Insofar as the budget goes, this is actually fair enough: you cast your vote, your representatives emerge and your government is formed to govern until the next election. In between, to try to govern by some imagined public consensus, to steer a course by the uncertain stars of opinion poll and Twitter trend, is a receipe for populism and executive paralysis. Our TDs, for well-canvassed psephological reasons, have always inclined to the view that opinions are for voters to express - via Joe Duffy, the Irish Daily Mail and misspelled constituents’ letters - and for parliamentarians to run with. But the baying of the mob is not a sound basis for good governance.

Irish public figures could have benefitted over the years from listening more closely to one of their illustrious forebears, Edmund Burke, whose Speech to the Electors of Bristol remains the classic statement of the MP’s right and duty to be guided by his own, informed opinion, even if this conflicts with the express wishes of his electorate. A little more aloof paternalism might have brought a crop of TDs more willing to challenge the doomed consensus that helped inflate the bubble.

But this can only go so far, and the Irish Times (naturally) would take judicious flouting of the popular will beyond the Pale. Stephen Collins, discussing the ramifications of a eurozone exit, makes the following extraordinary statement:

“Over the next few months, if all goes well, there will be agreement at EU level to a series of binding budgetary disciplines. This will probably require treaty change and, even though that may result in a bitter referendum, it is very much in Ireland’s interest that it happens. In the long run, such a development will ensure the Irish people will be saved from a repeat of the economic indiscipline and political incompetence that characterised the Bertie Ahern years.”

Now, the government led by Bertie Ahern may well have been indisiplined and incompetent. But the implication of this passage is that submitting our financial affairs to the scrutiny and (possible) veto of the EU is the best – perhaps only - way to avoid a repeat meltdown ”in the long run”. The future financial policy of any Irish government is presented as a ticking timebomb.

This presupposes a complete inability of Irish people to run their own country properly. In effect, Collins would have us transfer significant new powers – amounting perhaps to a complete and permanent surrender of economic sovereignty – to the EU, not because this serves the greater good, but because, left to ourselves, we’ll only bugger it up.

It’s a sinister implication, anti-democratic and cynical. A country cannot realistically be governed by popular will alone, but nor can it be legitimately governed by giving up on representative democracy and handing the hard decisions over to centralised European control. 

Even if we shrug aside these fundamental objections, it’s hard to say whether or not we would be better off in or out of a new, financially integrated eurozone. Certainly, as Collins notes, attempting to pay off our load of euro-demoninated debt in some devalued punt nua would be extremely costly, and therefore exiting the euro would have to happen simultaneously with another radical move: default on sovereign debt, à la Argentina in 2002.

As I noted at the outset, these arguments are complex, and if such are the stark choices that are going to emerge out of this week’s discussions, politics isn’t going to get any simpler for a while yet. I would simply hope that our decisions flow freely, not from fear of our own inherent incompetence.

This is the quite time for Irish politics. The media moratorium to allow people to make their minds up just before the Dail elections. And this has been an unusual election campaign for a number of reasons. The one that I want to talk about is the comments canvassers made; this time people want to talk to the TDs about national and not local issues. Usually TD have to look in to every pothole (sometimes literally), and if they aren’t seen to be doing a lot at the local level, then they become ex-TDs come the next election. This is a problem.

The Seanad on the other hand has a national view. Of its three sections one of them have even be a de-facto international view.

Their problem is that the Seanad is seen as a resting ground for failed TDs and a grooming ground for future TD. In short, political daycare.

The fix; trim the fat off.

The Seanad is split in to 3 selections/elections. The 6 University Senators, the 49 Panel Senators and the 11 Appointed Senators.

The University Senators are elected in a postal vote by graduates from the NUI colleges and The University of Dublin (better known as Trinity College), 3 from each set. As its a postal vote, there are anecdotes of parents posting the voting forms off to their emigrant children. These are the only diaspora votes. These guys have to work hard to get elected. They have to be seen working hard. Ask any Irish person to name some senators and you will get the university senators named back at you (or Ivor Callely due to the scandal and court dates). These are the people who should have their presence expanded.

Actually the University Senators were supposed to be expanded over 10 20 years ago (see correction in the comments). The University of Limerick and Dublin City University were supposed to be electing senators, but the committee for Seanad Reform blocked every attempt to change things. I seriously believe that is the initial reason for the referendum. Any attempt to change things has been consistently blocked until a Callely related crisis point was reached.

And as a DCU graduate, I want my vote!

These senators are usually non-party affiliated, which means the whips from the main Dail parties can’t actually get them to follow the party line to the letter.

I would suggest not only keeping these senators, but expanding them. And if whatever Taoiseach decides their new (if any) legal existence, remember these guys have the country’s back. If an extreme reduction is needed then have the Seanad consist of only the university Senators.

