gaaboard.com

Well boys and girls.

How will ye be voting next month?

On one hand I can see what we need to get rid of this shower as 99% of them are goms, only university graduates plus politicans and a few others get a vote etc but on the other hand there have been good Senators in the past (Lady Norris, Fergal Quinn, WB Yeats) and I can see why one would vote to keep things as they are.

Do you believe abolition will save 20 mill per annum? I don't. The so-called savings will just get sucked into the big cesspit that is Leinster House.

Anyhoo have your say on this ifin you like.

Eoghan Harris.
Ivor Callelly.


Unicameral for me.

Retain and Reform............will reform happen, most likely not..........but this recession is been used to centralise more and more power for the few, it can never be a good thing....

In the fifties, we ripped up the railways and tram lines............60 years later we are relaying them............

What benefit is the Senate to the country.  They are costing the state a fortune and it is only a talking shop with no power to do anything.
We have far to many people in government doing nothing as it is so losing a few wont do any harm

Replace both houses with Lawnseed, he will start the dung out. 8)

Quote from: tyronefan on September 09, 2013, 08:21:06 PM
What benefit is the Senate to the country.  They are costing the state a fortune and it is only a talking shop with no power to do anything.

What do you mean 'no power to do anything'?

The Seanad costs €5 per capita. In the 1930s when the country actually was poor and when the state had two-thirds of the population of today, they felt that government was worth expenditure of having a Senate. There is a real question of the structure of these institutions, but there needs to be some sense of reality.

Political reform is required urgently. Dumping the seanad is cosmetic though.

Quote from: LeoMc on September 09, 2013, 09:37:26 PM
Replace both houses with Lawnseed, he will start the dung out. 8)

exactly during the "dungout" the country will be run by a group of 16, four from each province and the army, remember to adhere to the curfew times because there may be some shooting while the traitors are gathered up for transportation to a country of their choice (mostly north Korea). also townies will provided with wellies for gathering spuds on my new 400 acre estate that I intend to claim in the name of the new Irish state. (the present owner is a prod but we know how to handle him) my sons are beginning to show an interest in farming so they may also require some labourers for their land also I'll get a manager to run it until they're  12 or 13yrs.
there you have it I've already eased the burden on the public purse by getting rid of sliveen politicians and bankers etc.. and created gainful employment for hundreds of unemployed townies

Quote from: muppet on September 09, 2013, 08:08:53 PM
Eoghan Harris.
Ivor Callelly.


Unicameral for me.

I see your Eoghan Harris and Ivor Callelly and I raise you Mick Wallace and Willie O'Dea.

Bicameral for me.

Quote from: tyronefan on September 09, 2013, 08:21:06 PM
What benefit is the Senate to the country.  They are costing the state a fortune and it is only a talking shop with no power to do anything.
We have far to many people in government doing nothing as it is so losing a few wont do any harm

So you trust the Dail to get all legislation right without any oversight?

Granted this Seanad in its present form doesn't do much, but only because the government can sew the whole thing up with its own appointees.

I say retain and reform, give it some teeth and make it more effective.

Nicely put Eamon. That's my own view on the matter as well. I think there will be an awful low turnout because people don't have the appetite for this sort of stuff.

As Eamonn says retain and reform.

The executive makes all the decisions. They could just as easily get rid of the Dail for all the difference it would make.
The whole political system is broken.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 09, 2013, 10:22:12 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 09, 2013, 08:08:53 PM
Eoghan Harris.
Ivor Callelly.


Unicameral for me.

I see your Eoghan Harris and Ivor Callelly and I raise you Mick Wallace and Willie O'Dea.

Bicameral for me.

Bertie appointed Harris & Callelly to the Seanad.

The people voted for Wallace and O'Dea.

The Senate is not a layer of protection for us, it is a layer of protection for failed TDs and lackeys.

The sooner it's gotten rid of the better. What has the Seanad done? Give me a tangible example of the Seanad's output over the last 10 years.
They have had years and years to reform themselves and didn't bother their hole. Now all of a sudden they are full of ideas by which the Seanad can become relevant to the people.
And the argument that other elements of the political system are also broken doesn't mean that we should keep the Seanad, just that we need to turn our attention to other things when we've rid of it.

Retain and reform. If it's done properly, it can be a good check on the Dail. Politicians arguing to do away with it have one of two agendas - populism or (and /or?) power-grab.

The reform does need to be significant, including the method of election. One important reason to keep it - which should be of interest to a lot of people on this board - is that it's a means to have Northern voices in the Oireachtas.

Also, the arguments for cost savings don't really stack up. Does anyone really believe we'd 'see' that €20m? It's loose change in the grand scheme of things. And good few senators are already employed, therefore they're paying higher rate of tax on their Seanad salary - in the region of 50% going straight back to the exchequer. If cost was a real driver, then why not cut salaries across the Oireachtas? Or reduce the number of TDs and Senators without full abolition.

Amusing that both Fianna Fail and Sinn Féin have done a u-turn on this one, both in opposite directions. Have these changed positions been made on the merit of the situation or to try and secure some small political advantage and differentiation?

So, only half of SF and Labour voters want the Seanad abolished... imagine how much lower that figure would be if those parties were campaigning on the other side of the argument...
http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-sinn-fein-seanad-referendum-1085524-Sep2013/

(http://s3.thejournal.ie/media/2013/09/referendum-campaign-posters-pictured-310x415.jpg)

The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

1937 Constitution is actually very good. Would be slow to change it willy nilly and certainly not on a whim to distract people from the economic mess.

Should stay and everyone should be able to  vote for it.

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

I completely agree with your logic and assessment of the current system. But I think that voting NO sends the message - don't change anything all is grand.

If the Seanad is retained, how many people believe that in 10 years time it will be significantly different than it is now?

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2013, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

I completely agree with your logic and assessment of the current system. But I think that voting NO sends the message - don't change anything all is grand.

Well if it does then that's a misinterpretation. Either way it's better than voting yes to yet another flawed proposal to amend our excellent constitution. Yes would be a complete disaster. Anything that gives the Dáil more power has to be fought. I think it should have less power.

In constitutional referenda the default position should be No until you are convinced otherwise by the propsers of change. I'm voting NO on the other one too, nothing so far has convinced me this will be more efficient than the current (flawed) system and I fear it could easily make it worse.

