• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ireland votes in referendum to scrap the Senate

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ireland votes in referendum to scrap the Senate | euronews, world news

Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand all did it. Today, Ireland decides whether to abolish the Irish upper chamber, known as the Seanad, or Senate.
The Irish national parliament, known as the Oireachtas, consists of the President and an upper and a lower house.

Most major Irish political parties favour abolishing the Senate. Opposition party Fianna Fáil does not. It argues that the government of Prime Minister Enda Kenny wants to centralise its power.

Kenny’s government says that eliminating the Senate would save €20 million a year, which, in this time of crisis, is a necessity.

Recent opinion polls suggest over 60 percent of Irish people support scrapping the Senate.

Results of the referendum are expected on Saturday.

Ok. So this raises 2 topics for discussions.

#1. Is a unicameral parliament better than a bicameral one?
#2. Will the cost cuts of 20mil euros/year be a good trademark to what is basically, removing half your democratically elected position....

I personally think that a bicameral parliament is better. It has historically been better. The only way I see a unicameral parliament be better is if you massively overhaul the democratic process and improve the means by which people can communicate with the legislature. This means improving internet connection and outreach programs, set up web pages where people can offer direct real time input, have more referndums a year on various issues... basically integrating the population in the legislative process to a greater degree than now. Otherwise... it's kind of bad. But that's my opinion.
 
I don't know much about their system, but if it were our system, I could see the benefits of maybe combining the senate and the house into one body, then make that body better represent smaller parties in a parliamentary style government. I think we'd be able to get a lot more done because as of now we just have the house owned by one party killing the stuff the senate does which is owned by another party, and vice versa.
 
Ireland votes in referendum to scrap the Senate | euronews, world news

Ok. So this raises 2 topics for discussions.

#1. Is a unicameral parliament better than a bicameral one?
#2. Will the cost cuts of 20mil euros/year be a good trademark to what is basically, removing half your democratically elected position....

I personally think that a bicameral parliament is better. It has historically been better. The only way I see a unicameral parliament be better is if you massively overhaul the democratic process and improve the means by which people can communicate with the legislature. This means improving internet connection and outreach programs, set up web pages where people can offer direct real time input, have more referndums a year on various issues... basically integrating the population in the legislative process to a greater degree than now. Otherwise... it's kind of bad. But that's my opinion.


One thing is for sure. If you have only one Chamber and the Leader of that Chamber is the head of the Executive, you have kissed the separation of powers and any meaningful control by checks and balances goodbye. This is especially virulent, where elections are not "First past the Post" and parties are powerful.
 
I don't know much about their system, but if it were our system, I could see the benefits of maybe combining the senate and the house into one body, then make that body better represent smaller parties in a parliamentary style government. I think we'd be able to get a lot more done because as of now we just have the house owned by one party killing the stuff the senate does which is owned by another party, and vice versa.

You might get more done and that might seem like a good idea, when we look at the shutdown. You also lose separation of powers and all the checks and balances that make it less dangerous to delegate power over oneself to others. I follow the German situation very closely and the problems arising from the lack of separation of power is rather disturbing.
 
Unfortunately we weren't given the option to reform the senate. As it was it was a useless body existing only to give life long political party hacks a pay cheque. Even disregarding it's lack of power and being a home for unemployed politicians, a country of 4 million can't really justify two houses.

If a senate is actually powerful and elected in an appropriate manner I may be tempted to way it's better than unicameral. This was not the case in Ireland.
 
Ireland votes in referendum to scrap the Senate | euronews, world news

Ok. So this raises 2 topics for discussions.

#1. Is a unicameral parliament better than a bicameral one?

Depends on how it is set up. In the case of Denmark we found out that the upper house was basically like the UK House of Lords and did not represent the people in anyway. That was why it was done away with. It was a bunch of upper class snobs that caused far more problems than their were worth. And since the class society was dying in Denmark at the time, then there was no reason for it to exist. Fact is, in the UK the House of Lords has made it possible to continue the class society and that is causing a ton of social problems.

In this case it is a bit difference as I understand it. The Upper house has no political power. They cant block any legislation so why have it if it is a political eunuch?

