Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TWENTY-SEVEN ACADEMICS have signed a letter published in this morning’s Irish Times urging a No vote in the Seanad referendum which takes place in exactly a week’s time.
The letter published today includes the signatures of Ivana Bacik, a Labour senator and law lecturer at Trinity, and Democracy Matters campaigner and DCU law lecturer Gary Murphy.
Other notable signatories include the well-known UCD historian Diarmaid Ferriter and TheJournal.ie contributor and NUIG lecturer Larry Donnelly.
The signatories state that “as academics engaged in research in a variety of different disciplines we strongly advocate a No vote”.
The academics acknowledge that as currently constituted the Seanad is not “sufficiently equipped” to deliver on the ideals of scrutinising legislation and the executive, as well as providing vocational expertise in the Irish parliamentary system.
The letter goes onto detail the proposals for reform contained in a bill jointly proposed by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone.
The letter comes with the referendum now less than seven days away. Voters will be asked to vote Yes or No on the proposal to abolish the Seanad.
There will be no option for reform on the ballot paper but advocates of a No vote believe rejection of the referendum will lead to reform of the upper house.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I think the comments are set on attack mode. It’s possible the academics are intelligent people who see the importance of a no vote – protecting democracy! Reform should be an option!
YouTube: Olivia O’Leary Seanad – inform yourself and vote :)
Reform is the best option, funny that FG don’t want this as a option
Oh and the rest of us are stupid so is it Brian??? Maybe the clever academics are eyeing up a cosy little number in the Seanad themselves down the road. The Seanad has been and always will be for as long as it exists (which hopefully is about 2 more years) a talking shop for failed and wannabe politicos. Get rid of this waste of tax payers money ASAP. Democracy is in the hands of the people if they only realised it. Just take a look at the farmers and the OAPs to see what can be achieved through peaceful protest. These two demographic groups have done more to protect their own civil rights than the clapped out talking shop Seand Eireann ever will. Please people…vote Yes to rid ourselves of this elitist non-entity.
Ye can red thumb me as many times as ye like but it matters little. Ye can go on and on till yere blue in the face about why we should keep this waste of taxpayers money but the outcome will still be the same. We will all awake to the glorious sound of the death knell of Seanad Eireann next Saturday morning.
I always laugh when I see someone come out with a second comment moments after the first whinging over red-thumbs! It’s gives me the impression that the commenter was never so sure about their initial view and needs the reassurance of people agreeing with them and a flood of green thumbs to confirm same!! I have full confidence in the Irish electorate not to fall for this Government’s lazy-boy antics and to vote down the Seanad referendum and in doing so take the Government to task where the only option left to them is to set about reforming the Second Chamber and all concerned with it before they risk running the gauntlet of an election having done nothing with the Seanad as they previously promised!!
Gosh…you’re easily amused. I despise Fine Gael and all it stands for but I am “intellectual” enough to see what a waste of money the Seanad is. And I for one will be over the moon next Saturday when the results are read out as make no mistake, the Yes vote will carry comfortably.
I hear the bell a ringin’,
It’s comin’ to an end,
And I ain’t been this happy,
Since I don’t know when.
It’s the end of Seanad Eireann,
Crumble and down she’ll fall,
But the bell it keeps a tollin’,
Cause next it’s Fianna Fáil.
How EXACTLY are we “protecting democracy”? Seriously? FFS. Get a grip people. This is a golden opportunity to dump some of the relics.
Tom Tucker, there are far better ways for our government to save us money. You’re a fool to fall for the money card. The referendum should be – vote yes if you trust this government, vote no if the thought of them having more power scares the crap out of you. That’s why I’ll be voting NO.
@Tea Leaf…I’m no fool when it comes to this conniving, back stabbing, lying, corrupt government. I am basing my vote on decades of ineffectiveness by this useless institution. All of a sudden they are crying “reform! reform!” when their cosy little tea party is being threatened. I didn’t hear any of the self serving parasites in the Seanad shouting stop at any of the measures brought in during the last few budgets that have crippled working class families the length and breadth of the country. We don’t need this useless talk shop. Democracy lies in the hands of the people if they would only wake up and realise it. If we are unhappy with the government or any of it’s decisions we can force them to row back through peaceful protest in numbers. As I said earlier, we should take a leaf out of the OAPs and farmers book.
