Seanad Éireann - should it stay or should it go?

[Maguire01]

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

[LaurelEye]

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).

[muppet]

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.

[Rossfan]

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

[deiseach]

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. 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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

[Maguire01]

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

[Syferus]

Got them thar senators fired.

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

[Maguire01]

Looks like it will be close enough.

[armaghniac]

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%.

[Shamrock Shore]

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 

[Hardy]

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.

[Syferus]

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.

[Maguire01]

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.

[Dougal Maguire]

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.