Quote from: StephenC on September 17, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
If the Seanad is retained, how many people believe that in 10 years time it will be significantly different than it is now?

I'd obviously have doubts but it could and definitely should happen. If the proposal is beaten and I'm thinking it will be, Kenny will have to come up with some sort of spin about how people really want the same as him - the Seanad to change.....blahdee blah. If the pressure is kept up it can be achieved but the very fact that it's "all or nothing" is typical of the politics that got the country into the shit we are in. Why have we not learned from our mistakes? Have a discussion about possibilities rather than going for a populist (he thought) quick fix.

Quote from: deiseach on September 17, 2013, 11:51:04 AM
Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

Hmmm... surely now that information moves faster it's even more important to give a more considered response to the debate? Although i'm not convinced the speed of information was ever a significant factor.

And there's no sound basis for the €20m 'savings'.
http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-abolition-costs-estimate-1085906-Sep2013/

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 17, 2013, 06:10:58 PM
And there's no sound basis for the €20m 'savings'.
http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-abolition-costs-estimate-1085906-Sep2013/

It is hardly without cost though.

And what value does it add, other than allowing Taoishigh appoint lackeys and failed TDs to nice pensions?

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 17, 2013, 06:09:52 PM

Quote from: deiseach on September 17, 2013, 11:51:04 AM
Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

Hmmm... surely now that information moves faster it's even more important to give a more considered response to the debate? Although i'm not convinced the speed of information was ever a significant factor.

The bicameral model we use comes from the US system. Senators there have six year terms and until 1913 were not even subject to a popular vote (they were nominated by state legislatures). The idea was that there should be a second chamber to give a more considered view, not subject to the latest whim of the proles. We are talking about a time before telegrams, let alone radio. It never worked on its merits even in its original incarnation, yet new states seem to adopt the model without a second thought. I've always wanted to get rid of it and look forward to the chance of doing it.

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 18, 2013, 01:13:27 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 18, 2013, 09:00:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 18, 2013, 01:13:27 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

Easily solved if there is a will?? There is no such will so how else can it be easily solved? The Seanad has backed the government legislation every time it was asked for the last 2 and a half years without a single exception. It's 49 years since it last used is power to delay legislation. Beating this in mind, scraping a toothless seanad couldn't be much of a "powergrab".

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 18, 2013, 09:00:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 18, 2013, 01:13:27 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

If they were so easily solved why has no one bothered their hole doing it? The senators have had ample time create the Seanad that you are talking about. They haven't and they won't. A No vote is a vote to keep the Seanad exactly as it is for generations to come. A leg up and a soft landing for politicians, a soapbox for people to practice their oratory and another chunk of waste in our public service.

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 18, 2013, 09:00:46 PM
As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

In what way is the Seanad a bulwark against the power of the Dáil? Forget about their inaction in the recent crisis, as many people have pointed out that would be an argument to abolish democracy entirely. Can anyone think of a single situation where an action was taken by the Oireachtas that wouldn't have been taken if it were not for the Seanad? Heck, it can be a bad decision, at least it would show the Seanad had some power in the first place.

Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

Quote from: Maguire01 on September 18, 2013, 09:00:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 18, 2013, 01:13:27 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 11:12:40 AM
The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

This is the key phrase here.  And you and everyone else knows that this will doesn't exist.

I'll be voting to get rid of this undemocratic bastion of privilege.

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AM
Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

The Taoiseach's nominees are a feature, not a bug. Why should a series of rotten boroughs like the Seanad - anyone with degrees from UCD and Trinity gets two votes! - interfere with the will of the Dáil?

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AMYou could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

We have two chambers, one which makes the decisions (even if it was to agree to the bailout) and one which doesn't. Why do we need two chambers to make decisions?

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AM
Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

Yeah and should we ever get the chance, I would vote to abolish it too

Quote from: deiseach on September 19, 2013, 11:07:48 AM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AM
Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

The Taoiseach's nominees are a feature, not a bug. Why should a series of rotten boroughs like the Seanad - anyone with degrees from UCD and Trinity gets two votes! - interfere with the will of the Dáil?

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AMYou could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

We have two chambers, one which makes the decisions (even if it was to agree to the bailout) and one which doesn't. Why do we need two chambers to make decisions?

We need one made up of politicians and one completely devoid of politicians in my view. If I had to make do with one I know which one I'd pick to get rid of.

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 02:43:09 PM
We need one made up of politicians and one completely devoid of politicians in my view. If I had to make do with one I know which one I'd pick to get rid of.

That's all very nice, but I'm reminded of Tony Benn's five questions for those in power: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? How exactly would you envisage getting shot of members of a legislature devoid of politicians?

Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 03:55:46 PM
Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

I like the sound of term limits. There's a page on Wikipedia on families on the Oireachtas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_in_the_Oireachtas) and it'd take a stronger man than me to scroll all the way through it without heaving. Still, even with term limits you're going to have politicians. I don't see how having term limits in the Seanad would make it a more meaningful body.

Quote from: deiseach on September 19, 2013, 04:52:47 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 19, 2013, 03:55:46 PM
Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

I like the sound of term limits. There's a page on Wikipedia on families on the Oireachtas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_in_the_Oireachtas) and it'd take a stronger man than me to scroll all the way through it without heaving. Still, even with term limits you're going to have politicians. I don't see how having term limits in the Seanad would make it a more meaningful body.

It's more the independence that I'd be looking for. the term limits thing was simply an answer to your previous question.

I personally think the most undemocratic thing in the country is that we have TD's and Senators who have their minds made up for them the day the join a political party. The vast majority of that group have no input and just vote as they are told to. That's patently undemocratic in my opinion.

The system needs fundmental surgery - not a crude brush stroke like what's proposed.

The Government has decided to opt for cuts and greater centralisation of power. Instead of creating a more effective, transparent accountable democracy, the Government wants to abolish the Seanad, cut the number of elected representatives in the Dáil and in local government, and centralise even more power and authority into its hands.

That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage.

The cuts agenda that dominates this Government's thinking do not bring efficiency, as we have seen from the austerity policies. They lead to hardship, inefficiency and more inequality.

Not my words, but the words of Gerry Adams (courtesy of Slugger), only a few months ago...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T6Mk9a7_D4

So why the u-turn? Is it no longer a power-grab? Or is a power-grab now ok?

Another interesting perspective...