@Enola. the constitution was invented to protect people from politics,and this is the type of protection we need from curruption that we are seeing everyday, the spin thats been spread about savings is BS, reform it not abolish it
@Joe…what has the Seanad ever protected us from??? Seriously! Abolish the damn thing, then close down the government spin machine that is RTE and follow it up with real Dáil reform and we are half way there to real democracy.
Tea leaf, that’s not a reason to vote in favour or against it. Ignore the government and the people who are urging you to vote yes or no, look at the arguments for and against it and make your decisions then.
“Intellectual enough”?, don’t you mean intelligent enough :-D
@Darran…I used quotes for a reason! ;-)
Well said Tom.
It’s amazing how the intellectually challenged can only concentrate on two words “elitism” and “money”. They claim to be supporters of “democracy”, yet are willing to subvert that very concept to support an enhanced dictatorship. These are the people who constantly whine about Government, yet do nothing to change anything. They are the notorious “we” people, who depend on others to do the bidding, while they whine from the comfort of their home. They are the anonymous cancer of society, who lack the basic intelligence of not recognising the consequences of their stupidity. They lack the ability to recognise the golden opportunity of re-vamping the Seanad so as it will be effective in holding the Government to account.
Their “gestapo” styled leader, who is the epitome of cowardice, can not defend his own stupidity in a TV debate. He states that such a debate would embarrass the opposition leader – and so it would, because his ineptitude and crass ignorance supported by his intellectually challenged followers are already an embarrassment to the country.
Those who can think beyond “elitism” and “money” would do well to send a clear “NO” message to an incompetent and inept Government, that they will be held accountable once reform takes place.
I’ve never in my life seen a more irrational response to a proposal as this referendum, you are calling the elected government in an elected chamber where a govt has to submit to the oppositions scrutiny several times a weel ”dictatorship” do you realize how hyperbolic that sounds?
What is it you think it can protect you from? and why would it start protecting you after a no vote when it’s never protected you from anything so far? Why is the FACT that the senate has never been the thing you all want it to be not entering your heads when you calculate what the best way to vote is?
Tom,
“I despise Fine Gael and all it stands for but I am “intellectual” enough to see what a waste of money the Seanad is.”
You seem happy to abolish an upper house that publicly debates what a FG government doesn’t . Despite “despising” FG you propose to allow them to effectively merge the legislature and the executive and turn the judiciary into a beauty contest with the removal of the one judgement rule.
Tom ‘Redman’ Tucker
@ Ryan Carroll
Ok Ryan – you’re a FG man. Is that the crux of this?
Seriously – how can any self respecting individual seriously claim that the government has to “submit to the opposition scrutiny several times a week”?
Last week Enda evaded every question Martin put to him during Leaders Questions. When he was asked whether he would debate his only, glib childish idiotic answer was: I don’t want to embarrass you.
That is not submitting to opposition scrutiny.
Youre telling us all not to ignore political realities and then you tell us that the government submits to opposition scrutiny!!!
The power grab by FG is a disgrace its not jus the Seanad they want the ability to call for future referendums which means if they dont want a referendum we wont get one which means they will have full control over the constitution
@ Tus Nua
I’m afraid that is completely inaccurate Tus Nua. Getting things totally arse backwards is NOT going to help.
By all means if it thats what it takes to get you in the No camp then believe it, but just don’t be telling other people – it’s completely incorrect.
Your not getting the bounce of the ball bosco! Maybe change the pic to BA? Flower up the threatening language like ‘I pity the fooooool’! Like Che doesn’t do it in this tone; its gotta be BA!
Very well said :-)
Tom Tom Tom, I suggest you take a look at what you will be losing. Check out Article 27 of the Constitution… your only way of lobbying for a referendum on any Bill in front of the President. Once it is gone you will never ever have a legal avenue to overturn the government misdeeds. they will have total control over your destiny
I’m voting NO, full stop.
We need the Seanad but with reform. It’s the easy option for this government to just abolish it. They may have to actually do some work if they were forced to come up with ideas for reform!
The Yes argument is really simple, it’s not about cost or number of politicians,
I’m gonna respectfully ask ‘no for reform’ voters to try to keep an open mind, zoom out a bit, and think about this for a second logically, pragmatically. Please avoid name calling and abuse and lets just talk like adults
These poli-sci academics have all kinds of great ideas about how well a good bicameral parliament COULD work, but IMO they seem to be detached from how politics in the real world , as opposed to in theory, works.
This is how it breaks down IMO….
