isn't just any old referendum campaign where one or two articles are under discussion; this is about the most fundamental change to the governance of our country since 1937 and our Taoiseach will not debate this change publically.

The other countries you mentioned like New Zealand, Sweden etc. have far stronger local governments than we have. The FG/Labour coalition have actually WEAKENED our local government by abolishing Town Councils and it wasn't today or yesterday that the bulk of our local government was handed over to County Managers and their staff rather than the elected County Councils.

I am frightened about the consequences for our democracy and frankly you should be too.

Mouth of the South

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Have you read Bunreacht na hÉireann? Did you know that over 40 articles of the Constitution will need to be repealed or amended in order to abolish the Seanad? This isn't just any old referendum campaign where one or two articles are under discussion; this is about the most fundamental change to the governance of our country since 1937 and our Taoiseach will not debate this change publically.

The other countries you mentioned like New Zealand, Sweden etc. have far stronger local governments than we have. The FG/Labour coalition have actually WEAKENED our local government by abolishing Town Councils and it wasn't today or yesterday that the bulk of our local government was handed over to County Managers and their staff rather than the elected County Councils.

I am frightened about the consequences for our democracy and frankly you should be too.

The articles in the Constitution dealing exclusively with the Seanad will be removed. All references in the Constitution to the “Houses of the Oireachtas” or to “either House of the Oireachtas” will be replaced by a reference to Dáil Éireann. What's the big deal there?

What has local government and getting rid of parish pump gombeen inefficiency got to do with it? Other than keeping other ineffective windbags in clover at national level, that is. For nearly every referendum presented, there is some Chicken Little running around saying the sky will fall - there'll be abortion on demand, "Bye bye Daddy" etc. Saying you are "frightened about the consequences for our democracy" is similar alarmist rubbish and reminds me of the pro-monarchy as head of state lobby in Australia who frightened their electorate into thinking they would become the Weimar Republic if they replaced the Queen of England with an Australian as head of state.

Copyerselveson

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Saying you are "frightened about the consequences for our democracy" is similar alarmist rubbish and reminds me of the pro-monarchy as head of state lobby in Australia who frightened their electorate into thinking they would become the Weimar Republic if they replaced the Queen of England with an Australian as head of state.

Come back to me in five years time if the electorate decide to abolish the Seanad and tell me if we have more or less participation in democracy. Perhaps we will have abolished the President and much of the Dail as well by then.

Mouth of the South

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Come back to me in five years time if the electorate decide to abolish the Seanad and tell me if we have more or less participation in democracy. Perhaps we will have abolished the President and much of the Dail as well by then.

So it's part of a conspiracy to get rid of the President too, is it?

As for "participation in democracy", a body where the only electors of it are graduates of Trinity and NUI, the Taoiseach of the day who rewards loyal lapdogs and cheerleaders , and unelected quangos is hardly reflective of 'democracy' at work.

Javan

Copyerselveson wrote: »

At the very heart of the matter is that the Taoiseach is proposing to rip the heart out of our Constitution and has now rowed back from his promise to debate this anywhere. So we are expected to vote yes to this proposal on the back of questionable costs and no debate.

If we scrap the Seanad as Enda wants, we will allow the Oireachtas to be dismantled, give professional lobbyists a direct route to lawmaking and undermine our already shaky democracy.

I think given that Enda has this much contempt for us and for a democratic process now, imagine how much worse it will be after he gets the additional concentration of power in his office.

And to those who say 'we are getting to vote; that is democracy': an informed electorate is an essential part of a working democracy. By refusing to have a debate Enda is asking us to vote without all the facts. That is undemocratic.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

I think given that Enda has this much contempt for us and for a democratic process now, imagine how much worse it will be after he gets the additional concentration of power in his office.

And to those who say 'we are getting to vote; that is democracy': an informed electorate is an essential part of a working democracy. By refusing to have a debate Enda is asking us to vote without all the facts. That is undemocratic.