Seanad abolition would make united Ireland harder - former AG
John Rogers says proposal would solidify partition

Ruadhan Mac Cormaic

Abolishing the Seanad would make it more difficult to achieve a united Ireland, former attorney general John Rogers has said.

Intervening in the referendum campaign on the No side yesterday, Mr Rogers said the proposed amendments were the "most revolutionary" since the Constitution was drafted in 1937.

He stressed that one of the reasons for the establishment of the upper house - giving representation to the Protestant minority - remained relevant given political developments in Northern Ireland.

"If we have an ambition to create a united Ireland, we should be seeking to maintain institutions which will accommodate minority," he said. "In my view the abolition of the Seanad represents a sort of concretisation of the 26-county state."

"It is the most revolutionary amendment to the 1937 Constitution and it assumes a very uni-dimensional type of state - not a state with minorities, substantial or otherwise."

Mr Rogers was speaking at an event organised by the group Lawyers for Seanad Reform, which published a report outlining the legal consequences of abolition. The event was also attended by former Minister for Justice Michael McDowell.

Mr Rogers warned that a vote for abolition was in effect a vote to create "a new entrenched elite in the Dáil", as the lower house was dominated by the party whip system.

A Yes vote on Friday would result in the removal of a Constitutional provision whereby Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign it.

Mr Rogers said this provision offered protection "against the dominance of a cadre in the Dáil... who would seek to enact legislation which did not have the general support of the people", citing a hypothetical "extremely liberal" abortion law as an example of a scenario in which it could be used.

Mr Rogers said one of Éamon de Valera's reasons for establishing the Seanad was that it would allow people with specialist knowledge to be heard.

"Had Morgan Kelly and David McWilliams been senators in the heady days of the Tiger, we can be sure that the giveaways that were founded on the economy becoming ever "boomier" would have been forcefully challenged," Mr Rogers said. He was referring to a remark by then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who said in 2006 that inflation was rising because "the boom times are getting even more boomer."

The report by Lawyers for Seanad Reform describes the abolition proposal as "constitutional vandalism" and warns that a Yes vote would "mutilate" the Constitution. Most "sinister" was that it would "steal" the right of the Irish people to have the opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation where the president believed the matter should be put to a referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seanad-abolition-would-make-united-ireland-harder-former-ag-1.1547914

Quote from: magpie seanie on September 17, 2013, 02:02:00 PM
Anything that gives the Dáil more power has to be fought. I think it should have less power.

The Dáil is at least elected, so I wouldn't have any problem in theory with giving it more power.

The problem is that the whip system, which this crowd have absolutely no intention of changing except to make it even more stringent, means that the Dáil has no power; it's the plaything of the Cabinet of the moment (unless there's no overall majority). TDs vote for whatever the party leadership proposes or else they get tossed out of committee memberships, out of their parliamentary parties, out of their offices, and get threatened with deselection. Ask Lucinda Creighton. Ask Róisín Shortall.

This shower have a majority of sixty in the Dáil, and it shows; opposition TDs get bleated down by the sheep on the government backbenches while ambitious nonentities who are prepared to go on Prime Time or Vincent Browne to say that black is white and up is down get promoted to junior ministries or committee chairpersonships. The TDs do what the cabinet tells them, the cabinet does what the EMC tells it, the EMC does what Enda tells it, and Enda does whatever his unelected, overpaid spindoctors tell him. I know that much of it is the same as always, I know that it's not as awful as the last headless drunken shambles, but it's still one of the worse governments in my lifetime (and that includes some doozies).

The €20 million savings is a lie, and even though it's been repeatedly exposed as a lie, it still gets repeated ad nauseam because this cynical, manipulative shower take us as being a pack of fools with the memory of goldfish who will swallow any focus-grouped slogan as long as it's repeated often enough (see: Five Point Plan). I'm not pushed either way about the Seanad, but I resent being treated like a gom.

No (although I expect to be on the losing side).

I have to say this has been the most pathetic referendum 'debate' yet.

By threatening to make politicians redundant he has brought out every lackey, hanger on and wannabe that ever existed. Everyone that ever met any of these people has been mobilised on twitter, FaceBook and the media to tell us to vote NO. Vote NO to save the Seanad. Vote NO to fix the Seanad. Vote NO to save us from Enda's power-grab. Vote NO to save the Constitution.

The result will change nothing either way. I think Kenny has cleverly occupied the political classes, their friends in the Law Society and the media while we stroll blindly up to a very serious budget, possibly the last of the bailout.

Bertie bought everyone off by giving them positions on the boards of Qangos, it seems to me that Enda keeps everyone busy with trivial Refer-Enda.

Voted "Yes"  on both papers.
Down with Elitism. People Power Abú and all that.

I've always wanted shot of the Seanad. It has no power. There's going to be no problem removing a body with no power. However, as the moment of voting arrives, I've had a wobble. This is because of the amendment itself (http://referendum2013.ie/Constitution_Before&After_Seanad.pdf). This isn't one change. It's literally dozens! Would this not be better done as part of an overall reform of the Constitution? Decisions, decisions.

In fairness, if they are removing the Seanad, they have to remove all mentions of it in the rest of the constitution. Effectively that's what we are voting on, that the constitution removes all mentions of a second house.

Quote from: AZOffaly on October 04, 2013, 01:19:19 PM
In fairness, if they are removing the Seanad, they have to remove all mentions of it in the rest of the constitution. Effectively that's what we are voting on, that the constitution removes all mentions of a second house.

Yes, but there are a few 'extras' thrown in there too. Consequences that most people are unaware of. For example:

The proposed change to Article 35.4.1, for example, will significantly raise the threshold of difficulty to be encountered in seeking to impeach a judge. At present, a judge may be impeached on grounds of stated misbehaviour or incapacity on a simple majority of members present in both Dáil and Seanad. We know from some relatively recent cases that, even under these constitutional conditions, removing a judge poses significant challenges. If the Seanad is abolished, the impeachment bar will be raised even higher, requiring a majority of "not less than two-thirds of the total membership" of the Dáil, in effect changing the odds of removing a miscreant judge from evens to two-to-one against.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/our-power-as-citizens-is-at-stake-in-seanad-referendum-1.1541473

Got them thar senators fired.

About a 30% turnout in my beautiful corner of north-west Roscommon.

Looks like it will be close enough.

Dublin says No. Mayo follow their leader.

If it does pass then it will do so on about 18% of the electorate voting yes. Such a major change needs a minimum vote, half of half would be 25%.