1. No govt is going to give you a powerful second house because it could be controlled by the opposition and could handicap it’s own agenda.
2. They might give you token reform that won’t require referendum like opening up the university seats
3. There is not much merit in saying an unelected house is needed to ‘protect our democracy’ from an elected house and elected government
4. Lets say they abandoned all their political instincts and gave you your reformed powerful second house. Look at the US now, they are struggling to even pass a budget, there is total deadlock, the elected executive can’t get it’s agenda through. A lot of you seem to think some slowdown on the govts power is a good thing but remember this is the govt you elect, would you as a FG supporter want FF to be able to handicap the agenda you beleive in, or vice versa? They wont be honest legislators they’ll turn the other house into a stage to perform on.
So either way, keeping a second house, your choice is between deadlock and a rubber stamp. If they reform it to be powerful and independent you’ll get gridlock, if they reform it so it can just delay, they’ll treat it like a rubber stamp as with now.
Rubber stamp or gridlocks your real world, practical choices, forget political theory and what might be nice, you have to deal with reality. Finally the idea that the govt has more power without the Senate is nonsense IMO, because the senate has only ever been a rubber stamp it’s never stood up to the govt on any of the things you guys tend to complain about most loudly.
That’s my cas, hopefully it will convince some of you.
Ryan – the US is a very poor example, as they operate a “3 arm” strand of government – we have only 2. You assert that we get the government we elect – do we, really? Did the people not vote for FG because of, a set of promises which were immediately abandoned – “Not one red cent to the Banks”, Leo Varadkar – “Property Tax is unjust and immoral”, Enda Kenny – “Labours way or Frankfurts way”, Eamon Gilmore – “No University Fees”, Ruari Quinn and so it goes on, and on, and on – and you say that for the Senate to block legislation which reversed the promises is a bad thing? You have a very poor concept of what it means to “hold a government to account”. Vote NO, and force a re-vamping of the purposefulness of the Seanad.
Yes Ryan,
Lets just fast track the law making process and move to one leader making all the decisions. Break the deadlocks by allowing an iron will to run the country.
You present hypothetical as fact on an overall dumb argument.
The issue of government being seen to be done is as valuable to a democracy as justice is.
@Terence thank’s for actually discussing it instead of just red thumbing and moving on, I really am trying genuinely to pick peoples brains on this and understand where they are coming from.
The break you see between promises and policy happens in countries with two chambers, having two chambers does not prevent that from happening.
The reason that happens is they are more beholden to special intrests than the public intrest and the reasons that happens is because of the corrupt influence of quid pro quo donations in politics, so a reform that would stop that would be to have a const-ammendment making public finance of electons manditory that would do far more than a senate to address your concerns.
This is why I think the no vote is peoples frustration with the system just finding an outlet rather than being about the senate itself, people are desperately hoping that there has to be some way to stop them being so corrupt and detached from us, and they are hoping against hope that the senate is that way.
They will not give you reform, I’m telling you, they won’t, politics 101 they won’t hand you a limit on their own power when they can spin the vote as an endorsement of the status quo, they’ll spin it that way people will be angry and then they’ll go back to watching xfactor and forget all about it.
Sustained public protest and pressure for change is not a feature of the Irish electorate unfortunately this is not France. They know they can screw you on this, and they will, or they will screw you with token reform.
A campaign for public financing of elections and for a reformed Dail would do far more to address the things you are conerend about than this senate issue, it’s not the beacon of hope people want to beleive it is.
@Paul I did not say anything about fast tracking law making, people are forever on here projecting things onto me that are not me, If I wanna say something I’ll say it.
I’d prefer our dail to be more like the commons in the UK where the whip does not apply for nonmanefesto promises and some other issues and where theres real debate, and id like to give the president more power to check the govt like expanding the power to refer bills to the people.
I’m just trying to focus no voters attention on the fact that this senate issue is not the deliverance from corruption and a detached political leadership they think it is, it’s just not , there are other reforms they could be supporting that would be far more effective.
@ Ryan Carrol
You’ve stated a load of reason why you don’t like the No argument.
But you havent stated one good reason for a Yes argument.
You say its not about fewer politicians and not about saving money. So what is it about?
I also disagree with the notion that NO government will give us reform. No FF FG Lab government will give us reform. That is for certain. But that is entirely our fault. The electorate voting for the same bloody snakes every time. But there are one or two decent people in there – all it will take is a few people willing to give something back to the country and we might actually get reform some time in the future.