The 49 Panel Senators however… well. I think I need to explain how they get their jobs.

There are 5 Vocational Panels in the Senate; Administrative (including public administration), Agricultural (including food), Cultural and Educational (and the Irish language), Industrial and Commercial (including technology) and Labour. These senators are “elected” by county and city councils as well as incoming TDs. I use the quotes around “elected” as all of this happens behind closed doors. While I’m sure that there are a few arguments along the way, its not a transparent system, and it tends to pick party Senators who quietly work with the whip with no apparent qualifications for their panel appointments.

These are the ones I would like to see changed with a nice bright light shone on them.

What would I propose? Well…

First split the country in to 5 Senatorial electoral regions based on population. For the sake of convenience I’ll go with North, South East, West and Dublin (very “All Ireland Talent Show”, sorry). These regions will hold public elections at the same time as the fixed term local elections (thus keeping the link to the city and county councils) but with the following rules.

1. A prospective Senator has to select on which panel she or he seeks election.
2. A prospective Senator cannot seek election to more than one panel per election.
3. A prospective Senator cannot seek a seat in the Local elections the same time (s)he is seeking election to the Seanad.
4. Each region elects a single Senator for each panel position. (5 senators per region).
5. A Senate seat cannot be left unfilled for more than 6 months. Either an automatic by-election is called or, if the next local election is less than 18 months from the Senators departure from the seat, a temporary Senator can be appointed by the councils in the region and their reasons for the appointment must be published and read as part of the new Senator’s maiden speech. (Something which should be considered for TDs too. That ticking clock tends to get things done too).

This has a few benefits.

• Its now a risk to become a Senator if you are grooming someone from the councils. They can’t go back to their existing seat.
• Its an open election, the public can vote.
• While they are seeking election to a region, its large enough to prevent (or at least limit) parish pump politics.
• As the prospective Senator has to declare which panel they are running for, its closer to a job interview. Hopefully the public will elect the person they feel is most suited for the post in their area.

Hopefully.

This does make the process open and it reduces the number of Senators by almost 50%. There will be some cost savings in having combining the elections, and having part of the Senate sitting when the rest of the Oireachtas is dissolved means that there is some consistency of power. One clear problem is the cost of campaigning to such a large area gives the organised parties an advantage over independents.

And finally we have the 11 Senators appointed by the Taoiseach.

To the victor go some spoils. Its original purpose was to ensure that the incoming government has some control over the Senate (and build in minority presence) but since my proposal is to reduce the Panel seats, I’d like to reduce these appointees too.

The Panel of 5 compels an elegant solution. The Taoiseach’s appointees are reduced to 5; one for each panel. He (so far they have all been men) must declare which panel each is being appointed to. Hopefully there will be some logic to this appointments, but I can see the Public administration appointee being a recently felled comrade in party.

There is one final requirement needed for a reformed Seanad. A method to remove Senators. I would think a motion for removal requiring 75% for the other Senators would be a reasonable and clear-cut method. With the reduced numbers a party whip system shouldn’t be able to force this issue, and there should be no party whip permitted for such a motion for removal.

Of course, for any of this to happen you’ll first have to seek a referendum on…

• Articles 14.2, 15.2, all of articles 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
• Articles 25.2, 25.3
• Most of 26,
• 27.1
• 28.7.2
• 31.2
• 33.5 and 35.4
• and the 7th Amendment of the Irish Constitution. (PDF link, sorry)

Thanks to John Handelaar for compiling this constitutional list.

In short, Seanad reform is well overdue. Given the recent history of Seanad Reform, it will probably have to be torn down (in the legal sense) in order for any changes to be made. But given the recent history of the lower chamber of the Dail, is needed.

Should the Dail become a true national concern and is treated as such by all the TD’s, then maybe the Seanad won’t be a requirement, but for the moment; its needed.

First posted on WillKnott.ie

However the problem posed by our politicians is what I wanted to write this short post on. For it is one of the few politicians that Irish people tend to listen to (not out of awe, but becuase he doesn’t appear to mind being blunt) is Charlie McCreevy. Our erstwhile commissioner will probably be returning to Ireland shortly after the Lisbon referendum. He is also one of those voices that the European establishment fear could utterly destabilise their (wrong-headed) strategy for winning Lisbon II.

The current phase of the campaign is to highlight just how silly we all were to vote no. The Irish people need to be made feel like eejits for even contemplating moving away from Europe – the recession has given us a firm shake and our political leaders’ job is to hammer home the shame. That strategy you don’t need to be a genius to work out, is a little bit of a high-wire act. There are worries being voiced internally that the campaign by the yes side is following the pattern of the last time and rather than getting down and talking at an individual level, the wonks and politicians are busy rubbishing the no side while failing to target their campaign effectively. There is time to save it but ‘grassroots movements’ should have been active under the radar since last February / March.