Well I have no great love for The Seanad but I voted no simply as I felt it was a cynical exercise by Kenny to get some unwarranted kudos when he was under pressure as leader of FG.

Such a fundamental change to the Bunreacht should only have been considered as part of an overall reform of the Bunreacht and not as a method of playing to the gallery.

Sure - there were times when I seriously considered a Yes for all and many more of the reasons listed above but I suppose my mind was made up when I say that grinning eejit Richard Bruton being sent out to debate the matter on tv.

And also the fact that Sinn Féin wanted me to vote Yes had no small part to play in my decision  ;)

Well done the electorate. With only one exception I can think of (when they were threatened with lies) they have always rejected attempts by governments and politicians to give themselves more power, leeway or privileges or to reduce the level of scrutiny of their doings. This crowd went further and even tried blackmail - vote for this "reform" or there won't be any more reform. How did they imagine the people would wear that?

The politicoes always get this wrong in their arrogance. They fail to grasp the fact that the people (at least those interested enough to inform themselves) value the constitution even more than they despise the politicians. The people understand that the constitution is not a tool of the government but is there to protect us from the government.

Steady on cowboy, it's early days yet.

I'm amazed anyone could try to defend the Seanad as an institution, but there you go.

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 11:38:27 AM
Steady on cowboy, it's early days yet.

I'm amazed anyone could try to defend the Seanad as an institution, but there you go.

I'm amazed that anyone would defend further concentration of power in the Dail, given that the whip system means that all the power is with the government.

I want a judicial review of the process. My missus, as a graduate of UCD can vote in a Senate election yet she didn't have a vote in the referendum.

Perhaps a premature ejaculation on my part. Tallies were suggesting 55% "No" earlier - seems to be tightening up now. Betfair has just flicked from 1.05 to 1.11 "No", though they're odds-on "Yes" as well!

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 11:38:27 AM
Steady on cowboy, it's early days yet.

I'm amazed anyone could try to defend the Seanad as an institution, but there you go.

Who defended the Seanad as an institution?

I am not defending the Seanad.

I am against the likes of Kenny pulling this referendum out of his arse to solve a problem he thought he had at the time.

Using the Constitution for acting the baulix is not on in my book.

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 11:20:30 AM
Well done the electorate. With only one exception I can think of (when they were threatened with lies) they have always rejected attempts by governments and politicians to give themselves more power, leeway or privileges or to reduce the level of scrutiny of their doings. This crowd went further and even tried blackmail - vote for this "reform" or there won't be any more reform. How did they imagine the people would wear that?

The politicoes always get this wrong in their arrogance. They fail to grasp the fact that the people (at least those interested enough to inform themselves) value the constitution even more than they despise the politicians. The people understand that the constitution is not a tool of the government but is there to protect us from the government.

Good post Hardy.  Had I been entitled to vote I would have voted "No" (sure I'm from the North, this is my default position!).  For me one of the little discussed benefits of a United Ireland would be to be part of an electorate (those who give a toss anyway) that is able to look at an issue with a bit of perspective and not to make a choice based on whether it's good or bad for themmuns but whether it's good or bad for all.  I used to wonder what some commentators meant when they said that one of the differences between he North and South was that RoI was a "mature democracy".  It's starting to mean something.

I'm somewhat surprised that this issue did not generate more interest in Nordies particularly Nationalists and what SF were doing in the Yes camp baffles me since the Seanad is an institution that has a history of Northern representation and therefore can make the claim (maybe dubious) of being an all Ireland body.  Maybe SF want exclusivity on this ;)

The Seanad needs reformed surely but any move that concentrates more power in the government of the day needs careful scrutiny.

The problem with the Seanad is that it has no power and so it is defunct. The only reform to correct that is to bin it or give it more power. I repeat the only reform the Seanad needs is to be given greater power to challenge the government when necessary.

Now what party in the next thousand f**king years of Dail Erieann is going to give power to a house it won't have absolute control over?

Dream on lads, the Seanad will stay, because we want it to and will remain the exact f**king same, because they want it to.

Quote from: trileacman on October 05, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
The problem with the Seanad is that it has no power and so it is defunct. The only reform to correct that is to bin it or give it more power.

No what party in the next thousand f**king years of Dail Erieann is going to give power to a house it won't have absolute control over.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the Seanad will ever be so  empowered so it is not simpy a pointless drain on expenses and time is living in the land of candy, sweet things and united Irelands and not reality.

There was only one vote that could effect lasting change yesterday but there is such apathy with regard politics that the majority who would be happy to see the end of the Seanad aren't engaged enough to get off their arses and vote. Victory through apathy is nothing any of the No supporters should be proud of.

A victory for the Gaybos and the FF hardliners of the world seems to be on the cards.

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:12:42 PM

Quote from: trileacman on October 05, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
The problem with the Seanad is that it has no power and so it is defunct. The only reform to correct that is to bin it or give it more power.

No what party in the next thousand f**king years of Dail Erieann is going to give power to a house it won't have absolute control over.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the Seanad will ever be so  empowered so it is not simpy a pointless drain on expenses and time is living in the land of candy, sweet things and united Irelands and not reality.

There was only one vote that could effect lasting change yesterday but there is such apathy with regard politics that the majority who would be happy to see the end of the Seanad aren't engaged enough to get off their arses and vote. Victory through apathy is nothing any of the No supporters should be proud of.

A victory for the Gaybos and the FF hardliners of the world seems to be on the cards.

I think you're wrong. It seems you believe we should just facilitate the government consolidating all the power against the people.

That's just f**king stupid

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:12:42 PM
Victory through apathy is nothing any of the No supporters should be proud of.

So I presume you didn't vote, if your vote was to mean nothing. Because the same logic (if that's what it is) would apply if it had been a victory for the Yes supporters.

Quote from: trileacman on October 05, 2013, 02:33:03 PM

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:12:42 PM

Quote from: trileacman on October 05, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
The problem with the Seanad is that it has no power and so it is defunct. The only reform to correct that is to bin it or give it more power.

No what party in the next thousand f**king years of Dail Erieann is going to give power to a house it won't have absolute control over.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the Seanad will ever be so  empowered so it is not simpy a pointless drain on expenses and time is living in the land of candy, sweet things and united Irelands and not reality.

