Sir, – Governments tend to tell us what we like to hear. In these times of economic hardship, the alleged cost-savings associated with dissolution of the Seanad seem impressive. Yet, €14 million is being happily spent on a referendum while the homeless are told they must wait until 2016.
So, what is the emergency for Seanad dissolution? Are the vocal, non-party, competent, conscientious Senators too influential in enlightening the masses?
Currently, a four-person cabinet runs Dáil Éireann – surely this is undemocratic? If there is a Yes vote, might this number be reduced to two, or, perhaps, to one – Emperor Enda? A few lashes from his “whipster” would then keep the toddlers in toe in this, the authentic nursery. The thought is nauseous. I shall vote No to Seanad dissolution. – Yours, etc,
ANN McENEANEY,
Beatty Park,
Celbridge, Co Kildare.
Sir, – The cynical logic of the Fine Gael poster which states that saving € 20 million (highly debatable, anyway) and having fewer politicians are reasons for abolishing the Senate, infers, in the same cynical mode, that we can save much more than € 20 million and have an even greater reduction in the number of politicians by abolishing the Dáil. It’s confusing, and also insulting to the electorate. “Demand real reform” sounds much more honourable, and is so – especially if it is meant. – Yours, etc,
Dr JAMES FINNEGAN,
Woodland, Letterkenny ,
Co Donegal.
Sir, – A question was posed to the Taoiseach on RTÉ radio recently as to whether the Fine Gael party would survive the current difficulties in Government. His response was that the Fine Gael brand was strong and would survive into the future. This begs the question whether Fine Gael sees itself as a “brand” rather than as a political party with an ideology.
A Senate made up of at least 50 per cent of wise people, without political affiliation, would be a welcome and important counterpoint to a single house legislating within the confines of the party whips. – Yours, etc,
ALISON HACKETT,
Crosthwaite Park East,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – The Referendum Commission's Guide to the Seanad and Court of Appeal Referendums poses, in the English language version, two questions for answering in the referendums: "One asks do you agree to the abolition of Seanad Éireann" and "The other asks do you agree to the establishment of a court of appeal and other changes to the courts system."
Whereas, in contrast to the one-sided description of the questions to be answered in the English language version, the Irish language version more properly describes the two issues to be decided “i gcóir nó nár chóir” – for or not for – the proposed change in each question. The one-sided description in the English version is unacceptable coming from a professional body charged with being scrupulously fair.
If one reads further into the commission’s explanatory booklet it becomes clear that not only are we being asked to abolish or not Seanad Éireann, but also to implement consequential changes to the Constitution and, additionally, to abolish the right of the President to refer a Bill to the people for decision in certain circumstances. The latter is not a consequence which would follow if the Seanad were to go; it is a separate matter, but it has been hidden away in that it has received no mention in the introduction. Many recipients of the guide may read no more that the chairperson’s introduction to the referendums. – Yours etc
JOHN COLGAN,
Dublin Road,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – It is somewhat bemusing that the Democracy Matters campaign is emphasising that abolition of the Seanad would constitute a “power grab”. The Taoiseach’s ability to appoint 11 senators following a general election all but ensures the majority of senators are supportive of the government of the day. This argument made with respect to the current Taoiseach is all the more remarkable given that most of his chosen 11 nominees were Independents.
Effectively, on that basis, there is practically no ultimate transferral of additional powers to the executive in the advent of abolition. Special distinguishing powers as stipulated for the upper house in the Constitution are so rarely invoked that they are irrelevant in a modern sense. For example, the argument that the Seanad has “90-day brakes” on legislation has been made during this campaign. The last time such a power was invoked was in 1964, in relation to pawnbroking. The “power grab” assertion is therefore a disingenuous one, and represents one of the weakest possible arguments for retention.
The Seanad’s main role in a realistic sense is to contribute to legislative advisory review oversight. The Government is maintaining that the parliamentary committees (which already sit for more hours per annum than the Seanad) can be correspondingly adjusted to assume further capacities, with a stated determination to consult more civic voices in the preparation of legislation. The Taoiseach has even stated in the Dáil that letter writers (such as those to your newspaper) could be asked to contribute at parliamentary committee stage. Such an ambition would be equivalent in a de facto sense to the objectives of possible Seanad reform in terms of reaching out more to society in a vocational sense with respect to legislative analyses. – Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Knocknashee,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14
Sir, – We are appealing for a No vote. We believe the abolition of the Seanad will make the adoption of EU decisions and legislation easier for a government that is determined to do so, even if those decisions are inconsistent with the stated views of the Irish people. Abolishing the Seanad will eliminate the chance of ever establishing a reformed institution that could scrutinise future EU military issues and will make it less problematic for Enda Kenny and his successors to pass controversial legislation.