Of course that is wishful thinking on the part of these sources but there is truth to the idea that it would have been much better for the yes side to get discussing, get positive and do it below the radar rather than grandstanding. And McCreevy is why.

Pat Cox’s speech was dedicated to rebutting McCreevy’s assertion – which is utterly plausible – that were the Lisbon Treaty put to the vote Europe-wide it might well have been defeated by anti-EU sentiment across the continent. Perhaps not by 95% but possible nonetheless.

McCreevy was the man who last time out admitted he didn’t read the Lisbon Treaty, rubbished the idea that it was intelligible and undermined the yes campaign’s platform. That said he did not have to work hard to do it, the campaign was premised on brow beating people into accepting Europe in the space of a few weeks – not much thought or effort given by our political class (wrapped up in the demise of B Ahern) to forging a platform early on, setting the narrative and convincing people. McCreevy knew the electorate felt bolshie and taken for granted and he had the streak of contrariness to tap into it.

Ignorance is a big issue here – not actual but perceived. The electorate perceived they had failed to grasp the Lisbon Treaty, the Yes side failed to disabuse them of this perception and the legitimacy of voting no (out of ignorance) was followed through. McCreevy facilitated that and many wonder what his own position would be if he were unencumbered with the Commissioner’s position.

The Yes side this time around are setting their stall out in a way that could fall foul of a similar outing from a leading political figure. People are not any the wiser – little effort had been made to build stocks of knowledge (again perceived or actual) and trust between voters and the yes side. Instead we have speeches aimed at policing the political class – no one must step out of line.

The likes of McCreevy have not been out since the last referendum making the case for Europe. Small pockets of public life have been trying but the ground has not been laid (much to the annoyance of some in the pro-Europe camp who feel a campaign must a) talk to real people not policy wonks and b) not beat people around the head for voting no the last time). Cox’s speech yesterday suggests this may be deja vu all over again.

That will be the big issue ahead for the Yes campaign, the draw of internal policing versus the need to engage voters, communicate with them and attempt to overturn the defeat from last time. McCreevy will not be leading the ‘no’ side but he doesnt have to. His blunt honesty will emerge again but it is within the yes side that the kernel for another rejection lies.

The Yes side has conscripted an array of celebrities to their army including Bill Cullen, Eimear Quinn (Of Eurovision fame, apparently) and Mick Galwey “rugby legend”. Those named are just a few of the people who make up of the “We Belong” club – a celebrity based third-party who are campaigning because am… we belong in Europe, apparently.

Judging by their site and campaign team they are going to be a primarily internet based campaign aimed at young people. Joining these we will have Generation Yes, a team of Trinity College attendees whose leader, Andrew Byrne, also works with the Cox/Laffan lead “Ireland for Europe“, the successor to the Alliance for Europe.  Overall the entire Yes side is shaping up to be a crowded place, and each team will need to make a lot of noise to be able to claim some credit.

As they all appear to be preparing an online campaign (with the exception of Generation Yes who I don’t see as being very active outside of Dublin), they will be required to be very vocal in what they do, I don’t think Brigid Laffan is prepared to run down Grafton Street with flares in her hand singing “High School Confidential”.

On the No side we have Coir, Sinn Fein, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party and the other lefty fringe groups. Now, I’m sorry, but none of these groups are able to pull off a No vote. I’m sorry, it’s just not going to happen unless somehow Cowen and Lenihan implement the An Bord Snip cuts before the referendum.

So - although they face little threat and would hardly need it - there is method to the Yes side’s campaign. This is evident in the Red C and TNS/MRBI polls.

 Politicians are not popular right now, so it seems the Yes side’s tactic will be to keep them locked away in their offices and let Bill “I sold apples for a penny” Cullen and Pat “Let’s hug Europe” Cox take charge this time ’round. By my reckoning this gives them a 30 points advantage before a ball is kicked or a leaflet dropped (when I said unpopular, I meant it…)

My own analysis, like many others, has the result going 80/20 Yes due to economic uncertainty and the fear of being cast out of Europe. However, it will be a vicious battle with vicious soldiers and it begins very, very soon. All that’s left to do now is to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

The question is - will the numbers of groups pushing for a Yes result in a dilution of the message they’re attempting to get across? Will the numbers of Yes groups effectively bottleneck on the “road to Lisbon”, resulting in a better than expected result for the No side and thus more speculation about what could have been from Higgins, the Shinners et al, post-referendum…

Commission will aim to inform voters of the issue as well as encourage people to vote. The Commission will be made up of the following:

* A former judge of the Supreme Court or High Court or a Judge of the High Court
* The Ombudsman
* The Comptroller and Auditor General
* The Clerk of the Dáil
* The Clerk of the Seanad

The time line will look like this:

* Monday July 6th: Bill Published and Referendum Commission set up
* Wednesday July 8th: Bill debated in Dáil
* Thursday July 9th: Bill debated in Seanad

The referendum must take place with 90 days of the bill passing both houses of the Oireachtas so October 2nd is looking like the date.