"Contempt" is what the Fianna Downfall regime of 1997 -2011 showed to the Irish people. "Contempt" is a sleveen like Meehole Martin reversing his position on the Seanad for cheap politicking pointscoring . "Contempt" is what the Shinners have for the right of people on both sides of the border to even be alive and for the existence of this very State.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

The articles in the Constitution dealing exclusively with the Seanad will be removed. All references in the Constitution to the “Houses of the Oireachtas” or to “either House of the Oireachtas” will be replaced by a reference to Dáil Éireann. What's the big deal there?

What has local government and getting rid of parish pump gombeen inefficiency got to do with it? Other than keeping other ineffective windbags in clover at national level, that is. For nearly every referendum presented, there is some Chicken Little running around saying the sky will fall - there'll be abortion on demand, "Bye bye Daddy" etc. Saying you are "frightened about the consequences for our democracy" is similar alarmist rubbish and reminds me of the pro-monarchy as head of state lobby in Australia who frightened their electorate into thinking they would become the Weimar Republic if they replaced the Queen of England with an Australian as head of state.

You were just told what local government has to do with it.

Any country that has a working parliament with only one house also has strong local government. This is all about concentration of power in one house, and one office in that house.
Concentrated power always inevitably leads to increased corruption and a worse outcome for people outside the inner circle.

This government is looking to abolish the Seanad, rigidly apply the whip and weaken local government. Add that up and it is a clear power grab. Putting all that power in one office cannot be good for the country.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

"Contempt" is what the Fianna Downfall regime of 1997 -2011 showed to the Irish people. "Contempt" is a sleveen like Meehole Martin reversing his position on the Seanad for cheap politicking pointscoring . "Contempt" is what the Shinners have for the right of people on both sides of the border to even be alive and for the existence of this very State.

I'm not arguing with any of that.

Contempt is also what Enda is showing by refusing to get involved in a debate. Contempt is what you are showing by using childish names instead of talking about this important issue like an adult.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

You were just told what local government has to do with it.

Any country that has a working parliament with only one house also has strong local government. This is all about concentration of power in one house, and one office in that house.
Concentrated power always inevitably leads to increased corruption and a worse outcome for people outside the inner circle.

This government is looking to abolish the Seanad, rigidly apply the whip and weaken local government. Add that up and it is a clear power grab. Putting all that power in one office cannot be good for the country.

A bunch of parish pump gombeens and sleveens in Ballaghdreen or Fingal have nothing to do with the national legislature or national affairs. And your "adding up" is the classic 2 + 2 = 5.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

A bunch of parish pump gombeens and sleveens in Ballaghdreen or Fingal have nothing to do with the national legislature or national affairs. And your "adding up" is the classic 2 + 2 = 5.

You keep making my point for me. The local government here has no role is legislative affairs.
In other democracies with a single house the local government has power to pass local laws for local issues.

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

I'm not arguing with any of that.

Contempt is also what Enda is showing by refusing to get involved in a debate. Contempt is what you are showing by using childish names instead of talking about this important issue like an adult.

Are you offended on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin or Sinn Féin, oh "adult" one?

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

You keep making my point for me. The local government here has no role is legislative affairs.
In other democracies with a single house the local government has power to pass local laws for local issues.

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

Oh really? With a country of less than 5 million people and an already hugely over-inflated lower house, why in God's name do we need more inefficient local government and an undemocratic upper house talking chamber?

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Are you offended on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin or Sinn Féin, oh "adult" one?

I'm not offended by any of it. I agree with what you said about Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Micheal Martin. So what?

Actually; the fact that they are all as bad as each other is all the more reason to avoid putting all the authority in one office.

Again; you make my point for me.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

I'm not offended by any of it. I agree with what you said about Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Micheal Martin. So what?

Actually; the fact that they are all as bad as each other is all the more reason to avoid putting all the authority in one office.

Again; you make my point for me.

You got prim and prissy on their behalf, why backtrack now? And you keep on glibly saying over and over "you made my point for me" as if by the mere fact of repeating that that it somehow 'proves' your gibberish about supposed 'loss of democracy'. Change the record.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

You got prim and prissy on their behalf, why backtrack now? And you keep on glibly saying over and over "you made my point for me" as if by the mere fact of repeating that that it somehow 'proves' your gibberish about supposed 'loss of democracy'. Change the record.

