We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE UNCERTAINTY OVER the future of the Seanad last week meant that the upper house sat for just two days this week and will be out of session from today until next Tuesday afternoon.
The Seanad adjourned yesterday evening after a two-day week in which it spent just half-an-hour debating government legislation with the committee stage of the bill to dissolve County Enterprise Boards briefly discussed yesterday.
Private members’ business included discussion on recognising Irish Sign Language and the plight of small businesses in rural towns but otherwise it was a pretty limited schedule for the upper
Explaining the difficulties during the Order of Business on Tuesday, the Fine Gael leader in the Seanad, Maurice Cummins, told the chamber that the reason for the two-day sitting was because it was “very difficult to predict how this week would work out”.
“I anticipate that the House will return to the normal three-day sitting next week, provided there is sufficient business to be dealt with,” he said.
Cummins told the house that he hoped the defeat of the referendum to abolish it will now mean that Senators “will receive a great deal more co-operation with regard to the scheduling of business”.
He continued: “It is my strong belief that with the mandate we have received we should now move on to doing the valuable legislative work the people of Ireland expect us to do.
“I strongly hope we can do that in the professional, productive and collegiate manner that has been such a positive feature of this 24th Seanad.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well done 52% of the public
About 20% of those eligible to vote actually. But there you are, the people have spoken!
The people have spoken , but I don,t know what they said…
Mostly Dublin and satellite counties made up that idiotic 52%. A chance to dump useless politicians gone a begging. Well done all.
You’re welcome Snug.:-)
I thought Senator Norris worked 14 hours a day.
Ya but it’s only one day a month
I thought they even if the result had been yes the Seanad wouldn’t have just shut down there and then, so why no business conducted? Excuses excuses!
Exactly – If a yes vote had carried, the Seanad would not shut down until the formation of the next Dail after an election.
I voted no, but there is some load of boolshite coming out of them.
Reform!
Wow, there were no plans to dissolve the Seanad this week even if the vote had gone Yes and still they manage to reduce their working “week” to two days from the massive usual three days.
Too many No voters swallowed the whole “power grab” red herring and too many just wanted to “embarrass” Enda by carrying on paying for these shysters.
And now we’re stuck with the do nothing part-timers.
Great work.
Well maybe if he came out and argued his case I may have been swayed to vote yes. All i heard was a chicken shit “i don’t want to embarrass you” in a debate with Meehole Martin, schoolyard stuff.
Are you sure it was so simple !!!! Article 27 Paul ?
Article 27 argument is a non-argument. It’s just smoke and mirrors.
Article 27 “does not apply to Money Bills or Bills containing a proposal to amend the Constitution” in addition to which the President still has the power to refuse to sign any Bill and also to refer Bills to the Supreme Court for constitutional checks.
This puts the President in a position of relative power (relative to the Seanad for example) and is a directly elected post.
Democracy in action.
Have to agree Paul. This will never be reformed, the Irish taxpayer will keep picking up the tab. Fine Gael and fine fail failed politicians will be nominated for there. The Irish people will continue to moan about it. How anybody thought saving the Seanad was a good idea is beyond me. Countries larger and more successfully run than Ireland manage to do just fine with one parliamentary house. I must say I despair at the thought of who Irish people will vote for at the next general election. I would not be surprised if fine fail got back in.
Imagine the chaos if the senate didnt exist!
The poor dears deserve a few days rest. XoXo
Reading between the lines too many champagne corks popping a lots of partying going on at taxpayers to do any work.
I blame Enda Kenny, if he wasn’t such a coward the result may have been different…
I blame the sixty percent of the electorate who could not be bothered going out vote
Partly, but I also blame people who listened to people like McDowell and Martin. Two people who failed this country miserably.
Democracy has spoken.
We have a coward leader who has never faced the Irish people… Can you blame people for not voting they don’t know what they are voting for!!
And I thought that running in a general election involved facing the Irish people….life exists outside of your TV screen
So you need party leaders with their own agendas to explain it to you?
Get an opinion for yourself – use the Internet to research. Few in this day and age can hide behind the excuse they are being kept in the dark.
All the issues involved in abolition of the Seanad as proposed by Enda Kenny fitted neatly on an A4 sheet, or two pages of the Referendum website. If people weren’t going to read these few paragraphs and make up their minds, why would Kenny in person telling us what we should do be a good or a necessary thing?
It’s embarrassing for the government that their proposal was rejected and they obviously feel their leader let them down in the campaign, but that’s an internal matter for them: it actually seems pretty healthy that the minority of us who did vote responded thoughtfully, rather than being barracked into agreeing with a substantial government majority.
That’s a joke considering only 3% of the people can vote for the upper house and one 1% actually do!
I voted Yes to Seanad and No to Miley Cyrus.
Where are all the No commenters now?
It was obvious that the Senators would go back to their old ways once they had won but the gullable Irish voters decided that is what they wanted. As I said before they have now forfeited the right to complain. As for now trying to blame Enda Kenny for their stupidity beggers belief. You reap what you sow!
Pat I voted no, no more guillable than someone who voted yes.I educated myself to the implications of a yes didn’t like it and voted accordingly.
Just because the vote didn’t go the way you would hoped try and stay away from the insults.The people spoke you and others should listen.
I’m one :)
I’m not gullible though, I just believe that the executive (who already hold too much power) should not have total free rein to run the country however they like with impunity. Of course the Seanad will continue to operate as usual until it is reformed. Still, I guess it’s not as sensational to use your brain?
No voter chiming in here. If fear of the Seanad ‘going back to their old ways’ was the key issue for you, I’m surprised anyone would give you a sharp item like a pencil in the ballot box.
I voted No also. Article 27 and our constitution remains. Win.
It’s OK Rob I brought my own pen so I wouldn’t hurt myself but thanks for your concern.
Norman, I have listened and I accept the result, that is what the people voted for but is that what the people really wanted? While I voted yes other members of my family voted no and I believe that a sizeable number of people voted no in protest against the government. For years people have complained about the wasters in the Seanad and now suddenly they want it retained, to me it smacks of opportunism. It’s an opinion I don’t expect you to agree with it.
Your correct I don’t agree with your opinion but I respect your right to have it.I don’t feel insulting people who voted No/Yes is a mature response.
My reasons for voting no had nothing got to do with Kenny.This government will be gone by 2016.The damage to our constitution in a rushed populist referendum would have been permanent.
And calling me an a**hole is a mature response?
Every bit as mature as you referring to “no” voters as trollers.If you’re going to throw out an insult why so surprised when one is thrown back at you?
I’m not remotely insulted by it, I’ve been called worse.
No voter here. I voted No and got what I wanted. I knew what I was doing and wasn’t punishing the government. Seanad is an important check re balance of power, albeit in need of reform (not abolition). Just accept it and move on Pat.
Yes I will have to accept it, the people have spoken. I agree that the Seanad should be an important check re balance of power. But where has it been for the last 30 years when the excesses of FF were in no way checked. As for reform, you are asking politicians to reform the Seanad, thats like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Agree with you fully Pat. Can you imagine who the Irish people will vote next into the Dail?! We only have ourselves to blame
But it’s going to be reformed. They will pass some piecemeal legislation claiming all sorts of reform but it’ll be rubbish. They don’t have to reform it drastically, as the referendum didn’t offer that choice. Other countries larger than Ireland manage just fine with one house
Not going to be reformed I meant!
It doesn’t matter how much time they heat their chairs, but what value do they add?
The government will have to be seen to reform the Seanad now. There’s legislation there already to do it, but, I think it will be too little too late. All that will happen is that they will extend the franchise to other colleges. They certainly won’t get rid of the power Enda has of nominating eleven of his cronies, for the simple reason that would mean the government would not have a majority in the upper- house anymore. And if there’s one thing for sure, the Dail won’t accede power to the Seanad!
Great point except for the part you left out whereby your desire to remove the Taoiseach’s nomination would involve a referendum and cost is poor taxpayers another 12m
I thought legislation is already there to do that. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In fairness Enda’s “eleven cronies” have been some of the most impressive Senators in this Seanad like Katherine Zappone and Fiach Mac Conghail.
Besides that the Taoiseach’s 11 nominees is reflective of a wider problem in the way the Seanad debate i.e. how to ensure a government can still function if the two houses are controlled by different parties. Just imagine the fun in the country if the current Seanad was controlled by SF and FF…
People it is not about shutting the Seanad it was about article 27
Yes there was a bit of scare mongering about that alright. A provision that has never been used nor ever likely too.
Willie- explain what you mean. Or are you just trying to see if you can be the first comment to receive no thumbs- red or green.