#2. Will the cost cuts of 20mil euros/year be a good trademark to what is basically, removing half your democratically elected position....

From Wikipedia..

The Senate is a largely advisory body. It consists of sixty members called Senators. An election for the Seanad must take place no later than 90 days after a general election for the members of the Dáil. Eleven Senators are nominated by the Taoiseach while a further six are elected by certain national universities. The remaining 43 are elected from special vocational panels of candidates, the electorate for which consists of the 60 members of the outgoing Senate, the 166 TDs of the incoming Dáil and the 883 elected members of 5 city and 29 county councils. The Senate has the power to delay legislative proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by the Dáil (excluding money bills). The Senate is only allowed 21 days to consider money bills sent to it by the Dáil. The Senate cannot amend money bills but can make recommendations to the Dáil on such bills.

It is not even democratically elected, and has no power.. so why have it?

I personally think that a bicameral parliament is better. It has historically been better. The only way I see a unicameral parliament be better is if you massively overhaul the democratic process and improve the means by which people can communicate with the legislature. This means improving internet connection and outreach programs, set up web pages where people can offer direct real time input, have more referndums a year on various issues... basically integrating the population in the legislative process to a greater degree than now. Otherwise... it's kind of bad. But that's my opinion.

I disagree. Bicameral parliamentary systems are for the most part horrible and cause so many problems. Look at the US, Italy, and even the UK in some cases. Gridlock and nothing gets done. The idea is okay, checks and balances, and it is especially good kinda when there are few parties, but when there are many parties like in Italy.. god what a hell. Problem is that the system can be abused massively.. look again at the US.

I would rather have a working legislative than one that is in total gridlock and nothing gets done.
 
I disagree. Bicameral parliamentary systems are for the most part horrible and cause so many problems. Look at the US, Italy, and even the UK in some cases. Gridlock and nothing gets done. The idea is okay, checks and balances, and it is especially good kinda when there are few parties, but when there are many parties like in Italy.. god what a hell. Problem is that the system can be abused massively.. look again at the US.

I would rather have a working legislative than one that is in total gridlock and nothing gets done.

US is different then UK and Italy. US was designed that way on purpose because of it's history as a colony of the UK. To many of the founding fathers they would rather have gridlock then a rubber stamp legislative branch and since the US is a two party hell hole, gridlock is the best thing we could ever have.
 
The only way I see a unicameral parliament be better is if you massively overhaul the democratic process and improve the means by which people can communicate with the legislature. This means improving internet connection and outreach programs, set up web pages where people can offer direct real time input, have more referndums a year on various issues... basically integrating the population in the legislative process to a greater degree than now. Otherwise... it's kind of bad. But that's my opinion.

Nebraska has a unicameral system. There are term limits, no party affiliation (officially), and there is only 60 to 90 days which they are required be in Lincoln to vote. It's a nice system. But there are draw backs as well.
 
US is different then UK and Italy. US was designed that way on purpose because of it's history as a colony of the UK. To many of the founding fathers they would rather have gridlock then a rubber stamp legislative branch and since the US is a two party hell hole, gridlock is the best thing we could ever have.

There is one hell of a difference between how it was designed and how it is preforming today... no founding father would ever have dreamt that a Senate rule that states you need 60 votes to get anything on officially voted on.. that is gridlock within gridlock. Fact is most of the problems in the US today is due to government being unable to do anything. Your whole deficit issue could be solved easily long ago, but because of the partisan gridlock and idiots in congress that wont happen any time soon.
 
Unfortunately we weren't given the option to reform the senate. As it was it was a useless body existing only to give life long political party hacks a pay cheque. Even disregarding it's lack of power and being a home for unemployed politicians, a country of 4 million can't really justify two houses.

If a senate is actually powerful and elected in an appropriate manner I may be tempted to way it's better than unicameral. This was not the case in Ireland.

Seanad Éireann is the retirement home of blowhards but remember they are also proposing reducing the TDs by 20. So they also want to change the ratio of TD per Irish citizen from no more then 30,000 to some other number like 35,000.
 