Give me a reason to.

Make an argument that our lives will be better without the Seanad.

Banjoxed

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Oh really? With a country of less than 5 million people and an already hugely over-inflated lower house, why in God's name do we need more inefficient local government and an undemocratic upper house talking chamber?

God knows we need more counterbalances to unfettered power in this country. Nobody asked any citizen in this country about "reforms" to local government, yet they are happening. And when every other item on the RTE news is a dressed up press release from one lobbyist or another giving the buggers an input to legislation without being accountable to the citizens of this country is just wrong and shows Official Ireland's contempt for the public.

delthedriver

Gone beyond caring tbh. I won't be voting as I will be out of the country:)

seligehgit

Several small countries I believe have a political system based on a unicameral system without any threat to their democracies.We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.Everybody knows how ineffective the Seanad has been as a check on the executive,reform will never happen in my opinion if the referendum is defeated and we'll be left grossly over represented in terms of politicians at a national level in comparison to most developed democracies.

Javan

seligehgit wrote: »

Several small countries I believe have a political system based on a unicameral system without any threat to their democracies.We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.Everybody knows how ineffective the Seanad has been as a check on the executive,reform will never happen in my opinion if the referendum is defeated and we'll be left grossly over represented in terms of politicians at a national level in comparison to most developed democracies.

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject; other countries that have a parliament with one house have also got effective and powerful local government. We do not.

Ever since the abolition of the original property tax by Fianna Fail our local government has become less relevant and less accountable. The current administration is continuing that trend.

No-one is saying that the Seanad is perfect, but surely an imperfect counterbalance to the authority of the government party whip is better than none at all?

dlouth15

Javan wrote: »

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject; other countries that have a parliament with one house have also got effective and powerful local government. We do not.

A Seanad full of failed politicians is no substitute for effective local government but voting no in the referendum sends the message to politicians that the electorate don't like change. And so, slim though it might be at the moment, there is even less chance of reform in other areas of government, local or otherwise. It also ensures seanad reform isn't going to happen either.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

Javan

dlouth15 wrote: »

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

I can't answer that question. I'm not quiet and I have no imagination.
I'm not sure what answer you were looking for either.
- A person who does not like change might vote no.
- A person who is quiet might not vote.
- A person who does not get involved in debate might vote with the biggest ads or the most posters. In this case that will be a yes.

Personally I vote on the basis of self-interest. What result will be best for me.
A no vote will be neither good nor bad. A yes vote will be bad. Therefore the decision is easy: vote no.

opiniated

dlouth15 wrote: »

A Seanad full of failed politicians is no substitute for effective local government but voting no in the referendum sends the message to politicians that the electorate don't like change. And so, slim though it might be at the moment, there is even less chance of reform in other areas of government, local or otherwise. It also ensures seanad reform isn't going to happen either.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

Hmm. I'm not quiet, I long for change - but I'm voting No!

I'm voting No because I don't want the whip system to have the potential to be used even more effectively.
I'm voting No because I refuse to change the Constitution based on vague promises of change by a Taoiseach who refuses to even debate the issue.
I'm voting No because the public have been lied to too many times by elected representatives.
I'm voting No because the current Government, despite public refusal to give the Oireachtas further powers of inquiry in a referendum, insist on holding an inquiry on arguably the most expensive debacle/fraud? in the history of the state.

In other words - show me your wonderful plans for improving Democracy in the Dail, Enda - and I'll consider whether or not you are trustworthy.
You could start by abolishing the whip.....it might make people think you're a little less arbitrary than you proved yourself to be during the abortion "debate"!

dlouth15

Javan wrote: »

I can't answer that question. I'm not quiet and I have no imagination.
I'm not sure what answer you were looking for either.
- A person who does not like change might vote no.
- A person who is quiet might not vote.
- A person who does not get involved in debate might vote with the biggest ads or the most posters. In this case that will be a yes.