But whatever about the No arguments. Why vote Yes? Bear in mind that the government itself is saying – fewer politicians, save 20 million. But you say its not about money or fewer politicians….so – why then?
Keep the Seanad, but with reform, agreed.
Hmm. Academics favour retention of elitist Seanad which has six university seats. Can’t say I’m surprised.
All the more reason to vote Yes.
Simple, The government want you to vote Yes , what do you do? vote No !
Simplistic more like. Short termism got us into this mess. Try taking a long term picture because the effects of this referendum will be felt long after the current government has been voted out.
At least that’s honest, and it’s probably the real reason people want to vote no, it would explain why all these absurd no arguments are being put forward like we need to protect our democracy from our elected dail with an unelected senate…and the govt are bastards I don’t trust them but I trust them to give me a new senate cos i asked nicely….none of those arguments make the least bit of sense, and the academics probably have lovely theoretical ideas for how a second chamber could work but they are not thinkin about political reality.
The no vote is cos they hate the Irish political establishment and wanna give them a kick, that’s it, so just say that instead of coming out with these ridicilous illogical arguments.
They want a yes vote to get rid of the Seanad cause it costs to much money… Yeah right !!! They want a yes vote to bring in a new court of appeal cause it will help with the back log…. Yeah right!!!
How about we reform the Seanad so that the boys in the Dáil don’t have all the say…..
How about we get the judges to do their job a little bit faster cause we have enough of them to do it..
How about we REFORM the Dáil… Now we could save a lot of money there…..
VOTE NO AND VOTE OFTEN……
Totally agree citizen after reading about the change that could happen, I know which way I will vote. Give all the power to the current ministers in charge of this land, and I dont mean F/G. Hope people see the bigger picture come Friday.
Judges work at quite a quick rate. It takes days to formulate a judgement for a case, it is not like a quick e mail. You have to justify the decision and ensure that what you are writing is correct and solid. It would be like writing an academic paper every day of the week.
As a graduate, that sure as hell is hard going. An extra court will give people a cheaper route than the Supreme Court and will mean the Supreme Court is only used for exceptionally important issues (because these judgements can be up to two hundred pages depending on the complexity of the issue).
I would suggest voting yes to the Court of Appeal just because it makes sense.
@ Citizen Keen
The Seanad referendum is a ridiculous and cynical political maneuver.
The Court Appeal referendum is perfect sense. There is a 4 and half year waiting list for cases in the Supreme Court. The Judges do their jobs plenty fast enough. Suggesting that all they have to do is work harder is …well… pretty weak.
Such a pity people are hung up on who signed the letter rather than its content. If the Seanad is abolished, the committees Enda is suggesting could cost substantially more and be accountable only to those who set their agenda and pay their wages. Less politicians in this instance sadly means less accountability.
Correct, it will not save one single penny, 11 billion of the so called 20 billion savings will still have to be paid re maintenance, pensions esb etc, but the rest will be redeployed via the committees that will be set up and then some, it will end up costing more for the price of democracy, it needs reform, not abolishment
Billion?? Im guessing you mean millions?
You realize the senators don’t have constituents and are not accountable to anyone?
Where are people getting this idea that this unelected house fillede with people who mostly FAILED to get elected is the key to protecting democracy? and protect it from WHAT? What tyrannical proposals are coming through the Dail?
Well they would. Wouldn’t they.
Of course they would, it’s a potential retirement home for them.
I wish alan! LOL!
Thank God I wont be buying the Times today.
Run for the Dail after this Alan, you can do it safe in the knowledge that the no voters won’t mind if you get rejected at the polls and end up in parliament through the senate anyway, in fact despite you loosing in an election they’ll hail the unelected chamber your in as a protection for democracy against the house that WAS elected.
Your tag #Academics Say No is a bit pedestrian. I’d prefer #Turkeys Say No To Christmas
This is the self preservation society (or however that song goes)!
Reform the Seanad.
60 senators is fine, as long as the election process is more democratic.
166 TDs, each representing around 30,000 people is an absolute joke.
Both elections to Seanad and Dáil Éireann should be on same day to avoid it becoming a kindergarten for aspiring politicians and a retirement village for older ones.
But like many things, this makes too much sense for an inept government.
@ Liam
Sense has nothing to do with it. The Executive don’t want a challenge to their power.
And having the elections on the same day is a very bad idea. Allow the People to focus on one thing at a time. Our voting track record in this country is truly dreadful. Look at this referendum and the amount of People who cant be bothered to inform themselves.