There was only one vote that could effect lasting change yesterday but there is such apathy with regard politics that the majority who would be happy to see the end of the Seanad aren't engaged enough to get off their arses and vote. Victory through apathy is nothing any of the No supporters should be proud of.

A victory for the Gaybos and the FF hardliners of the world seems to be on the cards.

I think you're wrong. It seems you believe we should just facilitate the government consolidating all the power against the people.

That's just f**king stupid

If you honestly think the Seanad can hold the Dail to account or offers a genuine check-and-balance then you need to spend some time watching the Seanad operate. It's a nursing home for failed politicians/somewhat successful retired businessmen with political connections with a couple good men and women thrown in.

If this was a Bulmers brewery they'd just dump the whole crop and start over rather than trying to salvage the few good apples.

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 02:34:49 PM

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:12:42 PM
Victory through apathy is nothing any of the No supporters should be proud of.

So I presume you didn't vote, if your vote was to mean nothing. Because the same logic (if that's what it is) would apply if it had been a victory for the Yes supporters.

Polling generally reflected a win for the Yes campaign in the lead-up to yesterday's vote, indeed the Ipsos MRBI poll from last Monday found a large lead for the Yes side at 62% to 38% when undecided voters were removed.

It's still somewhat up in the air but the result looks like it's going in the opposite direction, and certainly far tighter than polling would have had you believe. That indicates that people willing to vote Yes likely didn't bother to vote as it's quite unlikely they completely reversed their positions in a few days and voted No or that almost all undecided voters actually voted and voted overwhelmingly No.

The No side, were they to lose, could not point to apathy as the reason they lost because the pre-vote polling does not support that opinion.

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
If you honestly think the Seanad can hold the Dail to account or offers a genuine check-and-balance then you need to spend some time watching the Seanad operate. It's a nursing home for failed politicians/somewhat successful retired businessmen with political connections with a couple good men and women thrown in.

If this was a Bulmers brewery they'd just dump the whole crop and start over rather than trying to salvage the few good apples.

You've missed the whole reform debate completely, then?

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:53:52 PM
Polling generally reflected a win for the Yes campaign in the lead-up to yesterday's vote, indeed the Ipsos MRBI poll from last Monday found a large lead for the Yes side at 62% to 38% when undecided voters were removed.

It's still somewhat up in the air but the result looks like it's going in the opposite direction, and certainly far tighter than polling would have had you believe. That indicates that people willing to vote Yes likely didn't bother to vote as it's quite unlikely they completely reversed their positions in a few days and voted No or that almost all undecided voters actually voted and voted overwhelmingly No.

The No side, were they to lose, could not point to apathy as the reason they lost because the pre-vote polling does not support that opinion.

That's handy. If you won, it was a genuine result; if you lost it wasn't quite valid.

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 04:15:24 PM

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
If you honestly think the Seanad can hold the Dail to account or offers a genuine check-and-balance then you need to spend some time watching the Seanad operate. It's a nursing home for failed politicians/somewhat successful retired businessmen with political connections with a couple good men and women thrown in.

If this was a Bulmers brewery they'd just dump the whole crop and start over rather than trying to salvage the few good apples.

You've missed the whole reform debate completely, then?

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 02:53:52 PM
Polling generally reflected a win for the Yes campaign in the lead-up to yesterday's vote, indeed the Ipsos MRBI poll from last Monday found a large lead for the Yes side at 62% to 38% when undecided voters were removed.

It's still somewhat up in the air but the result looks like it's going in the opposite direction, and certainly far tighter than polling would have had you believe. That indicates that people willing to vote Yes likely didn't bother to vote as it's quite unlikely they completely reversed their positions in a few days and voted No or that almost all undecided voters actually voted and voted overwhelmingly No.

The No side, were they to lose, could not point to apathy as the reason they lost because the pre-vote polling does not support that opinion.

That's handy. If you won, it was a genuine result; if you lost it wasn't quite valid.

It's plenty handy when the polling supports what you say, yeah.

Making the opposite case (that a No loss meant voter apathy) is untenable because the direction of the debate and polling contradicts that being the majority opinion in the country and so a higher turnout would have been harmful to the No side and helpful to the Yes side. The same metrics apply in many Western countries with regards left and right parties, high turnouts being an indicator of good tidings for the generally younger and more wishy-washy left, lower turnouts helping the older, more-likely-to-vote right.

Go on, someone champion this result as some sort of victory by the electorate against a power grab by the government. People simply didn't give a damn.

Apathy have saved an empty vessel and you certainly won't get the reform you're hoping for. A bad day for Ireland all round.

The people who didn't vote didn't give a damn. The people who voted gave enough of a damn to turn out and stop the power grab. Simple - that's how it works. Bleating about turnout is irrelevant. If you don't care enough to vote, how and why are we supposed to accommodate your opinion? Your opinion doesn't count by definition and the people are right by definition, no matter who doesn't like it.

All else is speculation. It's always a good day for democracy when attempted government manipulation of the constitution for their own benefit, not that of the people, is thwarted.

The people have spoken. Stand back in awe while the Seanad flexes it's political muscles by .... delaying legislation then passing it.  ::)

Quote from: Syferus on October 05, 2013, 04:46:30 PM

Apathy have saved an empty vessel and you certainly won't get the reform you're hoping for. A bad day for Ireland all round.

More bullshit. The people of Ireland told the government that they can't just shovel what they want to do down our throats. It has embarrassed alot of the parties (mostly FG) and has shown them there accountable to the people.

The government will think twice before hammering out it's next legislation.

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
The people who didn't vote didn't give a damn. The people who voted gave enough of a damn to turn out and stop the power grab. Simple - that's how it works. Bleating about turnout is irrelevant. If you don't care enough to vote, how and why are we supposed to accommodate your opinion? Your opinion doesn't count by definition and the people are right by definition, no matter who doesn't like it.

All else is speculation. It's always a good day for democracy when attempted government manipulation of the constitution for their own benefit, not that of the people, is thwarted.

This vote is a victory for soundbytes over shambles.

'Power-grab' sounds great, but the history of the Seanad suggests that it never had any power. The Taoiseach has 9 arbitrary appointments out of 60 FFS. That is 15% of the seats!

The electorate had the opportunity to make 60 non-achieving politicians redundant, and they turned it down. We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2013, 09:49:32 PM
This vote is a victory for soundbytes over shambles.