Personally I vote on the basis of self-interest. What result will be best for me.
A no vote will be neither good nor bad. A yes vote will be bad. Therefore the decision is easy: vote no.

Apologies. My question was really aimed at others on this thread and was mistakenly directed at you. If you really believe that the Seanad as it is currently has more positives than negatives then it makes sense to want to keep it. I'm voting yes because I believe otherwise, and also for the message it sends out though this is a lesser reason.

ger664

Are people really happy with the removal of Article 27 from the constitution ?

echo beach

ger664 wrote: »

Are people really happy with the removal of Article 27 from the constitution ?

Given that most people don't know what Article 27 is, and that they don't know that this referendum will remove it, then it is hard for them to have an opinion on it.
The referendum commission booklet doesn't tell you what articles are being removed or changed, or make it clear how many major changes to the constitution are involved. Only by going onto the website and looking at the 'constitution before and after' section, which runs to thirty pages, do you get an understanding that this isn't about one question, 'do you want a second chamber?' it is about making numerous and significant changes to our constitution and how we govern our country.
It also doesn't give you the exact wording we will be asked to vote on. It takes a good bit of searching to find the sample ballot papers, which ask if you approve of a Bill. We are also going to get a 'statement of information' with our polling cards, which consists of a single sentence.

seamus

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

Apparently the €20m costs figure cited for the Seanad "may not fully translate into savings" if it's abolished.

Looking at the figures, the €2m pensions costs will remain. The €9.3m in support costs will probably remain for the most part as the staff and equipment are re-used elsewhere.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, and if the Seanad is abolished how much will it cost to "reform" the Dail?

This is looking more and more like a distraction show from the Government, they're failing to show any practical benefits for abolishing the Seanad beyond populist statements like, "Less politicians".

BailMeOut

The Seanad is basically a peer review on bill being proposed by the Dail before they are passed. That's effectively what they do. If we abolish the Seanad I believe the Dail will have to work harder as they do not have another chamber to effectively check their work. I suspect they have been useful and effective helping the Dail to draft bills over the last 70+ years and from what I can work out that's all they do.

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes. The worst case scenario is the supreme court starts to get backlogged as we find out the Dail cannot do their job properly or pass bills or laws that are constitutional. I am ok with this as and it might be the trigger to force us to make real changes to how our country is governed and who we elect.

Sierra Oscar

BailMeOut wrote: »

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes.

That is questionable to be honest. If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform, there is not one group in society campaigning for the status quo to be maintained. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the government will put up its hands and exclaim that abolishing the Seanad was their vision of political reform. Why haven't they detailed their Oireachtas reform proposals prior to the referendum vote? I suspect that it is because they don't have a plan. The committee system reforms that they detailed last week were hastily put together by some advisors when they realised that people were not being conned so easily. The Ceann Comhairle of Dáil was not consulted. The Fine Gael parliamentary party was not consulted. The Oireachtas itself was not consulted. In fact no one was consulted. In anycase this talk of a new committee system is just a fudge, so long as the government remains in absolute control of the committee system then little will change no matter what new committees they create.

If the referendum is defeated then the government will have to pursue reform. The only reason Enda Kenny has not confirmed that yet is because his campaign would collapse if he did so.

I think Stephen Donnelly sums it up quite well.

Stephen Donnelly TD makes the Vote No case

dlouth15

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That is questionable to be honest. If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform, there is not one group in society campaigning for the status quo to be maintained.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Campaigns are there to swing the floating voters and those who might vote yes but aren't sure. They don't necessarily represent the bulk of the no voters who could very well simply be averse to change of any sort. The no campaign won't be representative of these people for the simple reason that they don't need persuasion. A better strategy is to target those who want reform. Make them think that by voting no, they are likely to get that reform.

BailMeOut

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform

For some people this may be the case but then again a lot of people will be voting no as they want the Seanad to remain. I get the sense that people do not know what the Seanad does and they seriously think it is a proper check on what the Dail does. Also from reading this thread there are some comments from people voting no just as a protest vote against the current government.