You see what I’m saying about all the reform ideas contradicting each other Felix? This is the problem, some people want expanded university seats and appointed senators others want NONE of that, some people want elections on same day to prevent gridlock some want them staggard, this is one of the reasons they won’t give you reform.
How are you all so cynical about everything else but you trust them to hand deliver you this amazing reform plan?
Jesus Christ.
First of all – quite obviously no one on here is either qualified or has given the appropriate consideration to which reforms might be most suitable.
Suggesting: “Oh look! No one on the Journal agrees on reforms! It must be unreformable!”
Ridiculous.
They won’t give us reform because they don’t want a challenge to their power. Simple as that.
Neither the Dail nor the Seanad are fit for purpose. Simple as that – two outmoded, out of touch, elitist and poorly constructed entities. To argue that one must go is to argue that the other must also go. BOTH need root and branch overhaul. NEITHER are getting ANY overhaul or reform.
Doubtless if we were discussing reform of the Dail there would be hundreds of different opinions too. Does that mean it should not be reformed either?
I’ll happily get rid of the Seanad when the Dail has been completely overhauled into a functioning democratic parliament.
Might as well wish for the EuroMillions too while I’m at it.
If they are cowardly, cynical and selfish enough to refuse to make any reforms at all I would far rather retain the status quo until such time as we can elect someone who will.
@Felix your a citizen and you seem to care about how our democracy works so you’re just as qualified as anyone else to make suggestions, if you want the system to be a more true reflection of peoples wishes then it’s important for you to brainstorm some ideas, the constitutional convention listened to loads of public ideas about this stuff from average joe public.
That’s not my reason for thinking it’s unreformable, the 12 contradicting reports, and everyone I saw in politics having diffrent ideas, and everyone out in the world having contradicting ideas, is why I think it can’t be reformed, alongside the simple argument that the govt won’t hand you a limit on their own power.
People agree on loads of things policy wise but they all disagree on the senate.
So even if they put a reform proposal up you’d likley get a lot of people who are ”pro reform” voting no cos it’s not their brand of reform.
See people say things like ”functioning parliament” without saying what they mean by that, there is no obvious answer.
We could have the US model where the executive is seperatly elected from the parliament that results in huge deadlock and really bad policy look at the state of the US
We could keep the two connected but have parliament be more independent like the UK where theres real debates in the chamber even amoung same party.
But we can do all that without having a senate, there is nothing out there the senates protecting us from that would ‘get’ us if it was gone, theres no tyranny just over the corner I don’t know what you are all afraid of.
Theres plenty of suggestions for dail reform out there
@ Ryan Carroll
The constitutional convention is a total joke. It will never amount to anything. Another shameful example of the government’s cynical electioneering.
Your arguments about it being unreformable apply equally to the Dail. No one in the public agrees therefore it cannot be done, therefore we must do away with it. That’s utterly ridiculous.
“There’s plenty of suggestions for dail reform out there”
Ha! Jesus Ryan do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Yesterday you were saying we could reform the Presidency!!!
So what you’re saying is we will never be able to reform the Seanad because there are too many people with differing opinions so we’ll never get agreement so we’d be better to do away with it.
Yet now you’re saying there’s lots of proposals for Dail reform and that we can reform the Presidency!!! Do the same rules not hold true? Everyone suddenly agrees on Dail and Presidential reform do they?
Bunkum. The same obstacles that exist for Seand reform exist for Dail and Presidential reform INClUDING the FACT that FF/FG/Lab will never EVER give it to us.
How on earth can you say on the one hand that the Seanad cannot be reformed because of the differences of opinion and on the other say that there are lots of ideas for Dail reform out there?
I have read the leaflet containing what way voting will effect the future of Irish governance, in the referendum, on the Seanad, I am no expert ( the red thumbs will indicate that) but the main job for the Seanad in this form is to DELAY the inevitable change in law ( bills) so if reform is not on the cards , then abolishing it is, well, for me anyway. Backed up with some of the shenanigans I have seen in that house ( looks like St Lomonds sometimes) and the inadequate speaking ability of some of its members.
The abolition of the Seanad would not only be harmful to the democratic process in Ireland it calls into question why, in the middle of all of our travails and the various crises afflicting this country, the Government would now embark on this distracting ploy.
