Abolishing the Seanad…

A couple of years back I was talking to someone in the Green Party who would have been fairly close, as the saying goes, to thinking in government circles. It was about the time that the push to abolish the Seanad was gathering momentum, on foot of Enda Kenny’s statement that an FG government would do so.

Their take on it? That even if a referendum were held and won [or lost depending on perspective] it would be an enormously problematic exercise to unpick its footprint from both the Constitution and legislation. And a piece in the Sunday Business Post this weekend from Pat Leahy underscores that.

The cabinet has discussed the abolition of the Seanad and the setting-up of a convention to recommend reforms to the Constitution, though it has yet formally to approve either proposal.
It is believed that the proposed abolition of the Seanad is proving more complicated than had originally been envisaged, though government sources still insist that a referendum will be held later this year.

And some of the practicalities that would ensue from abolition?

Informed sources suggest that the consequences of abolishing the Seanad have aroused significant debate among ministers.
Some of those debates have focused on how to replace the Seanad’s role in various constitutional articles.
For example, article 27 allows for a joint petition to the president to refer any bill to the people in a referendum.
For such a petition to be presented, it must be supported by one-third of the Dбil and a majority of the Senate.
The question of the requirement being left at just one-third of the Dбil is among those which have been discussed.

Article 27 is interesting. Thomas Pringle’s efforts to use that to bring forward a referendum on the latest EU proposals has, at least to date, been stymied due to the numbers in both chambers. Talking to various people the real deal breaker was the Seanad. There the Government’s majority was – ironically – too solid, whereas it was possible that the proposal might get enough support in the Dáil. The government of the day might well have good reason to reflect on how the Seanad allowed them to dodge that particular bullet. No wonder there might be a question about one-third of the Dáil being up for discussion on the issue. What could they go for? A point between one third and one half? Do that and this begins to look like a power grab by the current incumbents to solidify their executive power, and that won’t necessarily play well in a referendum.

Granted it’s not that none of these issues can’t be ‘solved’ or at least proposals made that could address the issues. But whether they fly is another issue. As noted previously in the year, there’s already a bit of a campaign for retention beginning to take shape. Where a referendum fought last year would have been handily won by the government it’s just possible, unlikely still – but possible, that they might lose as their own over reach [which is an inevitable byproduct of governing] in various areas becomes apparent.

And look at how proposed changes like this work…

Similarly, the cathaoirleach of the Seanad is named as a member of the presidential commission, which stands in for the president in his absence or incapacity.

Ministers have been asked to consider whether or not this role should be given to the leas-ceann comhairle of the Dбil/

Step forward leas-ceann comhairle – your day has arrived.

One has to admire then the ability for understatement in the following:

A referendum could be “quite a complex undertaking”, said one source involved in the process.

It certainly will be. You can imagine the ‘No’ posters already.

Anyhow, perhaps as part of a kick to touch we’re going to get a convention:

It is expected that [the] constitutional convention will be established before the summer to recommend further amendments to Bunreacht na hЙireann.
The body is likely to be set up after resolutions of the Dбil and Seanad, rather than by legislation.
It is hoped that it will produce recommendations before the end of the year on two aspects of constitutional reform promised in the Programme for Government – the reduction of the voting age from 18 to 16, and the reduction of the presidential term of office from seven to five years.
Other questions that the convention will consider, such as reform of the electoral system and the introduction of same-sex marriage, are likely to be much more controversial, and will not be among its early priorities.

Clearly no end of stuff to think about coming down the line, though it’s not as if we’ve not enough already. But note that term ‘controversial’. Perhaps some of those proposals aren’t controversial now. But come twelve, twenty-four and more months…

In a way this all elides with a point made in the most recent Phoenix where it was suggested [in relation to the Vatican embassy closure]that:

The trouble for Labour is that,having been trounced in most of the economic battles with their coalition partners, its ministers have decided to switch foci on to ideological and liberal issues in order to assert themselves.

Granted the push on the Seanad came from FG, but the thought remains that all these ‘reforms’ appear oddly beside the point in the context of the economic crisis. Which is not to say the Government shouldn’t be walking and chewing gum simultaneously. There’s one or two issues there, such as same-sex marriage, that are well worth going for even if they fail at this point – simply because they will bring closer the day when they succeed. But focus on Labour itself and the problem is in the name. If the LP doesn’t concern itself with the economic it is a party adrift from its purpose, at least as perceived by many of its supporters. Substituting one for the other isn’t going to work, in part because minimalist as it will be FG will go some way the same distance on the issues therefore making a distinctive set of Labour ‘victories’ much less evident, in part because why should FG be generous when it’s already ‘winning’ on implementing its economic vision?

The LP would do well to consider that Fine Gael may well be planning on going for an overall majority next time, and while the polling data for such an outcome is less than clear it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. In such a context FG’s first and last instinct will always be to give the LP nothing. And that being the case that requires a rather different approach to the one we’ve seen so far.