POLL: Should the Seanad be abolished?

[Mushroom]

Make the MEPs automatically Senators.

Eligible to claim salaries and expenses on the double? Way to go, right enough!

Anyway, it can't happen - the dual mandate is illegal in the EU since 2002.

[ibis]

There's definitely that danger, but it equally applies to reform of the seanad. There is no incentive for the Dáil to back reform of the Seanad that would lessen it's dominance.

And there's an incentive to call for its abolition. Even an unreformed Senate which might offer an alternative locus of decision-making and political power is better than one that cannot by virtue of having been abolished in a fit of pique.


Looking at this quite cynically, I'd call this a massive constitutional power grab by the government. It completes the abolition of every alternative political structure in Ireland that might challenge the government's complete control of the Dáil through the Whip system, which leaves Ireland in the hands of, essentially, the Cabinet - and the whip hand in the Cabinet is in turn held by just two posts, by virtue of the Taoiseach's powers of appointment and the MoF's powers of finance. Ireland is essentially a duumvirate - run, in any critical moment, by two people - as we saw with the bank guarantee.

[statsman]

abolished.

they had DECADES to reform , produced reems of reports on the matter, and did ************************ all.

they had their chance and showed no impetus to actually follow through on their supposed desires.

so feck em.

abolish it and be done with it. its been worth feck all since de velara gutted it anyway.

You might enjoy the prospect of an entirely unfettered bunch of TDs doing what they like; I dont.

[the_law13]

Seanad = abolish it
Dail = Reform it..
i.e. 100 seat parliament, 50 two seat constituencies (or maybe 33 three seaters) and PM with the option of nominating say 3 members to cabinet that are not elected.. e.g. in the format current nominations to the Seanad.

[ibis]

Eligible to claim salaries and expenses on the double? Way to go, right enough!

Anyway, it can't happen - the dual mandate is illegal in the EU since 2002.

Good point - so, back to Deadlock's point:

As you say this would be difficult as they are not answerable to national bodies, but perhaps arising out of their respect to and esteem for democracy and accountability these good people could offer or be otherwise persuaded to invest a quantum of their time and opinions, regulary to a reformed Seanad. While I agree MEPs are answerable to their electorates, they are not highly visible, and such Seanad interviews may help connect the people more with their MEPs and the EU parliament.

Happy enough, then, with regular, scheduled, interviews.

[Boggle]

Make the MEPs automatically Senators.

That could work.

[wee slabber]

I voted no on this. But I would have preferred if I'd had the choice to opt for reform. If the choice is between the status quo or abolition, I go for the latter. My preference would be a solid reform as I believe a bi-cameral system has its strengths.

[Spanner Island]

No. I have posted many times on this site why I think not. In fact I think it should have a greater role and have oversight on many aspects of the governance of our country.

This is what I said previously in this thread.

I think that we should retain the Seanad because I think it is essential that we have a house that can look at legislation in depth. In fact I would like to strengthen the powers of the house so that it can block legislation but not money bills.

I would like the house to be totally independent, that is no party whip can be imposed. I would allow parties but would disallow sanctions against members who vote against party lines.

I would retain a house of 60 senators but I would like each county to elect a member and I would like the balance of members to be elected from a country wide ballot. The house would have 6 year terms and remain in continuous operation (would not fall with the government) with 1/3 of the members up for reelection every 2 years.

I would give the house powers to compel the government to enact legislation not money bills and force it to hold referenda. I would give the house the power to interview those for top state jobs such as Garda Commissioner, Judges at all levels, Heads of Department, State Bodies etc from this it would draw up a short list from which the government must make the appointment.

I would allow the house to call in and question state appointed people about their running of the body in question.

No - for the reasons stated above.

I'd really like to see it taken out of the hands of the traditional political cronies and parties.

Quotas could partially achieve this.

[constitutionus]

You might enjoy the prospect of an entirely unfettered bunch of TDs doing what they like; I dont.

the taoiseach nominees ensures gov control of it !

thats why the things been an irrelevance for most of its existance.

they had their chance to reform and flubbed it.

[toxic avenger]

Reform would be ideal - a second chamber that holds the first to account (even the Lords does it spectacularly on occasions), one that is not beholden to short-termist electoral considerations or filled with parochial hostages. But if it hasn't happened by now, it won't happen - there's no vision among our conservative, cosseted political and media class, nor is the Dáil going to readily vote for that which will keep an eye on what it is doing and act against it when necessary. So abolition is preferable to the status quo...