The Seanad is in sufficiently representative but, in the course of review of Bills, it has often improved legislation by putting forward quality legislative amendments, avoiding expensive legal challenges and conflicts at a later date,
My view is that I don’t trust the Government or its motives. There is an ulterior motive in bringing forward this amendment at this time. I hope that the Government will fail in its effort at this amendment and that a reformed Seanad can be established based on universal suffrage.
So you think the govt are such bastards you don’t trust them…but you trust them enough to hand deliver you a strong limit on their own power in the form of a reformed senate.
Am I the only one seeing the total warped logic in these no arguments? I don’t think there are any serious no arguments other than ‘I hate the Irish establishment for their incompetence and corruption and wanna give them a bloody nose’ if that’s what your reasons are say it.
Ryan,
The only warped logic would appear to be your own. You might be the only one.
You did not actually refute anything I said, that seems to be a common practice on here, get frustrated then play the man not the ball.
Not a single no voter on here in any of these debates has actually directly refuted a single one of my core points, they talk around them, talk about issues that are nothing to do with the senate, or attack me personally, but they don’t actually argue the points themselves.
They will not hand you a barrier to their own power with a reformed senate that would be politically stupid of them, and even if they did it would be either a rubber stamp (with delaying power) that they would ignore, or an independent powerful senate that would cause deadlock like the US one does, those are facts based on how other countries with those two examples work, not opinions, that is how they work, in the real world, not in the wonderful theoretical political science world of politics academics or in the minds of hopeful reform voters but in the real world that’s how they work.
A reformed dail would be far better than a rubber stamp or source of constant deadlock and partisan bickery.
@ Ryan
You keep saying that the No votes have ridiculous and illogical supporting arguments, Yet i havent seen you ONCE give a strong argument for a Yes vote.
You said its not about money
You said its not about getting rid of politicians
You seem to be claiming (in direct contradiction of your arguments) that the Dail and Presidency can be reformed.
So why should we get rid of the Seanad Ryan?
As mentioned its a retirement home for them, and they also have voting rights. I’ve two degrees and no voting rights. It’s that kind of elitist crap that annoys people. The Senate had decades to reform itself and they sat on their hands.
Same here. Unfortunately I went to the wrong university so I don’t get a vote.
Cameron, you should blame our Governments, present and past, for not reforming the Seanad. It’s they who have the power to reform the Seanad, yet they’ve never done anything of the sort. They’ve even ignored the results of a 1979 referendum that would have allowed all 3rd level graduates to vote in Seanad elections.
Blaming the Seanad for not reforming itself is like blaming a guard dog for not barking after it’s been muzzled and put into a soundproof room.
I have two votes for it but like most others with Seanad votes, couldn’t really care less. This notion that they are encouraging its retention as a mode of self preservation is disingenuous too. Whatever about the other problems with how people are appointed to the Seanad, I don’t think anyone except maybe David Norris agrees with the NUI/Trinity bias in voting.
Problem is I think most people recognise that we would be better served by retaining and reforming the Seanad, but we have heard talk of reform for decades with no results. I would still favour retention, but unfortunately I am one of those hopeful of a reform that will likely never occur.
So a small group of people that are either in the Seanad or part of the 1% who gets to vote for the Seanad wants to keep it. I’m shocked.
Bye by Seanad Eireann…can’t say I’ll miss you!
It is objectionable and entirely wrong that there is not universal suffrage for Seanad elections. That can be easily reformed.
Those who trust and support the Government will vote in favour of abolition. Those who are sceptical of motive, timing and purpose of this abolition campaign will think about this issue based on the objective merits and will make an informed and considered decision.
Peter what good do you think a clone of Dail Eireann is going to do for us? What would be the point in having 2 elected chambers? Why not 3? or 4?
The Dail is elected on PRSTV that’s about as accurate to the publics opinions as any system gets short of maybe PRLIST with one national constituency.
I’d really like reform advocates to stop saying ”reform reform reform” and start telling us what kind of reform they want to see.
Here’s one reform: a second house elected by universal vote in non-geographical constituencies. Every candidate says what their constituency is, be it occupations like farmers, doctors etc, or religions, rural dwellers, LGBT activists or whatever you’re having yourself. You choose one constituency that best represents you and vote for the candidates in that constituency nationally, so you have a senator for farmers, who would be a lot more expert in that area. Make a combined committee system for both houses, elected from among all members by secret ballot so no party line, to choose the best suited people based in their expertise and experience and send all bills there before going to either chamber, both of which could send amendments.