'Power-grab' sounds great, but the history of the Seanad suggests that it never had any power. The Taoiseach has 9 arbitrary appointments out of 60 FFS. That is 15% of the seats!

The electorate had the opportunity to make 60 non-achieving politicians redundant, and they turned it down. We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

The Taoiseach gets to nominate 11.
Will anyone over 30 live to see this disgusting waste of time of an institution "reformed" ??

The referendum was very much a "when did you stop beating your wife?" Option .
Do you want poor oversight or no oversight?

Poor oversight is marginally better in that it could be reformed (and politicians could put the people first).

Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

Nally, you wouldn't know where to get a Sinn Fein fridge magnet calendar, would you?

Was a bit drunk last week and threw a Shinner mate's treasured calendar behind the kitchen unit. It was a 2011-12 one too so it's a bit of a vintage item.

Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2013, 09:49:32 PM
We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

I take it you'll stop bitching now when the next kleptocratic move is made then?

Quote from: Syferus on October 06, 2013, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

Nally, you wouldn't know where to get a Sinn Fein fridge magnet calendar, would you?

Was a bit drunk last week and threw a Shinner mate's treasured calendar behind the kitchen unit. It was a 2011-12 one too so it's a bit of a vintage item.

Aye there should be one down the back of the kitchen unit where you left it, ya fcukin idiot.

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 01:03:55 AM

Quote from: Syferus on October 06, 2013, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

Nally, you wouldn't know where to get a Sinn Fein fridge magnet calendar, would you?

Was a bit drunk last week and threw a Shinner mate's treasured calendar behind the kitchen unit. It was a 2011-12 one too so it's a bit of a vintage item.

Aye there should be one down the back of the kitchen unit where you left it, ya fcukin idiot.

I'm just back after trying, I don't fit.

Quote from: Syferus on October 06, 2013, 01:06:53 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 01:03:55 AM

Quote from: Syferus on October 06, 2013, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

Nally, you wouldn't know where to get a Sinn Fein fridge magnet calendar, would you?

Was a bit drunk last week and threw a Shinner mate's treasured calendar behind the kitchen unit. It was a 2011-12 one too so it's a bit of a vintage item.

Aye there should be one down the back of the kitchen unit where you left it, ya fcukin idiot.

I'm just back after trying, I don't fit.

I'm afraid that ain't my problem. Maybe dispel some of that hot air and have another try.

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2013, 09:49:32 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
The people who didn't vote didn't give a damn. The people who voted gave enough of a damn to turn out and stop the power grab. Simple - that's how it works. Bleating about turnout is irrelevant. If you don't care enough to vote, how and why are we supposed to accommodate your opinion? Your opinion doesn't count by definition and the people are right by definition, no matter who doesn't like it.

All else is speculation. It's always a good day for democracy when attempted government manipulation of the constitution for their own benefit, not that of the people, is thwarted.

This vote is a victory for soundbytes over shambles.

'Power-grab' sounds great, but the history of the Seanad suggests that it never had any power. The Taoiseach has 9 arbitrary appointments out of 60 FFS. That is 15% of the seats!

The electorate had the opportunity to make 60 non-achieving politicians redundant, and they turned it down. We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

Muppet, I think you're missing the point of those of us who see this as something of a victory for democracy, or at least a slap in the jaw (a "wallop" even?) to an arrogant government as a reminder that it can't take the meek acquiescence of the electorate for granted.

Nobody is defending the Seanad  as currently constituted. The fact that it is undemocratic doesn't mean that the attempt to abolish the bicameral system was not also an attempted diminution of our democratic oversight of the politicians. Does nobody see any validity in the argument that a parliament of Healy-Raes, Wallaces, Aherns and Shatters needs to be watched?

Yes, I know we elect them. But that's the problem. Democracy is imperfect. It gave you Unionist hegemony in the North for fifty years, for instance. A Senate of Donie Cassidys and Paschal Mooneys isn't going to do the job, but an abolished Seanad has no chance in perpetuity of being the body that can do it. A reformed Seanad has some chance of making a difference. Cynicism about the possibility of ever reforming the Oireachtas is perhaps understandable, but doesn't yesterday at least provide a hint of hope that the electorate is not entirely toothless in the fight for reform?

Quote from: trileacman on October 06, 2013, 12:33:51 AM

Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2013, 09:49:32 PM
We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

I take it you'll stop bitching now when the next kleptocratic move is made then?

Of course not.

Just because the majority fall for it all the time doesn't mean I have to.

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:07:36 AM

Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2013, 09:49:32 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 05, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
The people who didn't vote didn't give a damn. The people who voted gave enough of a damn to turn out and stop the power grab. Simple - that's how it works. Bleating about turnout is irrelevant. If you don't care enough to vote, how and why are we supposed to accommodate your opinion? Your opinion doesn't count by definition and the people are right by definition, no matter who doesn't like it.

All else is speculation. It's always a good day for democracy when attempted government manipulation of the constitution for their own benefit, not that of the people, is thwarted.

This vote is a victory for soundbytes over shambles.

'Power-grab' sounds great, but the history of the Seanad suggests that it never had any power. The Taoiseach has 9 arbitrary appointments out of 60 FFS. That is 15% of the seats!

The electorate had the opportunity to make 60 non-achieving politicians redundant, and they turned it down. We deserve the banking  kleptocracy we live in.

Muppet, I think you're missing the point of those of us who see this as something of a victory for democracy, or at least a slap in the jaw (a "wallop" even?) to an arrogant government as a reminder that it can't take the meek acquiescence of the electorate for granted.

Nobody is defending the Seanad  as currently constituted. The fact that it is undemocratic doesn't mean that the attempt to abolish the bicameral system was not also an attempted diminution of our democratic oversight of the politicians. Does nobody see any validity in the argument that a parliament of Healy-Raes, Wallaces, Aherns and Shatters needs to be watched?

Yes, I know we elect them. But that's the problem. Democracy is imperfect. It gave you Unionist hegemony in the North for fifty years, for instance. A Senate of Donie Cassidys and Paschal Mooneys isn't going to do the job, but an abolished Seanad has no chance in perpetuity of being the body that can do it. A reformed Seanad has some chance of making a difference. Cynicism about the possibility of ever reforming the Oireachtas is perhaps understandable, but doesn't yesterday at least provide a hint of hope that the electorate is not entirely toothless in the fight for reform?

I think you win your own argument Hardy.

