Sir, – Vincent Browne (“Cynical Seanad abolition stunt must not be rewarded”, Opinion, July 17th) argues that “a reformed Seanad could resolve the central crisis of our political structure”, but omits an explanation of how this feat could be achieved.
His threadbare fantasy that stocking the Seanad with opposition members and giving it “the same powers as the Dáil” will somehow give us a better government is plainly naive. Rather than promoting reform, the multitude of constitutional articles that currently define the Seanad’s role effectively lock out large parts of our political structure from change.
It would be extremely difficult to achieve political consensus on the details of how the Seanad should be reformed, and all but futile to try to persuade a jaded electorate to choose between multiple complex reform options, each with unknown consequences. The first step on the most effective route to a reformed political structure must be to do away with the Seanad altogether. This would leave the Dáil, the real source of our political problems, centre stage in the next phase of changes.
Mr Browne condescendingly describes as a “stunt” the Taoiseach’s change of mind, from a view that reforming the Seanad into something worthwhile is possible, to a view that it is better to let it go and start again. The Taoiseach’s true motives will remain forever unknowable, but the transition from wishful idealism to real-world pragmatism is a reasonable one that Mr Browne should open his mind to. – Yours, etc,
JOHN THOMPSON,
Shamrock Street,
Phibsboro,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Vincent Browne makes a very persuasive case for real Dáil reform.
However, I wonder has he worked out the full effect of his suggestion (a democratically elected body virtually independent of the government).
Bearing in mind the situation the country is in at present (troika control, austerity policies, large public and private debt, etc), I have my doubts as to its effectiveness.
Mr Browne should look at the American situation, where Mr Obama can’t get anything meaningful through Congress because of the Republican Party majority. What would happen if a reformed Seanad blocked a troika instruction or recommendation?
All things considered, any Dáil reform should be delayed until the country is in a sound financial state. The next election is not that far away. – Yours, etc,
LIAM COOKE,
Greencastle Avenue,
Coolock,
Dublin 17.
Sir, – If the members of the Seanad wish to go on serving their country and lending their wisdom and expertise, then they should offer to do so on a voluntary basis.
The qualities of selflessness and leadership found in our voluntary organisations throughout the country, ranging from youth sport to boosting the local economy by staging festivals, are more than abundant.
Surely it is these qualities that we should be looking for in our Seanad? If our elected representatives are genuinely concerned for the future of Ireland, then let them embrace this reform. – Yours, etc,
XENIA MEATH,
Killruddery,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – The fact that Senator David Norris is a politician who has given long and distinguished service to our national parliament makes his once-off use of an intemperate remark in the Seanad all the more difficult to understand.
The Senator has now expressed his regret for the remark he made regarding Regina Doherty TD and said that this occurred as he was “incandescent with rage”. What it is not difficult to understand is that someone like Senator Norris, who has served in the Seanad so effectively for so many years, would be enraged by the prospect of its abolition, and the methods being employed to achieve that end. While this can never excuse an intemperate remark, it may perhaps explain why on this occasion he lapsed from a high standard he has otherwise consistently displayed. – Yours, etc,
TOM BRACE,
Parkgate Place,
Parkgate Street,
Dublin 8.