Or would you like to continue with the same bunch of teachers, lawyers and accountants that currently rubber stamp all the decisions made by the cabinet within a cabinet like we have now?
I had a friend, since gone ar shli na firinne, who was born and brought up in India. He qualified as a doctor at Trinity and lived all his life in South Africa. He only ever ent to Ireland on holidays.
He had a Seanad vote and always exercised it. The whole thing was ridiculous.
I feel there are a lot of facts that are being brushed over with this debate.
1 anyone can be appointed/elected to the seanad
2 the proportion of people qualifying for a vote has being increasing as more students graduate from our universities
I would like to see it kept and reformed to include
no party politics (no current/former party members allowed to be appointed/elected)
broadening the electoral pool to accommodate the IT’s
Reduce the Taoiseach appointees to 2/3
oh and elections for it to be held on the same day as the general election so ppl have to choose one or the other
Sorry nope.
All for reform. But no Taoiseach appointees an no college candidates. Directly elect all of them. From the General Population.
And I wouldn’t hold it at the same time as the dail elections either – the People of Ireland find it difficult enough to make good choices when they have one election to focus on – never mind several. Just look at this referendum and the amount of people who are talking total balls about it.
You realize what that would mean felix? Staggard elections?
Mid terms with euros and locals usually mean in year one the govt that was elected in year 2-3 that govt party gets hammered and the opposition takes the lead, so that would mean two chambers controlled by two diff blocks who would be constantly trying to undermine each other and obstruct each other, we’d have bills bouncing back and forth between the chambers never passing, .
Yes. So you keep saying.
Yet you fail to say why this is a bad thing. Our elected officials cannot be trusted. I am ALL FOR a limit on their power. They simply cannot be trusted. They are a disgrace. The make promises, the break them. They ignore the electorate.
Deadlocks over legislation are a problem when the representatives are working for the common good. In this country they do not.
So I m perfectly happy with the possibility that FG could get little done. They refuse to do anything right so why should they be allowed do anything at all?
Maybe if they actually worked for the benefit of the country we might actually give them control of both houses.
It does not make one bit of difference if it goes or stays The opinion of the ordinary pleb no longer counts in this country and it will not until we take our country back
Seanad Eireann where the 1% meet and greet.
How about a rhyme – elite , take seat, meet, and greet. Sweet! Neat! DELETE !
I think the Seanad will stay, those that want to keep it will make sure to vote, those that want it gone wil sit at home, watch sky sports and read the Irish mirror..
The Seanad has actually been attempting to get itself reformed for many, many years. There have been *12* reports on it since the foundation of the state, the most recent being done back in 2004 which laid out really extensive reforms that could have been quite easily implemented.
The problem is that every time reform is mentioned, the Governments have just ignored these reports and they are left to gather dust because the status quo is hard to shift and also probably because any reform might mean a more functional, democratically accountable and thus more powerful and relevant Seanad that might actually have the ability to hold the Government to account and no government likes that kind of thing.
The current setup of the Seanad needs to change radically and is a bit of an anachronism, but I would not like to see it abolished and certainly not with the Dail in its current form where it’s really not functioning as a national legislature in the way that a properly setup parliament might. TDs need to be *much* more heavily involved in the design of legislation and really we’re not seeing that happening to the level it ought to.
However, you don’t save money by slicing off bits of your democratic system and system of checks and balances. You might perhaps reform them and seek to make savings in how they operate, but you don’t just abolish chunks of the system like that!
I mean how far do you want to go? You could save a fortune and just become an absolute monarchy… Throwing away checks and balances is a very odd way of dealing with cost overruns.
Could we not look at say reducing TDs and senators allowances, reducing numbers, completely modifying the constituency setup and driving cost savings in how things are done??? I’m sure you could save a lot more than removing the upper house and it would also be a long-term structural reform that might make things more efficient?
I’m really trying hard to understand no voters thinking but instead of answering points they just tick red and move on so I’m finding it hard to see their point of view.
You say the govt has always handicapped reform, why do you think they won’t this time when they did the other 12 times?
Didn’t people vote for some kind of reform for the Seanad in late 70′s or early 80′s ? Not sure about what kind of reform exactly, maybe broadening the colleges who could nominate or something but maybe someone could enlighten us. I’m sure I read it somewhere, and like other things, each govt since then chose not to ignore what the people voted for.