The Seanad is completely undemocratic, so a no vote was not much of a victory for democracy.

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 07:55:59 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

Government viewpoint: electorate didn't understand the vote.
FF/Senators viewpoint : yayyy the electorate love us again!
Electorate viewpoint : no, we hate ye and understand the vote. We just want reform, not a single house.

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 08:59:03 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 07:55:59 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 12:08:32 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 08:59:03 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 07:55:59 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

Again, my post never mentioned SF. It had nothing to do with SF. I don't care if Gerry Adams or anybody else says it is a powergrab. It is fanciful to describe it as such.

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:45:15 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 12:08:32 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 08:59:03 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2013, 07:55:59 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on October 06, 2013, 12:15:02 AM
Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

Again, my post never mentioned SF. It had nothing to do with SF. I don't care if Gerry Adams or anybody else says it is a powergrab. It is fanciful to describe it as such.

Go on Nally, you have to have one of those fridge magnets somewhere in the house.

Ah now your just piggybacking on maguire. That's just lazy. Seriously though, some of you lads are very obsessed with SF.

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?
[/quote

My reason for voting for its abolition was when I tried to think of one occasion in my life when the Seanad prevented the Dail from grabbing power and riding  roughshod over the people, couldn't think of any, that's not saying it hasn't happened mind.

Heard the stuff that we were being suckered into voting for much more than the abolition of the Seanad and the wording of the ballot paper would make you wonder all right. Missus had reviewed the Referendum Commission documents and saw no reference to anything of major note so I suppose you have to have some faith in that group.

Most of the arguments I'm hearing from the abolition lobby are the same arguments for retain-and-reform.

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

This despite the same man proposing 'terminating the Seanad' in 1987:
(http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pdbig87a.jpg?w=1386&h=1024)

McDowell of course has form. He brilliantly prevented Fianna Fáil from an overall majority (2002 I think?) with a late election stunt basically saying that FF couldn't be trusted. He was right, and reaped the electoral rewards, but of course when the PDs turned out to be even worse he was massacred at the polls.

This success though is interesting. I suspect he will want to launch a new party.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 06, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Most of the arguments I'm hearing from the abolition lobby are the same arguments for retain-and-reform.

Retain and reform wasn't on the ballot.

Clever stunt from the No campaign.

Their hubris in the media and on the net today shows how serious they were about reform. Many of them today are calling for FG/Labour/SF senators to resign as they claim campaigning for the closing of the Seanad is incompatible with sitting in it. That statement would be true, if you had no intention of considering reforming the Seanad.

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:32:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 06:52:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:32:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 06:52:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:32:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

With respect, muppet, that's not a reasonable question to put to someone who has repeatedly made it clear, in common with practically everybody on the No side, that we accept that the Seanad as currently constructed is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. That's not the debate we're having.

It's a simple point. Practically all who voted No believe we need a second house to scrutinise and keep a check on the Healy-Raes, Mary-Lous, Pink Wallies and Chairman Mayos of the Dáil. We also (ad nauseam) made the point that a No vote was not a vote to accept the continuation of the current undemocratic, corrupt, useless upper house. But we could see that if we abolished the current Seanad, that was the end of the road. That was the sum total of upper house reform on offer, as specifically stated in the blackmail manifesto - vote for this reform, 'cos if you don't, there'll be no other reform.

We believed if we rejected this blackmail, it wouldn't be politically possible actually to implement it. We appear to have been right - already FG and labour are making noises about taking account of the manifest desire of the electorate for a reformed Seanad. Of course the war is not won. It's not even started and it will still be at best very difficult to get any reform, never mind the extent of reform that's needed. But "very difficult" is better than impossible, which is what was on offer if the thing didn't exist to be reformed.

I wouldn't dismiss the significance of yesterday's result in providing momentum towards more effective reform than might have been expected. For one thing, whatever government brings forward any future reform proposal, if it requires a referendum, may be careful not to offer something that will deliver another humiliating result. They'll have to offer something a now reform-conscious electorate will accept. Of course they will prefer to offer nothing and hope it all goes away, but that's politically more difficult now than it was before we wise people voted the right way.  :)

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 07:40:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 06:52:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:32:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:39:52 AM
So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

With respect, muppet, that's not a reasonable question to put to someone who has repeatedly made it clear, in common with practically everybody on the No side, that we accept that the Seanad as currently constructed is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. That's not the debate we're having.

It's a simple point. Practically all who voted No believe we need a second house to scrutinise and keep a check on the Healy-Raes, Mary-Lous, Pink Wallies and Chairman Mayos of the Dáil. We also (ad nauseam) made the point that a No vote was not a vote to accept the continuation of the current undemocratic, corrupt, useless upper house. But we could see that if we abolished the current Seanad, that was the end of the road. That was the sum total of upper house reform on offer, as specifically stated in the blackmail manifesto - vote for this reform, 'cos if you don't, there'll be no other reform.

We believed if we rejected this blackmail, it wouldn't be politically possible actually to implement it. We appear to have been right - already FG and labour are making noises about taking account of the manifest desire of the electorate for a reformed Seanad. Of course the war is not won. It's not even started and it will still be at best very difficult to get any reform, never mind the extent of reform that's needed. But "very difficult" is better than impossible, which is what was on offer if the thing didn't exist to be reformed.

I wouldn't dismiss the significance of yesterday's result in providing momentum towards more effective reform than might have been expected. For one thing, whatever government brings forward any future reform proposal, if it requires a referendum, may be careful not to offer something that will deliver another humiliating result. They'll have to offer something a now reform-conscious electorate will accept. Of course they will prefer to offer nothing and hope it all goes away, but that's politically more difficult now than it was before we wise people voted the right way.  :)

Hardy, do you seriously believe there will be another Seanad referendum?

The Bank Crisis hasn't given us a single piece of reform, despite everything that happened.

The recent hand wringing regarding reform was a brilliant piece of spin to save the Seanad. Nothing more. It worked, I accept that. Game over on this one.

Next........

I don't know. My point, at the risk of boring you with repetition, is that it's more likely than it would be if there were no Seanad and that at least Seanad reform is now in the political arena. It wasn't before. For anyone who believes an effective upper house to scrutinise the doings of the Dáil is a good idea if properly implemented, we're in a better place now than we were before this referendum was called.

