Ireland Votes Against Abolishing Senate.

[dipsydoodle]

People in Ireland have voted to keep their upper house of parliament following a referendum on its proposed abolition.

>

The final result was very close with a 'No' vote (against abolition of the Senate) of just 51.73%. The 'Yes' vote was 48.27%.

The rejection of the proposed abolition of the upper house is a surprise and a body blow to the Irish Government.

Before it came to power, the main governing party, Fine Gael, promised a referendum on the issue.

http://news.sky.com/story/1150706/ireland-votes-against-abolishing-senate

Seanad vote: Public vote to keep Irish senate.

Voters in the Republic of Ireland have rejected a government proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann (upper house of the Irish parliament).

The Fine Gael Labour coalition government proposal was supported by Sinn Féin and was lost by a narrow margin, with 48.3% voting in favour of abolition, with 51.7% against.

Total turnout in the election was higher than expected at nearly 40%.

The Seanad has existed for more than 90 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24404157

[LuvNewcastle]

1. So who is right?

Is the Senate necessary for government oversight or is it keeping the government from being as accountable as it should? That's what's so frustrating about the press. They don't do much analysis; they just report the basic claims of both sides without ever hazarding a guess on who has the best argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. You think the British media can declare at least 48% of the Irish electorate 'wrong'?

With a story like this, you really can't declare one side 'right' and the other 'wrong'. It's about how the Irish want to run their country. Both options are compatible with democracy; this is not a question of individual rights or anything else fundamental to society.

I'm sure you can find plenty of opinions in the Irish media over the past few weeks. On both sides.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. They wouldn't have to put it exactly like that.

They could just give an opinion on which was the better idea. The BBC wouldn't have to say that the ruling party is "wrong." Both sides seem to be making the same claim, so it just seems like they could make their own determination about which side has the better claim. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Recursion]

3. In the US, the Senate is the only reason we still have Social Security

Without the Senate, it would have been privatized in 2005.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I've criticized our Senate before because it isn't democratic,

but in times like these, I can certainly see its value. I think it could be even better if we didn't have politicians in the Senate; I'd like to see experts in various fields who could advise the rest of the government about the issues we should prioritize. The President has advisers, but Congress relies on lobbyists to direct them on legislative priorities, and that is a big reason why things are so fucked up right now. America is in dire need of a brain trust that could see where we're headed as a country and direct us on how to avoid future problems.

[dsc]

7. actually that is almost certainly not true

Bush's own GOP was against this. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right. Then the GOP would have never won in 2010 and we would be far better off right now. Plus we would have had health care with a public option.

[bobbyjoe102]

6. Irish Senate

Hi all ,long time lurker from Ireland

The Irish Senate is pretty different from the US one, the members aren't directly elected by the public for example.
11 are appointed by the Taoiseach (prime minister), Six elected by the graduates of certain Irish universities:
43 elected from five special panels of nominees.

The majority of the people have no vote in Senate.
It is widely seen as being pretty useless 99% of the time.

I don't think people voted to retain it because of some great love for it but more that they want it reformed.
Once gone it wasn't coming back so voting no was the option for reform.

There is huge mistrust of politicians at the moment and the Government are seen as being particularly arrogant. This was a wake up call for them. Enda Kenny the taoiseach didn't campaign very well for a yes (to abolish) vote and refused to debate it on tv.
(He is widely viewed as not being good at debate and only talks in well prepared scripted events).

My take on it is that people were sick of being dictated to and want real reform instead of moving the deckchairs around.

Power is very concentrated in Ireland the opposition might as well stay at home most of the time, even those in the Government are strictly whipped into following party line. It is argued that there are only four people running the country, plus the IMF/ECB a big democratic deficit which needs to be closed.

So I think the defeat was a call for reform rather than some love of the senate.


Edit added:

The savings from abolishing the senate were said to be 20 million but this was shown to be false. The cost of running the referendum was 14 million. The cost of running the senate is not all that big compared to other areas where there is big wastage.

[Spazito]

8. Thank you for the information on the Irish Senate and on the vote....

it was very helpful in understanding the context. Welcome to DU!

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Welcome to DU.

Thanks for telling us about the Irish Senate. I tried to google some information about it, but I couldn't find much. I think y'all made the right decision; the Senate could be a great institution in Ireland if they'll put it to good use.