There is one hell of a difference between how it was designed and how it is preforming today... no founding father would ever have dreamt that a Senate rule that states you need 60 votes to get anything on officially voted on.. that is gridlock within gridlock. Fact is most of the problems in the US today is due to government being unable to do anything. Your whole deficit issue could be solved easily long ago, but because of the partisan gridlock and idiots in congress that wont happen any time soon.

Really? You need 3/4ths for a Constitutional change. The 60 votes is a lot less then what was needed years ago. Back before 1975 it required 2/3rds (67) to bring up a cloture vote (means all debate has ended). 60 votes is really considered a bedrock principle of the Senate.. every piece of major legislation passed has had 60 votes or more.

And no the budget problems couldn't have been fixed since the House still has to vote on it and the House is Republican controlled which is really the "democracy" side of the US Legislative branch.
 
Really? You need 3/4ths for a Constitutional change. The 60 votes is a lot less then what was needed years ago. Back before 1975 it required 2/3rds (67) to bring up a cloture vote (means all debate has ended). 60 votes is really considered a bedrock principle of the Senate.. every piece of major legislation passed has had 60 votes or more.

So what.. it is being abused massively and dont deny it! Almost everything needs 60 votes today where as in the past it did not. Things got done in the past.. it dont today.

And no the budget problems couldn't have been fixed since the House still has to vote on it and the House is Republican controlled which is really the "democracy" side of the US Legislative branch.

So you are saying that the 20 moron Tea Party idiots in the house are the "democracy" side of the US legislative branch? Because it is those idiots that are holding everything up with their brain dead ideas.
 
So what.. it is being abused massively and dont deny it! Almost everything needs 60 votes today where as in the past it did not. Things got done in the past.. it dont today.

How is it abuse? No party has 60 votes or can get 60 votes to do a cloture vote.



So you are saying that the 20 moron Tea Party idiots in the house are the "democracy" side of the US legislative branch? Because it is those idiots that are holding everything up with their brain dead ideas.

You should actually pay attention and your ignorance and judgement of what the US does is not in reality. You simply don't understand what's going on. You have a party (Republicans) who were bamboozled by Democrats several times now on budgetary issues. So these votes to raise the debt ceiling and continuing resolutions are basically a cheap way to avoid putting a name to the budget and having to hash out differences. Next Obamacare was passed in a Democratic House and a Democratic held Senate (means they got the 60 votes). It's the right of future Congress to choose to fund or defund any law it chooses to. What the Republicans are asking for is something so simple Democrats can't fathom it. Republicans want the law to be applied equally since Obamacare has lots of loopholes for the staffers of Congress and other Democrat supporters (Unions, Corporations and certain States) which were granted waivers that others were not granted. The biggest supporters of Obamacare got waivers. So there is something fishy about it.

But You need 218 votes to pass something in the house. Democrats only have 200. So they would need to get 18 from Republicans. There are 18 non-Tea Party members of House Republicans they just can't find them. So 20 members of the "tea party" isn't the problem, it's 232 Republicans as whole who refuse to vote. That is a Majority and in Democracy majority wins.
 
How is it abuse? No party has 60 votes or can get 60 votes to do a cloture vote.

It is abuse because it is being used in a way it was never ever intended to be used as. The GOP in the Senate use this and other administrative methods to block everything from appointments to laws. That one Senator can block a nomination by a secret hold is nothing but blackmail and the 60 vote thing is just another blocking way. The whole idea of the US democracy was that each elected official voted with his conscience... and this is something they do NOT do anymore. Hence the whole 60 vote clogs everything down since the GOP has more than 40 votes and they in 99% of the time vote as one unit.. because if you step out of line then your political future is very bleak.

And in the house it is much worse as many moderate Republicans have found out when they are suddenly challenged by hardline Tea Party fanatics and the Koch Brothers.. and lose.

You should actually pay attention and your ignorance and judgement of what the US does is not in reality. You simply don't understand what's going on. You have a party (Republicans) who were bamboozled by Democrats several times now on budgetary issues. So these votes to raise the debt ceiling and continuing resolutions are basically a cheap way to avoid putting a name to the budget and having to hash out differences.

That is simply not true. The blame is on both sides.. because the US budget has become an ATM for politicians, their districts and their financial backers. So everyone needs to be paid off, and that ultimately is why the budget never passes.