That would be the 1979 Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
92.4% of voters voted in favour of it with only 7.6% against and the Government never implemented the changes it was supposed to make to allow graduates of third level institutions other than Trinity and the NUI vote in Seanad Elections.
Despite the huge % of support for it, the implementing legislation was never debated or passed so, despite the constitution allowing for it, the government never extended the franchise to all graduates.
Really says a lot for the inertia around Seanad reform that stems almost entirely from the lower house and not the Seanad itself.
why not abolish BOTH houses and start over again? this time with no more than 50 t’ds on saleries of no more than 80kpa with no expenses unless vouched for and then to a limit of 25kpa,no pension until 65yrs of age, no ‘dissapointment money’ and no ‘special treatment’ with regards to the laws of the land i.e being allowed to get away with drink driving if returning from government meetings. for the seanad or second chamber, members to be elected every four years (maximum) at the same time as the general election by the general public vote not universities, political parties or other ‘privaliged’ sectors, 40k pa remuneration, with expensis limit of 15k vouched. again with the same rules as regards ‘special dispensation’ in the law of the land.
for both houses, all payments and re-embursments subject to a minimum attendence of 90% of all ‘working days’ in the house, the only exception being for certified medical reasons, no ‘signing in ‘by other members on behalf of absent members , cuts to the number and length of holidays taken by both houses,to 2 weeks over christmas and new year, , 2 weeks at summer,and all other ‘national’ holidays , and an annual report on attendence ,expensis and the number of contributions the member has taken part in, to be published in the public demain before the houses resitt after the summer break.
if something in this line were to be introduced how many of our current politicians and senetors would still want to stand for election ? i say less than 10%, proving that most of them are only in it for their own good.
So Ivana Bacik, rejected by the electorates of Dublin Central, Dublin South East and DunLaoghaire at various general elections gets elected to parliament with less than 3000 votes from the Trinity Seanad (about 2000 votes behind David Norris) panel feels the Seanad shouldn’t be abolished. Are you surprised?
27 people who are in the tiny percent able to vote in Seanad elections don’t want it abolished. Big surprise.
Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind.
I think people are making a really huge mistake with this.
Get the sense that people are angry and frustrated by what has gone on in the last few years and the corruption and incompetence is making them cry out for something that might make things change, and they are projecting all that frustration onto the senate making it into something it’s just not, and can never be.
All the problems people mention when they say they want a check on the Dail have to do with powers the govt have either thru their day to day executive function, SI or they are listing things like the bailout which passed in every single country that has two chambers so what makes you think they would be any less likley to pass here?
This is not the reform you are looking for to change things in Irish politics its just not, if you want real change you’d be better focused on getting the money out of politics.
Ryan,
Good point regarding getting money out of politics. We want a democratic Dáil, not a fettered talking shop.
The Dáil is the problem – not the Senate.
Reform both.
This is clearly one of those times when I’m on the unpopular side, I think you are all going to be bitterly dissapointed, I hope to god I’m totally wrong and they give us a WORKING reformed senate that turns out well and does not result in deadlock, I really hope I’m wrong, but based on what I know of Irish politics thats just not gonna happen.
With the greatest respect to Ms. O’Leary, of whom I am a fan, I must disagree with her. The fact that this Seanad has temporarily housed a few people who appear to be of great worth is merely serendipitous IMOH and for that good fortune we can be grateful. The folk she eulogises are few are far between, and do not come often. Because of Irish Political culture I submit that the Seanad is incapable of reform – as was the opinion of Eamon de Butleir, Senator – and should be let go. The current situation appears to be akin to someone hanging on to a wastrel of a husband, because he is better than no husband at all. Let jus grow up and have a smaller parliament as befits our size of country and population. The fact that Indah and his gang are blackguards does not mean that they cannot, occasionally, be right.
maybe people should be voting for the good of the country,not the good of its political classes and accademics.
We don’t care, so all those Academics who might have expected “the nod” at some stage in the future might look elsewhere for methods to supplement their income.
Ok, so a labour SENATOR (durr) and some friends. She’s kind of a double-job if she doesn’t vote no. Also, they sell it as being of many disciplines. Is that a good thing? An engineer’s expertise is not in politics. Anyway, it’d be more in the journal’s interests to look up a non-biased story. (I’m split as to how to vote, in current form, it’s just a meaningless training ground for people who want a nice salary/to get into real politics, but all power cannot shift to one house)
*out of a double job if she doesn’t
have your say