Getting rid of the Seanad is the first serious change to how our government is setup since 1937. Its a start and it will be up to use electorate to make sure more is in the works. My personal opinion is that we need a very small Dail (no idea how we do this and keep PR!), no Seanad and more localized power and decision making.

Sierra Oscar

dlouth15 wrote: »

A better strategy is to target those who want reform. Make them think that by voting no, they are likely to get that reform.

Aye, I think that is what most of the no campaigners are trying to do.

What do people reckon the turnout will be? If it is a low turnout, who will it favour?

echo beach

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What do people reckon the turnout will be? If it is a low turnout, who will it favour?

Turnout is bound to be low. Most people really couldn't care less about the Seanad. They may not like it but they don't hate it either. The only reason they might make the effort to abolish it is if they are convinced of major savings but even if the 20 million figure sticks, and it now looks very shaky, you need to talk in hundreds of millions now to get people's attention. The figure in everybody's head is €3.1 billion and €20 million doesn't sound much compared to that.

A low turnout usually favours the side who is most committed. The 'yes' side has all the main political parties bar FF but you could count on your fingers the numbers who are canvassing. County Councillors usually do the groundwork but they are ones who have Seanad votes and who may aspire to making their next move there so they aren't going to waste their time going to the doorsteps to take abuse over this. In the secrecy of the ballot box I suspect many of them, and quite a few TDs, won't toe the party line.
The 'no' camp is small but everybody in it has choosen to be there for whatever reason and they seem much more comfortable and confident in setting out their stall.

opiniated

BailMeOut wrote: »

For some people this may be the case but then again a lot of people will be voting no as they want the Seanad to remain. I get the sense that people do not know what the Seanad does and they seriously think it is a proper check on what the Dail does. Also from reading this thread there are some comments from people voting no just as a protest vote against the current government.

Getting rid of the Seanad is the first serious change to how our government is setup since 1937. Its a start and it will be up to use electorate to make sure more is in the works. My personal opinion is that we need a very small Dail (no idea how we do this and keep PR!), no Seanad and more localized power and decision making.

I'm not voting no as a protest vote against the Government.
I'm voting "No" because I don't trust the Government, hence I have no intention whatsoever of giving them a blank cheque, based on vague promises that I don't believe will be kept.

How do you propose that the electorate ensure change takes place?

The truth is that we get one chance, every five years, to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the Government.
We get to try to second guess what is truth or lies in pre-election "promises" - and that is the only control citizens have.
After a Government is formed, even TDs have no say in Cabinet decisions. The whip is applied stringently to any dissenters, and the rest line up like good little yes-men or women.

That is what needs to change, and abolishing the Seanad will not achieve that.
Quite the opposite, in fact!

Sierra Oscar

Apologies for the cross posting, but I feel this is relevant to this thread too:

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is an interesting article penned by Professor David Farrell, who was the Head of School at the School of Politics and International Relations in UCD. He also spearheaded the "We the Citizens" assembly, which lead to the creation of the constitutional convention that is currently running in Ireland.

Why I will be voting ‘No’ in the Seanad referendum



The message is - if you want meaningful reform, then vote no.

It is interesting that a lot of the heavy hitter academics in Ireland are turning against the governments campaign. Professor Farrell shaped a lot of the governments early reform plans, which was evident when they took on his idea for a 'people's assembly' that we now know as the constitutional convention - although it is much more limited than was envisaged by Professor Farrell.

Either way it shows that there is a disconnect growing between the political academics in Ireland and the government itself when it comes to the topic of political reform. I think it illustrates perfectly that this government feels that abolishing the Seanad ticks the box "political reform" box for now. I bet that they will come out and pull a stunt by saying that they will pursue further political reform measures after the next election should the referendum be passed, and try and claim that their mandate for political reform for this term has been fulfilled.

