View Poll Results: Should the Seanad be abolished?

Voters
701. You must be logged in to vote on this poll. Please login or register.
  • Yes

    371 52.92%
  • No

    330 47.08%
Register to Comment
Page 1 of 205 123 11 51 101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 2044
Like Tree794Likes
  1. #1
    David Cochrane David Cochrane is offline
    David Cochrane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    26,589
    Twitter
    @

    POLL: Should the Seanad be abolished?

    So, it's worth a poll as the first post in this forum. A referendum is on the blocks in the coming months to ask the people whether they want to abolish the Seanad.

    Do you think it should? And if not, why not?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    statsman statsman is offline
    statsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    34,262

    I would favour reform rather than abolition. In our drive for 'greater efficiency' in the public sector, we from time to time risk throwing out the occasional baby with an admittedly large flood of bathwater. In my view, the safeguards provided by an effective second chamber would protect us to some degree from the kind of appaling decision-making that got us to where we are now. So don't abolish the Seanad; give it teeth.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    Tomas Mor Tomas Mor is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    15,644

    It is no more than a creche or a retirement home. Sits very limited hours and really has no role.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    Deadlock Deadlock is offline
    Deadlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    261

    No. it should be thoroughly reformed, elected by universal sufferage, and have oversight responsibility of the Dail, regional authorities and MEPs and EU commissioner. It should possibly also sit outside Dublin.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Glucose Glucose is offline
    Glucose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,679

    No, IT SHOULD BE REFORMED.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    ibis ibis is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    28,458

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadlock View Post
    No. it should be thoroughly reformed, elected by universal sufferage, and have oversight responsibility of the Dail, regional authorities and MEPs and EU commissioner. It should possibly also sit outside Dublin.
    While I'd be very much in favour of a visible body with the permanent duty of providing oversight of EU affairs (as opposed to the Committee), the Seanad could not realistically provide oversight of "Ireland's Commissioner", because the Commissioner appointed by Ireland is not Ireland's, and is required not to be answerable to any national body or government. The Commission is answerable to the European Parliament, because the Commission is required to act in Europe's interests, not the interests of the country which appointed them.

    Nor should a reformed Seanad have "oversight" over MEPs - they're elected themselves, and answerable at the ballot box to their constituents.

    What would be more useful would be if the Seanad provided oversight of our government's actions in Europe, on the Council of Ministers and the European Council. That's the bit we're missing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    TonyB TonyB is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    940
    Twitter
    @

    The Oireachtas should be abolished. Government should be perpetual, run by civil servants, and headquartered in the Áras. Leinster House should become a multistory car park to alleviate parking congestion in central Dublin.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    Loaisman Loaisman is offline
    Loaisman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    495

    I too am in the reform camp. Give the Seanad real powers of inquiry and influence on legislation, rather than TD commitees. Have no party whip in there (a good idea for the Dail too, but slowly slowly catchee monkey on that).

    Membership needs to be amended - away with the academic seats, but some directly elected members alongside appointees with expertise in relevent areas - business, foreign affairs, transport, social services etc - who can be critical without having issues over party loyalty. These would (unfortunately) probably have to be Dail nominated, potentially leading to such party issues arising, but we can hope......

    There has to be proper checks and balances - the Dail alone, especially with the party whip in place, cannot be trusted to govern in the interests of the country - only of their re-election.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    constitutionus constitutionus is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,538

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    FrankSpeaks FrankSpeaks is offline
    FrankSpeaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,130

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 205 123 11 51 101 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment