Sir, – The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people.
The Referendum Commission states that if the proposed Referendum is passed “this possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.”
Unicameral absolutism of such significance?
I can think of no better reason to reject the Seanad abolition proposal. – Yours, etc,
Dr GERARD J BURKE,
Castleconnell, Co Limerick.
Sir, – I will be voting to abolish the Seanad because with the Seanad gone it would be easier to focus on radically reforming the Dáil, which would solve at least some of our chronic political problems.
It’s not that I’m so naive as to believe such radical reform will ever take place. But when the choice is between supporting two white elephants or one, one will do fine. – Yours, etc,
JOHN COTTER,
Russell Court,
Ballykeeffe, Limerick.
Sir, – Like many others on this island, I find myself in the strange position that, in a couple of weeks’ time, I am being asked to vote to abolish an institution for which I don’t have a vote. In spite of this, I intend to vote No, as I believe that the present government, with the establishment of the “Gang of Four”, the downgrading of local councils and their ambition to leave us with a unicameral legislature, will have achieved a power grab unprecedented in the history of this state.
I also believe that, in spite of their assertions to the contrary, if we vote this proposition down, the Government will have no option but to reform the Upper House and make it a truly representative body. Seanad elections should also take place on the same day as the general election, forcing our representatives to choose which house they were competing for on day one.
The argument that abolishing the Seanad will save €20 million annually is patently spurious but, even if it were not, the plain people of this country would like to see savings of this nature effected by not paying political pensions until the recipient has either reached a specific age, (say 55), or been out of politics for at least 15 years. Another tranche of savings could be achieved by not allowing the word “unvouched” to appear before the word “expenses”, by asking members of the Oireachtas to buy their own mobile phones (and pay the attached bills from their salaries), and to bear the normal expense of travelling to work. In other words, it would be nice to see them living in the same world as the rest of us. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN MacDONAGH,
Sonesta,
Malahide, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Prof Ray Kinsella (September 21st) cites the expertise and commitment of people such as John Crown, Sean Barrett and Fergal Quinn as a reason to retain the Seanad. However, given its very limited powers, the talents of the aforementioned are wasted in the Upper House. It would be better if they were in the Dáil. There they would have more influence and might even go on to become ministers.
Among the reasons that talented people are attracted to the Seanad university panels, rather than the Dáil, are because of the national make-up of the constituencies and because there is not a requirement to carry out large amounts of clientelistic constituency work.
It would therefore be preferable to proceed with abolishing the Seanad and then change the system for electing the Dáil, so that a portion of the seats (40 to 50) are allocated using a list system. In addition, the Constitution should be changed to allow persons outside of the Dáil to be appointed to the Cabinet. – Yours, etc,
ROBERT HALLIGAN,
The Friary,
Castledermot, Co Kildare.
Sir, – Taoiseach Enda Kenny (Opinion, September 20th) argues we should abolish the Senate because other small nations have only one chamber and we need to continue a policy of doing “more with less”. Mr Kenny also promises a new dawn for civic engagement through a committee system inside a reformed Dáil. These arguments do not withstand closer scrutiny and have a weak evidence base in the context of a global policy world intent on reducing the public sphere for debate in all countries.
First, I will examine the argument that we as a small nation are comparable to other small nations. We have not yet developed in Ireland a strong democracy as the Scandinavian countries have. Their single chambers have no whip system, have co-equal numbers of women and men and have a long history of tolerance of dissenting voices. We have a long way to go to emulate this and it is highly unlikely we can achieve this by simply developing a reduced public space.
Second,the unreflective celebration of “doing more with less”, a policy associated with austerity and the troika, has sadly led to a brain-drain, as we continue to lose our educated young people to Australia and Canada. How could that be such a great thing for a small nation trying to hold its own in a turbulent Europe and an uncertain global world?
Third, I want to examine the promise that if we vote to abolish the Senate that a reformed Dáil will create participatory politics. According to Gerry Stoker, professor of politics from the University of Manchester, participatory politics needs the messiness of argument and debate and contestation. There is no evidence committees have the capacity to deliver this type of politics. Committees are controlled by tight agendas and often do not function in democratic ways. Committees deal with complex issues in simplistic, speedy and technically efficient ways. We have no evidence to date of the capacity of the Dáil to engage in any type of participatory politics. In fact we have witnessed how the Dáil has chosen to deal with politicians, such as Róisín Shortall and Lucinda Creighton, who have raised critical questions that the government of the day does not want to hear.
Who will really benefit from the abolition of the Senate? Will it be the citizens of Ireland and future generations? Or will it be the government of the day which will have seized total control of all dissenting voices and be better poised to meet the needs of such vested interests as bankers, big business and unsecured bondholders? I rest my case. – Yours, etc,
Dr GERALDINE MOONEY
SIMMIE,
Lecturer in Education,
Faculty of Education and
Health Science,
University of Limerick.
Sir, – I was going to vote Yes. Then I read the Referendum Commission’s “Independent Guide”.
I was struck by two changes regarding removal from office of the President or a judge. The present position requires two thirds of both houses for removal of the President (simple majorities for removing a judge) – a relatively straightforward matter for a sitting government using the whip. If the electorate votes to abolish the Seanad, removal of a judge will require two thirds of total membership of the Dáil (four fifths for the President). I rang the Referendum Commission and was told I had understood correctly, but it doesn’t give reasons. I was given a telephone number to someone in the Taoiseach’s office who would be better able to inform me.
The argument is that since current impeachment proceedings require passing two hurdles that the removal of one necessitated (in somebody’s opinion) the heightening of a single hurdle. When I pointed out that since the Seanad, in its present form, is loaded anyway, the “two hurdle argument” is spurious, my informant said, “You’ve got a good point there”.
Yes, the judiciary should be independent, but not of the people exercising their judgment through our elected government. This proposal, as I understand it, significantly weakens the power of the Oireachtas to initiate impeachment proceedings. This is not good. In my opinion this is a strong reason for voting No.
Might I propose a compromise, that the amendment be changed to read “a majority of members”, ie 84 votes to remove a judge, 110 to remove the President (to be adjusted in the event of the number of TDs being reduced). – Yours, etc,
PETER GILL,
Clare Island, Co Mayo.
Sir, – There are two referendums being put to the people on October 4th. People know a little about one but nothing about the other. The first, we are told by our political masters, is about the abolition of the Seanad, and the second is about the setting up of a new court.
But that is only a fraction of the story, and I guarantee you that if we don’t get a majority No vote to both of these referendums, we, the people, will have betrayed our children and future generations in the most unbelievable way. We will have handed them over, lock, stock and barrel to the EU justice system, and Big Brother will then be free – finally – to impose its brand of law on us and on our children.
Already the plans are well advanced, both here and in Europe to bring in an “effective mechanism to enforce respect for EU law” on our people. EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, has described this mechanism. And the Commission will not be afraid, we are told, to use the “big stick” it is carrying, to enforce its brand of justice on our people.
Our politicians are a thundering disgrace. I will be voting No in both referendums. – Yours, etc,
NORA BENNIS,
North Circular Road,
Limerick.