Senate stay or go?

All political discussion belongs in here!

Should the Senate stay or go?

Poll ended at 05 Oct 2013, 12:19

Get rid of Senate
15
88%
Keep it
2
12%
Won't vote
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 17
Mr. Stupid
Posts: 777
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

micropoodle wrote: Ps: it's under article 27 where it states the power of president to refer bills to the people.
This will be abolished as part of this referendum
Article 27 states that a majority of the Senate can create a referendum but guess what? It also states it must be a join petition with one third the members of the Dail. This has never even happened, but if you are going to make claims about article 27 - at least read it.

Here is section 1 the part you are misunderstanding
A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.
Article 15.10 is just an administrive thing. Here it is:
Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.
Who cares about that?
Please don't ask me for links, it's all written in the specific wording of this amendment, but obviously not on the yes voters literature
If you wish to live in a world of unsubstantiated claims do that.
Are you happy that the dail will have absolute power? Be honest now. A simple yes or no answer
I don't believe we are voting for that on Friday. If you wish to debate that in separate thread do that but define what you mean by absolute. Otherwise your question is meaningless and pointless.
micropoodle

Far from unsubstantiated.

You're choosing not to educate yourself but instead to pick out what you want to read
Mr. Stupid
Posts: 777
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

micropoodle wrote:Far from unsubstantiated.

You're choosing not to educate yourself but instead to pick out what you want to read
Play the ball not the man.

Anyway, for the No side McDowell was on TV3 last night and gave the best arguments I have heard for not voting for to abolish it. He picked out specific examples of amendments that were good that came from the Senate and proposals that were good that came from the Senate.

What he didn't point out that in the grand scheme of things - 60 full time legislators over the last 40 years means of course there is going to be the odd thing that comes out that is good. I am sure if we keep the Senate, over say the next ten years there might be another 2 examples of why it was good to keep it.

However, I don't think that's enough. All I am saying it was the best effort at an example of the No case.

Micropoodle, perhaps you could tell us the best Yes arguments.
Last edited by Mr. Stupid on 03 Oct 2013, 16:51, edited 2 times in total.
BenTown
Posts: 3
Joined: 24 Jun 2013, 10:03

Well Seanad Éireann stays until Enda decides to call another referendum. Democracy in Ireland= you can vote whatever you want as long as its yes, e.g Lisbon...
davidp
Posts: 66
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 15:47

Yes its staying the people have voted even though the ballot paper was as clear as trying to read a newspaper though a pint of guinness :?
User avatar
richard dawkins
Posts: 141
Joined: 25 Dec 2012, 10:29

I wonder why DonabatePortrane.net is out of kilter with the rest of the country? 15 - 2 vote is a massive Yes vote.
User avatar
Ken
Site Admin
Posts: 1480
Joined: 21 Sep 2012, 13:03
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 59 times

I too thought the ballot paper was confusing. I had to read it twice. My father-in-law said to me after voting that he voted "no". I said so you're in favour of the Senate. He said, no, that's why I voted "no". :?
Regards,

Ken.
micropoodle

The yes voters, as expected are now trotting out the excuses. From confusing ballot paper, to low turnout to enda not debating. I don't buy it.

I was out with a group of 30 or so people last night and if course the topic of conversation turned to the referendum. Surprisingly enough 22 out of the group claimed to have voted. We specifically spoke about the excuses and not 1 person said they were confused by the ballot paper.

There was plenty of coverage on this debate. Every single household got a booklet explaining in detail the meaning of voting yes and no. It's no excuse not to have known.

I voted for reform, despite not been given the option, and I'm actually confident of a reform process actually happening.

Endas personal crusade has cost the country approximately €14m to hold this referendum. Seanad reform, which could be implemented without a referendum would have cost a tiny fraction of this.

I read an article yesterday outlining Endas position on Seanad reform in 2009, only to suddenly change tack a few weeks later at a FG party dinner where he decided he needed an election tactic and choose Seanad abolition as his populist crusade. It has backfired spectacularly.
Derek
Posts: 362
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 19:50
Been thanked: 5 times

You know, even though I voted YES to abolish the Seanad, a part of me is still happy it has been retained as it gives Inda a black eye

Image
davidp
Posts: 66
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 15:47

They should televise the debates now
then all the people who wanted to maintain
it could tune in and enjoy the real value
to the taxpayer. It might even require RTE
to create a new Seanad station then they
could increase the tv license fee as well..what
about Marty Whelan being the host
"every little helps"
Mr. Stupid
Posts: 777
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

micropoodle wrote: I voted for reform, despite not been given the option, and I'm actually confident of a reform process actually happening.