Next Obamacare was passed in a Democratic House and a Democratic held Senate (means they got the 60 votes). It's the right of future Congress to choose to fund or defund any law it chooses to.

Yes, and there is no way that would pass, so why the hell try 44 times? It is nothing but political bull****. Get a majority and then do it.. but the GOP knows it cant so it is doing this crap over and over again while it delays everything else and pushes for redistricting and gerrymandering in the states so that they maybe in the future will be able to take power again.

What the Republicans are asking for is something so simple Democrats can't fathom it. Republicans want the law to be applied equally since Obamacare has lots of loopholes for the staffers of Congress and other Democrat supporters (Unions, Corporations and certain States) which were granted waivers that others were not granted. The biggest supporters of Obamacare got waivers. So there is something fishy about it.

Bull**** yet again. The GOP was against Obamacare before the waivers went out, and ironically before it was Obamacare it was actually for most of Obamacare.. This has to do with power, and not letting the opposition get away with a win. How do I know this? Because the GOP has NO ALTERNATIVES other than going back to the failed system that was before the AHA. Now if the GOP could lay out a viable alternative instead of trying to ruin the AHA, then maybe at the next election they will have a chance to change things. But no, they are fully content in screwing around and ****ing over the American people.

But You need 218 votes to pass something in the house. Democrats only have 200. So they would need to get 18 from Republicans. There are 18 non-Tea Party members of House Republicans they just can't find them. So 20 members of the "tea party" isn't the problem, it's 232 Republicans as whole who refuse to vote. That is a Majority and in Democracy majority wins.

Horse****. There is a majority in the House right now that will pass the budget, but the House leader refuses to put it up for a vote. They have over 20 GOP members that have defected.

But all this is irrelevant to the OP subject.
 

It doesn't matter anyway anymore. The people chose to keep both chambers.
As It Happened: Govt loses Seanad referendum - RTÉ News

The Government has lost the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

The final national result saw 51.7% in favour of keeping the Seanad and 48.3% in favour of abolishing it.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said the Government would now consider reform of the Upper House.

The referendum to establish a Court of Appeal passed by almost two to one.

Referendum to abolish Seanad rejected
Calls for Seanad to be reformed
Court of Appeal referendum accepted
National turnout just over 39%
 
I swear, in all my voting life, I've never voted with the winning side. Kinda feels like supporting Ireland in the footie.
 
I'd query the claim earlier that there is gridlock in Italy and the UK because of the Upper Houses. The Italian Senate is in the shadow of the Chamber of Deputies and isn't much of a restraint at all, while the unelected (as it should be) House of Lords is a gentle restraint but still permits the elected Commons to have its way.

Also, the presence of the House of Lords isn't perpetuating the British class system. As if abolishing it would change the class system one iota. As it stands, most of the old hereditary peers are gone, and the life peers are in effect life-senators, which is a fairly normal system worldwide.
 
Last edited:
a country of 4 million can't really justify two houses.
You have under-estimated your population by a third. Population of Ireland = 6.4 million. I'm not sure it changes the argument, but odd that an Irishman would do that.
 
4.5 million. Unless you're saying an Irishman should include Northern Ireland? They're not under the jurisdiction of the Seanad so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 
4.5 million. Unless you're saying an Irishman should include Northern Ireland? They're not under the jurisdiction of the Seanad so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My mistake. I Googled 'Ireland', not 'Republic of Ireland'. Apologies, although if you want the Six Counties, that's fine by me. Troubles solved.
 
4.5 million. Unless you're saying an Irishman should include Northern Ireland? They're not under the jurisdiction of the Seanad so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

naw it is based on all the companies phantom employees based in the tax haven :) At least 400k of them are Apple employees! :)
 
Yep but it was very close.. another few years and another vote and it is gone.

Mby they'll reform the senate by that time and hence, make abolishing it counter-productive.