With the EU pushing for more militarisation there is a need to increase scrutiny and accountability, not support a decision that will allow for the easier passage of such decisions. Compared to Scandinavian countries, Germany and many of the new member states, Ireland’s has one of the least effective scrutiny systems of EU legislation. A reformed Seanad could potentially correct this weakness in Ireland’s oversight of EU policy-making, particularly on military issues.
The recent European Parliament session, which approved a report on EU's military structures: state of play and future prospects, demonstrates that the further erosion of Irish neutrality and the continued militarisation of the EU are on the EU and Government agenda and this will be made easier by removing the threat of a reformed Seanad.
This report, aimed at boosting efforts to further militarise the EU, calls for the creation of a fully-fledged EU military headquarters, for the strengthening of EU battle groups, for more money to be spent on arms production and research, and for a closer relationship with Nato.
While the report is non-binding, it sets the agenda for the EU Council meeting in December where further EU militarisation and increased support for arms production and research will be discussed. It is most disturbing to note that all Fine Gael MEPs – the party that wants the Seanad abolished instead of reformed – supported this report and only one Irish MEP, Paul Murphy, Socialist Party voted against it.
Just because the Seanad has failed to promote peace and neutrality issues in the past is not a justifiable reason to support its permanent abolition. The failures of the Seanad are the direct result of the failure and refusal of the political parties to reform it.
It seems the Government’s strategy is to “to get rid of the Seanad quickly” before there is a chance to reform it in a way that would make any future government’s task of passing controversial legislation more difficult.
While we all agree with the criticism of the current Seanad and the undemocratic procedure for allocating seats. If abolished, it can never be reinstated without a referendum, and the only body that can propose this is the government itself. Thus it’s unlikely that the institution that wants the Seanad abolished will ever propose its reinstatement. – Yours, etc,
Dr EDWARD HORGAN,
Retd Army Commandant &
UN Military peacekeeper;
Dr JOHN LANNON, UL &
Shannonwatch coordinator;
CATHERINE CONNOLLY,
Galway City Councillor;
NIALL FARRELL,
Shannonwatch activist:
PATRICIA McKENNA,
Former Green Party MEP
and peace & neutrality
activist; Prof JOHN
MAGUIRE, Prof of
Sociology, UCC,
C/o Iona Road,
Glasnevin, Dublin 9.
Sir, – The Senate has proved one thing very clearly – how quickly politicians change colour when it suits the agenda. It does nothing to assure me of anything political. – Yours, etc,
AJ QUINN,
Fortmary Park,
Limerick.
Sir, – We generally get the opportunity to elect individual politicians every four years or so. This time we have the opportunity to eliminate 60 of them in one fell swoop. It looks like a case of the chickens coming home to roost! – Yours, etc,
JOHN EGAN,
Bullock Park,
Carlow.
Sir, – To those who wish to reform the Seanad, here are some reform measures.
First, I would propose two senators representing each of the 26 counties, making a total of 52, and elected by the people of their respective county just like senators in US, representing their state. The position should be an honorary one, with no salary save for travelling expenses to and from Dublin, including accommodation.
Senators should be a voice for the social and economic problems of their respective county and “play” with vigour and enthusiasm of Gaelic footballers or hurlers. Yes, the Seanad should give balance to democracy, but above all the position of Senator should be an honorary one, where people act out of love and passion for their county. Am I going to see this? No.
That’s why I am voting with Molly Bloom’s words. Yes, yes and yes again. – Yours, etc,
JOE MURRAY,
Beggars Bush Court,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – How ironic that your long-overdue discussion on voting rights for emigrants (Ciara Kenny, “The votes at home: Is the diaspora disenfranchised?”, September 28th) was printed adjacent to a full-page spread on the referendum to eliminate from our electoral system the last vestige of franchise for the diaspora!
For the past 40 years, the postal ballot for the NUI Seanad seats was my only connection with the Irish political system. Over the years, I have had the satisfaction of helping to vote in such diverse personalities as Gemma Hussey, Gus Martin, Brendan Ryan (of the Simon Community) and Michael D Higgins. Together with the TCD senators (especially Mary Robinson), they have disproportionately enriched Irish political culture. Admittedly, we were a privileged sub-set of all emigrants. But what a shame that the standard response to the charge of elitism is to level down rather than level up!
Ireland needs to harness more of its elites, not less. A broadening of the representation of significant sections of Irish society both at home and abroad would take no more than a full utilisation of the flexibility inherent in Articles 18 and 19 of our Constitution. – Yours, etc,
NOREEN O’DONOVAN
HAGE,
The Parade,
Ballydehob,
Co Cork.
Sir, – As an ordinary non-academic citizen of Ireland who believes in a democratic electoral system, I will this Friday for the first time have a right to vote in relation to the Seanad. I will be voting Yes. That’s real democracy. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL STOREY,
Glenupper,
Glencar,
Sligo.