Endas personal crusade has cost the country approximately €14m to hold this referendum. Seanad reform, which could be implemented without a referendum would have cost a tiny fraction of this.
You voted for FF propaganda. It was not just in FG's election manifesto it was in Labour's as well.
Read it here: http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labou ... o_2011.pdf page 45 and 46, Chapter 10.

You had it in your head you were voting No. Your arguments were on lines of hey but the Senate gave 240 ammendments to this. But you never even thought to check those amendments and assess their relevance. Or just based your opinions on gross misunderstandings and lies such as the Senate going to save medical cards for people.

Anyway, the sad thing in all this is that for the first time an Irish government has said "our buddies will lose jobs this time, not you" and the Irish people have said no keep your cushy jobs. Why would any political party ever again take the risk of any meaningful reform ever again where it will potentially lose? What's the point?

You completely over simplify how easy reform of the Senate is. Let's look at some facts again:

1. There were 3 reports for Senate reform in the 14 years of FF tyranny. They were all ignored. Incredibly this time they were telling everyone it should be reformed.

2. The real elitist parts of the Senate - the government controlling it, academics getting special seats need a referendum.

3. It will be really difficult to get agreement on the reform as there so many idealistic ideas, protest votes and people who think no matter what is suggested it is a conspiracy theory.

4. At the very best, you'll end up with another Dail and it will be a lot more expensive than the Senate.

More politicians doesn't mean better legislation it means more back benchers doing nothing and engaging in parish pump politics.
micropoodle

Good for your. Luckily your opinion doesn't make it fact.

The people have spoken and we live in a democracy.

So now we all have to live with this decision.
Mr. Stupid
Posts: 777
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

micropoodle wrote:Good for your. Luckily your opinion doesn't make it fact.

The people have spoken and we live in a democracy.
Two fifths of the people have spoken, the majority - the three fifths - don't seem to care what sort of system we live with. That's even more depressing. When you think of the political failure has done to so many that still the me feinner attitude of not caring still persists.

As for living in a democracy? Well the Senate is hardly democratic. We live in a quasi-democracy so.
micropoodle

It certainly isnt democratic but it could be and should be and hopefully will be.

Iny opinion the Dail is the home for a lot of people who don't necessarily have the intelligence to run a country. Sure most ministers are randomly assigned a portfolio and are supposed to be expert on the subject. Then a few years and a reshuffle later they are assigned another portfolio and are supposed experts in this new area. I actualy had a bit of hope when James Reilly was assigned Health as that was his background at least.

In the Seanad at least the (albeit undemocratically elected) scholars have some sort of expertise in an area and have the ability to string together coherent, intelligent setences to form interesting debate.

I was on an Oireachtas visit some time ago and actually found it hard to tear myself away from the Seanad. It was very interesting. Most people will disagree because they know nothing about it. They choose not to educate themselves on the Seanad. Many of the same people of course also know nothing about how the Dail works either.

I'd like to see a Seanad made up of scholars, relevent business people, economists, etc etc who can actually make a difference (because that will
Never happen in the Dail). I'd like all political party nominations to the Seanad to stop. Granted that's not going to happen because our current political system of me feinism ensures that won't happen.
Mr. Stupid
Posts: 777
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

micropoodle wrote: In the Seanad at least the (albeit undemocratically elected) scholars have some sort of expertise in an area and have the ability to string together coherent, intelligent setences to form interesting debate.
I wish. The two academics form the Senate I heard in this debate were Sean Barrett and David Norris and i think both are pretty poor. Then again, I think most academics are pretty poor. I agree with you about the terrible standard of Irish politicians btw.
I was on an Oireachtas visit some time ago and actually found it hard to tear myself away from the Seanad. It was very interesting. Most people will disagree because they know nothing about it. They choose not to educate themselves on the Seanad. Many of the same people of course also know nothing about how the Dail works either.

I'd like to see a Seanad made up of scholars, relevent business people, economists, etc etc who can actually make a difference (because that will
Never happen in the Dail). I'd like all political party nominations to the Seanad to stop. Granted that's not going to happen because our current political system of me feinism ensures that won't happen.
Well what you are suggesting is some sort of Senate reform. But it isn't very well thought out. Like most of the other suggestions. You are suggesting to keep it elitist (made up of scholars and experts) whereas most of the other suggestions say something different.

This is the problem - I really can't see it been an easy thing to reform. And I think scholars or experts should be able to play a positive role in Irish society without having to have an elitist chamber set up for them. for example, they can attend Dail committee meetings and engage with the public and media.
Post Reply