Allan the referendum result can be seen in two ways a kicking for the government or as I like to think the people educated themselves and saw that by abolishing the Seanad ,we were going to lose our right to challenge European law as it would in future be on a simple Dáil majority to get bills passed ? The president would no longer be able to send a bill back to the people for referendum if he thought it was not in keeping with our constitution ! It’s the amendments that were going with the abolition of the Seanad that I had issues with ! Look at the proposed amendments in the green booklet that was available in the PO and see , was not that a simple ???
I agree Willie, and it was article 27 in particular that convinced me to vote no, in addition to other articles that would be deleted if the Seanad went, and not the Seanad itself. Yes article 27 has never been used, but like a fire escape in a building, you hope that you never have to use it, but it is there if needed. This is one key piece of democracy we have, and by removing article 27, there is less protection for the people and the constitution.
Willie, the president can’t send a bill to referendum off his own back. It requires a third of the Dail and a majority of the Seanad to petition him to do so. something that has never happened nor is ever likely too. Where you are also misleading in your statement Willie is that the president would have retained the power to forward a bill to the supreme court if he thought it was unconstitutional. The supreme court decides whether a bill is constitutional or not, not the people. The people decide on changes to the constitution.
But there you go, lots of people voted one way or the other without full knowledge of the facts.
Page 6, Direct quote from the Referendum Commission Independent Guide to the Seanad Referendum: ‘It this referendum is passed, This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.’
* ‘If this’
Yes Catherine I know that, but in order for him to refer a bill to referendum, and as I’ve already explained, it would require a third of the Dail and a majority of the Seanad. The abolition of the Seanad would not have removed the power of the president to refer bills to the supreme court.
Reg, I am well aware that it would take 33 Senators and 55 Dail members to do that, and I take your point about the presidents power of reference, but and YES vote, would have still taken away another avenue for the people to have a say. And just because it has not happened in the past, does not mean it will not happen in the future. I am sure it will something that will be tested in the near future. :)
Cant believe someone actually thumbed down a direct quote from the Referendum Commission. There was no commentary with it, just a direct quote. I can only take it that they feel the commission was inaccurate or that they don’t agree with the removal of this article 27.
Well if it happens in the next 25 years I’ll treat you to a pint or whatever your favourite is Catherine. I won’t be holding my breath!
Willie hasn’t come back about the inaccuracies in his post.
I look forward to that Pint Reg, hopefully sooner rather than later. Willie has issued another post, but for some reason it is not showing up here. Don’t know why. We can agree to disagree on this point Reg, but I’m sure we are both in agreement that all we both want is the very best for our country.
@ Reg, just spoke with Willie on another forum, and it appears that the powers that be here have barred him, so there is no chance of his replies being seen by you. Thought you might like to know that he is not ignoring you, but others are stopping this debate. I saw the post that he was trying to post, and before anyone starts, there was nothing offensive or disrespectful in it. Seems like its a case of lets debate this, but only if your opinions are in agreement with mine. With this in mind, the situation seems to be, now the Seanad is saved, lets start a new campaign to point out their inefficiencies so we will get the ‘right’ result next time. Say I will be barred now so will have to catch up in another forum Reg for a good respectful and honest debate and to arrange that pint.
The “NO” trollers are finally out of bed!!
Pat so people whom voted no are “trollers”?
You sir are a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?
That’s one thing about me Norman is that I am special as for stupid, the jury is out on that one. Back to bed for me now, all you wage slaves, have a nice day!
A condescending a**hole aswell, wow you’re right you are special.Don’t forget to pull the side rails up on the bed.
I voted Yes. From reading up on it and hearing the arguments on both sides I felt it was a logical decision to vote that way. Many people voted No to kick the gov, thought the gov was on a power grab, thought European legislation would be pushed through, thought the President would lose the power to refer bills to the people. None of those arguments stood up.
I think the government didn’t put across their case well enough because half of them didn’t want to lose the Seanad as it could be their lifeboat after the next election. Many FG/Labour people did not canvas on the ground.
The polls gave the gov false belief that the referendum was in the bag and they got too complacent.
Personally I had no problem with Enda Kenny not debating. For me it was just a red herring. He is not a good debater so why would you put him out there to debate the issue when a better debater like Richard Bruton could put across the issue in a much better way.
*that
I voted Yes because I knew it would make eff-all difference to any of us if there was only one house.
have your say