The reason we had a  no vote yesterday in my opinion is due in no small part to the 20% of the voting electorate who are the vote no to everything including the proposed canonisation of Mother Theresa idea. Anybody with any doubts on this one should go back to the most populist referendum we have ever had to give politicians some say in the setting of judges pay when 20% of the electorate voted against that for gods sake. These are probably the same dudes who would have voted against a proposal to maintain or increase judges pay. So there we have yesterdays no vote, 20% eternal naysayers, some percentage with genuine concerns and another very substantial group who were just dying to remind Enda that the Mayo for Sam card sometime is a bit too close to the Bertie image for comfort.

Reform of the Seanad??? cop on lads FG will drop this idea like a hot spud and our Senators who made themselves visible in their own self interests over the last few weeks will heave a big sigh of relief.

Hardy, I'm 53 years of age, remind me of a few things the Seanad have done in my lifetime that I should be genuinely grateful for, not to include the spotting of upside down full stops on legislation making its way to the Aras.

Quote from: anglocelt39 on October 06, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
The reason we had a  no vote yesterday in my opinion is due in no small part to the 20% of the voting electorate who are the vote no to everything including the proposed canonisation of Mother Theresa idea. Anybody with any doubts on this one should go back to the most populist referendum we have ever had to give politicians some say in the setting of judges pay when 20% of the electorate voted against that for gods sake. These are probably the same dudes who would have voted against a proposal to maintain or increase judges pay. So there we have yesterdays no vote, 20% eternal naysayers, some percentage with genuine concerns and another very substantial group who were just dying to remind Enda that the Mayo for Sam card sometime is a bit too close to the Bertie image for comfort.

Reform of the Seanad??? cop on lads FG will drop this idea like a hot spud and our Senators who made themselves visible in their own self interests over the last few weeks will heave a big sigh of relief.

Hardy, I'm 53 years of age, remind me of a few things the Seanad have done in my lifetime that I should be genuinely grateful for, not to include the spotting of upside down full stops on legislation making its way to the Aras.

Anglo, do you think that question is any more relevant now than it was an hour or so ago when I answered effectively the same one for Muppet, or this morning or the few other times I've made the point?

OK. One more time. The Seanad, as currently constituted and ever since 1937 or whenever it was instituted, is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. If I post that sentence another few times in individual posts, would that do it?

Happy Birthday.

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 09:43:30 PM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on October 06, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
The reason we had a  no vote yesterday in my opinion is due in no small part to the 20% of the voting electorate who are the vote no to everything including the proposed canonisation of Mother Theresa idea. Anybody with any doubts on this one should go back to the most populist referendum we have ever had to give politicians some say in the setting of judges pay when 20% of the electorate voted against that for gods sake. These are probably the same dudes who would have voted against a proposal to maintain or increase judges pay. So there we have yesterdays no vote, 20% eternal naysayers, some percentage with genuine concerns and another very substantial group who were just dying to remind Enda that the Mayo for Sam card sometime is a bit too close to the Bertie image for comfort.

Reform of the Seanad??? cop on lads FG will drop this idea like a hot spud and our Senators who made themselves visible in their own self interests over the last few weeks will heave a big sigh of relief.

Hardy, I'm 53 years of age, remind me of a few things the Seanad have done in my lifetime that I should be genuinely grateful for, not to include the spotting of upside down full stops on legislation making its way to the Aras.

Anglo, do you think that question is any more relevant now than it was an hour or so ago when I answered effectively the same one for Muppet, or this morning or the few other times I've made the point?

OK. One more time. The Seanad, as currently constituted and ever since 1937 or whenever it was instituted, is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. If I post that sentence another few times in individual posts, would that do it?

Happy Birthday.

Hardy, even though this is an either/or debate, it is not that we agree with your opinion, nor that we disagree with it. It is simply that we feel it is in need of reform.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:56:42 PM

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

There it is again, another argument that could just as easily come from the retain-and-reform lobby. (I know, I know, R&R wasn't on the ballot, I get it.)

If the Seanad was not dominated by government appointees and actually had a bit of teeth, there's a chance that someone would have been in a position to speak up about the bank guarantee.  Although to be fair, how many people at the time had any idea of what a colossal mistake that would turn out to be? How many people actually knew the exact scale of the debt that had been run up?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 06, 2013, 10:55:28 PM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 06:56:42 PM

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

There it is again, another argument that could just as easily come from the retain-and-reform lobby. (I know, I know, R&R wasn't on the ballot, I get it.)

If the Seanad was not dominated by government appointees and actually had a bit of teeth, there's a chance that someone would have been in a position to speak up about the bank guarantee. Although to be fair, how many people at the time had any idea of what a colossal mistake that would turn out to be? How many people actually knew the exact scale of the debt that had been run up?

Read the bailout thread. BogballXIV of this constituency had it nailed the very next day.

As for the Seanad, I agree if it had teeth it could be useful. But what government is going to propose creating a rabid watchdog for itself?

Quote from: anglocelt39 on October 06, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
The reason we had a  no vote yesterday in my opinion is due in no small part to the 20% of the voting electorate who are the vote no to everything including the proposed canonisation of Mother Theresa idea.

And right they would be. Time for some research on just how 'saintly' she was.

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 11:37:59 PM
Read the bailout thread. BogballXIV of this constituency had it nailed the very next day.

Okay that's one. Who else?

Quote from: Maguire01 on October 07, 2013, 07:22:07 AM

Quote from: anglocelt39 on October 06, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
The reason we had a  no vote yesterday in my opinion is due in no small part to the 20% of the voting electorate who are the vote no to everything including the proposed canonisation of Mother Theresa idea.

And right they would be. Time for some research on just how 'saintly' she was.

F***ing right. Is there some sort of anti-canonisation process? Some sort of anti-saint position she could occupy? If ever there was someone who had earned it it was that sinister old witch.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 07, 2013, 07:45:11 AM

Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2013, 11:37:59 PM
Read the bailout thread. BogballXIV of this constituency had it nailed the very next day.

Okay that's one. Who else?

Read the thread, most of us were on board with him within days.

Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2013, 08:08:37 PM
I don't know. My point, at the risk of boring you with repetition, is that it's more likely than it would be if there were no Seanad and that at least Seanad reform is now in the political arena. It wasn't before. For anyone who believes an effective upper house to scrutinise the doings of the Dáil is a good idea if properly implemented, we're in a better place now than we were before this referendum was called.

+1

(http://i.imgur.com/8XLRgAo.jpg)