Javan

BailMeOut wrote: »

The Seanad is basically a peer review on bill being proposed by the Dail before they are passed. That's effectively what they do. If we abolish the Seanad I believe the Dail will have to work harder as they do not have another chamber to effectively check their work. I suspect they have been useful and effective helping the Dail to draft bills over the last 70+ years and from what I can work out that's all they do.

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes. The worst case scenario is the supreme court starts to get backlogged as we find out the Dail cannot do their job properly or pass bills or laws that are constitutional. I am ok with this as and it might be the trigger to force us to make real changes to how our country is governed and who we elect.

Why believe that the Dail will suddenly get better at writing legislation with the Seanad disbanded?
Are they not doing their best now? Why not?
Or perhaps you think that since no-one is going to question their work they'll do a better job? To me the opposite seems more likely; no-one is going to tell them where they make mistakes so those mistakes will never be corrected.


No change is not a great result. Voting yes will make some changes. (I'd call it deform rather than reform, but whatever). But the one thing worse than no change is a change for the worse.

manonboard

I care quite strongly about it. I really do believe in the reasons why it *suppose* to be there.

I really want reform, I'm very angry that this option is being made available.

I consider the abolition of it a easy way to make the problem go away without really providing a real solution.

So i'll be voting no in the desperate hope that keeping the senad in existance may one day lead to a process to reform it.
It's desperate and unlikely, but unlikely is better than never, which is what i consider abolition.

There was previous precident set where a house would be abolished and decades later recreated but I consider this a wider gamble.

expectationlost

confused by assertion that gov didn't consult about dail reform, outline published in june,committee on dail reform (the whips) met in july

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0922/475771-politics/

manonboard

There are 2 further reasons I believe I will vote no that should of been altered in a better way.

These 2 are:

1. This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.

Currently, it requires the majority of Seanad and 1/3 of the Dail to propose to the president that a bill is of such national importance to the people that it should be decided by a referendum of the people.

I cannot in good conscience sign this right away. This right is important to me. It is a right that would be invaluable when the time comes to use it. Without the Seanad, it cannot be used and will be removed from our constitution. It cannot be a Dail only vote as this makes no sense, so it's either keep the Seanad and the right, or lose them both.
If a issue ever arises where this would of be enacted and cannot in future. It would be a travesty against our society.

2. Removal of judges.

I'm scared of this change. I will not voluntary allow the Dail house, ruled by a party with whip to be also single handily be able to remove people from the judiciary system. I see TDs scared to judge issues independently because of the fear of being removed from office. So why would judges not feel the same fear? In the worst case scenario, I could see a judge who is habitually ruling against the state in cases or likely to declare a proposed legislation as unconstitutional removed from their post.
In a moderate case, I envisage that the judiciary system will oppose the government and state less willingly and less often if they are in fear of their positions being removed.
It scares me to allow a government power to control the people who are there to keep that power in check.

If anyone disagrees for good reason, please share. I wish to cast my vote with as much knowledge as possible.

petronius

good to see some www.democracymatters.ie posters about

pathetic unproved minor dail reforms suggested by government not legislated for but proposed if the seanad is abolished is a fig leaf

Enda "the coward" Kenny afraid to debate a referendum which stemmed from his solo run some years back is a indictment of our political classes that they can hide from articulating their position on a subject.

petronius

I like Feargal Quinns contribution to the debate on An Seanad - "Open it, Don't Close it"

http://www.feargalquinn.ie/index.php

Banjoxed

There are some good arguments here for retaining the Seanad, and the other aspect for me is to take a stand against the cheap shot bucko politics of the campaign. Fine Gael may ultimately have reason to regret going down the Stupid Party route.

Javan

seamus wrote: »

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

Apparently the €20m costs figure cited for the Seanad "may not fully translate into savings" if it's abolished.

Looking at the figures, the €2m pensions costs will remain. The €9.3m in support costs will probably remain for the most part as the staff and equipment are re-used elsewhere.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, and if the Seanad is abolished how much will it cost to "reform" the Dail?

This is looking more and more like a distraction show from the Government, they're failing to show any practical benefits for abolishing the Seanad beyond populist statements like, "Less politicians".