European-style democracy needs an overhaul in general. What we're having is good for the XXth century, but not fit to carry us into the future.
More parties is good (so multi-party system like it is in most of europe).
Larger public input is good (hint hint, we should all take a lesson from Switzerland who has multiple referendums a year).
More transparency and accountability is good (easy to use website that records all parliamentary information/all govt information on day to day activity... who voted for what when where and why... etc/ And did I say easy to use?).
Less clunky and more easy to apply law is good (this may be a romania thing (though I doubt it )where many laws in my country just flat out contradict one another and go from one paragraph to another in an endless sea of annotations and references to another paragraph... srsly).
More possibility to have the public start referendums and better and more public-friendly protest law.
 
Mby they'll reform the senate by that time and hence, make abolishing it counter-productive.

That would require a new constitution I suspect..

European-style democracy needs an overhaul in general. What we're having is good for the XXth century, but not fit to carry us into the future.

Disagree fully. There are plenty of well functioning democracies in Europe and only a few rotten eggs.

More parties is good (so multi-party system like it is in most of europe).

Yes and no. Italy has always had a multi-party system but their system is very fragmented so getting stable governments has been a major problem since the Italian Republic was created after WW2. On the flip side countries like Denmark, Sweden and so on also have multiple parties and here there has been stable governments for many years at a time.. often decades.

What I think it is more is the political atmosphere and political system built up over many decades. Many of the countries with issues have not had many decades of "practice" to iron out the bugs. It is also critical how the constitution is worded and made.

Larger public input is good (hint hint, we should all take a lesson from Switzerland who has multiple referendums a year).

Yes and no. The Swiss system is also flawed big time. For one it kept women from having the vote for 60+ years after the rest of the western world got to vote. I would accept such a system on big things, even budgets, but not on things like human rights and other sensitive issues that frankly cant be trusted to an easily persuaded population. I dont have a problem with referendums as long as the people invest time and effort to understand the issues, but that decreases drastically the more referendums and elections you throw at them.

Could you imagine a referendum carried after 9/11 in the US? Things like expelling all Muslims and people who "look like Muslims" would have passed easily.

More transparency and accountability is good (easy to use website that records all parliamentary information/all govt information on day to day activity... who voted for what when where and why... etc/ And did I say easy to use?).

I agree. But most governments are a decade behind on technology and have been since the start. Look at Denmark, they tried to become "hip" and technological advanced in the Parliament so they gave all members iPhones and iPads.. not only insanely expensive but also full of security holes.. It took a hacker 20 seconds to hack a party leaders iPhone.

While the internet and access is great for transparency, much more work is needed.. both at local level all the way to Brussels. And the industry itself often exploits government as an ATM. Time and time again we see government computer projects fail big time at a massive cost to the taxpayer but great profit to the companies involved.

Less clunky and more easy to apply law is good (this may be a romania thing (though I doubt it )where many laws in my country just flat out contradict one another and go from one paragraph to another in an endless sea of annotations and references to another paragraph... srsly).

That is down to the political system and experience. It is hardly universal per say. To be frank, Romania has no history of democracy and has had governments that are utterly corrupt for almost 100 years. It is hard to get out of the groove.. people tend to stick to what they know, which in Romania's case is corruption from top to bottom. It is no different in places like Iraq, where democracy was forced on them and the end result by all accounts is even more corruption than under Saddam.

More possibility to have the public start referendums and better and more public-friendly protest law.

That is dangerous. The public is easily manipulated, especially on emotional issues and can easily be their own worst enemy. For example when Denmark voted no to the EU treaty change in 1992. The whole no campaign came basically down to miss-information about how the Euro was going to look like. People did not like that the Queen would not be on the coins... which is a lie because of course she could. But the no campaign had formed the narrative very well and in the end the emotional part of the population voted no because of in large part this. Now the ironic part was that the main no party is anti-royalist..

Point is having easier access to referendums on everything can be very harmful. Look at the Swiss and the minaret ban. Highly emotional and ultimately stupid and useless.

As for easier access to protesting. Again it is country specific. I suspect there are many laws, attitudes and ideas left over from Ceausescu in Romania when it comes to protesting, where as in places like Denmark and elsewhere it is pretty easy to protest.
 
My mistake. I Googled 'Ireland', not 'Republic of Ireland'. Apologies, although if you want the Six Counties, that's fine by me. Troubles solved.

Nah, they're the most patriotic people of either nation. They should say to hell with them after being betrayed by their mother countries.
 
Back
Top Bottom