I decided to look at some numbers related to the costs / savings figures.

As mentioned on the referendum commission website, the €20m savings claimed by the government will not be fully realised as savings.
In fact; there will be no savings at all for the remainder of the term of this Seanad. Even with a 'yes' vote the current term will not end early.
Even after that; the likely real savings are probably less than €10m per year at least until some of the retired senators die, then the savings will slowly rise towards €12m per year.

As an aside, the cost of running a referendum is, judging by the recent EU treaty referendums, about €20m to €30m. So just by asking the question the government is spending two years' worth of potential savings.

Now if we look at that in the context of the budget; the planned current spending budget for 2013 (that is; money spent by the government that does not include capital projects) is €49,920m. That makes the potential saving about 0.02% of the current account budget.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not excited about a possible saving, in a few years time, of 0.02% of the current account budget.

Claregirl

I'm really struggling to decide what way to vote.

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

For a country with a population smaller than some UK councils I really don't see the need for the number of TDs and Senators currently in existence.

On the other hand is this referendum just a "cute hoor" move by FG putting forward a referendum knowing it will fail but they've fulfilled their election promises, the electorate votes against it and their cronies currently sitting in the Seanad who were rejected by the people in Daíl elections can safely keep their seats.

I honestly do not believe there will be any reform of the Seanad if this referendum is defeated. The exercise to reduce the number of TD's resulted in only 8 fewer seats:(

ger664

Claregirl wrote: »

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.
(

For me it is a no brainier. Yes the Seanad currently serves no real propose, and is but retirement home for the majority of its members. It should be either abolished or radically reformed, however the proposed abolishment should not mean an eroding of our democratic system.
The proposed amendment's or hatchet job to the consituation gives too much power to this and successive governments. They will have the ability to ram through legislation and EU laws without any checks and balances, this is not in the interests of democracy or us the citizens. It is only in the interests of the political class, which is why most parties are supporting it and those that oppose it are jumping up and down over the savings to be made. If the ramifications in particular the removal of Article 27 where explain properly or got significant press coverage this would be defeated quite easily.
As for the firing of judges, there is a good reason why governments should not be allowed hire or fire judges.
If this is passed our only way of opposing a law of significant national importance which we don't like during a governments term will be to take up arms against the state. People must remember that Hitler was democratically elected by the German people.

Javan

Claregirl wrote: »

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

I don't understand this assertion that the Seanad serves no useful purpose now. It maybe does not do as much as we'd like, but what is does is not nothing.
There are hundreds of amendments successfully proposed by the Seanad every term. Most of those amendments are routine. They are evidence that the Dail committees are not doing a great job, but they are not earth-shatteringly brilliant.
Other amendments do have some wide-ranging and important consequences.

I'm not saying that we should be satisfied with that level of activity from the Seanad; I'd like to see a lot more.

I am saying that the Seanad as-is serves some useful purpose. To say that it does not is not correct.

opiniated

Claregirl wrote: »

I'm really struggling to decide what way to vote.

The Seanad serves no useful purpose in it's present form however the thought of handing unlimited power to the Government of the day fills me with unease.

For a country with a population smaller than some UK councils I really don't see the need for the number of TDs and Senators currently in existence.

On the other hand is this referendum just a "cute hoor" move by FG putting forward a referendum knowing it will fail but they've fulfilled their election promises, the electorate votes against it and their cronies currently sitting in the Seanad who were rejected by the people in Daíl elections can safely keep their seats.

I honestly do not believe there will be any reform of the Seanad if this referendum is defeated. The exercise to reduce the number of TD's resulted in only 8 fewer seats:(

What seriously scares me is that it might not fail!

Max Powers

scrap it, it never has and never will provide a proper service. Its is a pathetic talking shop that offers us no protection, never has, never will. All other small to large countries get on just fine without a 2nd house, their govts dont suddenly turn into dictatorships with too much power.

Opportunity to save ourselves; the tax payer, millions and to get rid of a large collection (not all, but overwhelming majority) of pathetic excuses for politicians.