Last but not least, the Czech Presidency will support the adoption of guarantees for Ireland in a legally-binding form by the heads of state and government of the EU Member States. The mandate for negotiating this agreement was also unanimously approved by the Government today. Under no circumstances can the guarantees alter the Lisbon Treaty or go beyond what was promised to Ireland at the European Council in December 2008. The guarantees tackle the issues of tax, security and defence policy and the right to life, family and education. In addition, the significance attached to social issues, including workers´ rights, will be confirmed by means of a joint statement that is not legally binding. The guarantees must be sufficient in the light of the concerns of Irish citizens, yet they must not lead to the re-opening of the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in other Member States. Thus, the text of the guarantees explicitly states that the Lisbon Treaty is not changed thereby. In the previous weeks Ireland, in cooperation with the Czech Presidency, led bilateral negotiations with all Member States in order to prepare a draft that would result in a general consensus at the upcoming European Council.

Thus the issue is not the stated concessions to Ireland — these have already been agreed and don’t alter the treaty.  The main issue is how to make them legally binding, an issue that Croatia will be watching closely since their accession is looking like the next opportuity to get all 27 states to ratify an EU-level document.   But the unspoken urgency in Brussels to get something passed before David Cameron might be UK PM will likely trump any concerns that a new set of legal problems is being pushed down the road.

Ireland is a country of just over four million people, with a parliament consisting of 226 members in total, with 166 members in the the lower house and 60 in the upper, so for a nation of our size, we’ve a disproportionally high number of public representatives for a country our size.

The constitution places upper and lower limits on the number of representatives in the lower house in article 16.2.2, specifically one representative for every 20,000 to 30,000 of the population. The use of electoral constituencies is implicit in the language of the article, but does not specify the shape of those constituencies, nor whether they can overlap–these are all matters of statute rather than basic law.

As things stand, Irish politics is riddled with clientelism, with our politicians overly focused on getting elected again the next time an election comes around, so they spend far too much time acting as delegates from their constituency rather than as trustees of the best interests of the nation as a whole, which is what they ought to be. We need some way of breaking this cycle, and I think I’ve a way.

My idea is that fully one third of the representation should be elected nationally from a single national constituency. Doing this alone would be technically feasible due to do through an act to amend our electoral law, but the one sticking point is the use of the single transferrable vote (STV)–three-, four- and five-seater constituencies are enough of a pain to do the count on, never mind a massive national constituency that can elect over fifty TDs!

The use of STV is codified into the constitution. This has been a good thing because it’s avoided the situation where Fianna Fail could change the electoral law to use first past the post (FPTP) to get a permanent majority of the seats in the Dail. For a national constituency to be practical, a constitutional amendment would be required to specify the method used for electing from that constituency. In my mind, a party list system appear be the feasible method.

Do I think this would solve our problems? No, but I do think it would be a step in the right direction towards governments that worked in the best interests of the nation rather than themselves.

[First posted on talideon.com]

It is a starting gun on raising the profile of the EU’s role in stabilising the country as well as an echo of ICTU/SIPTU’s call for social solidarity to address the down turn.

Only in the recent past have political leaders on the island been able to find the will and imagination to identify a path through the barriers to reconciliation.

…

The Irish people, North and South, have for their part accepted that Northern Ireland remains in union with Britain unless and until the majority in the North desire otherwise.

No shock but an interesting time to stress the principle of consent and the need to understand and co-exist. On Europe

Since 1973 therefore, we have applied this principle to guide our participation in what is now the European Union. Our membership puts Ireland squarely at the centre of one of the world’s most influential players. Amplified by the Union, Ireland’s voice, unlike that of the first Dáil, can no longer be ignored internationally.

Our influence within the Union is pervasive, whether at the highest levels of its institutions, or as a mediator helping to resolve different positions at inter-governmental meetings. We have been extremely successful participants in the Union and it has given us a reach and a power unachievable to us alone…

The truth is that Europe empowers us. It gives us a place at the table, from which we can deploy our resources, our influence and our sovereignty to the benefit of the Irish people…

Alongside peace and a respected place at the heart of Europe, together we have also used our independence to build a stronger, fairer Ireland.

Europe will increasingly be tied not only to our previous successes but to our weathering of the worst downturn. Which gives a neat segue to Cowen’s next paragraph’s

In every decade since our independence, this country has faced serious economic challenges. Despite the hardships involved, we confronted each of those challenges successfully….

The scale of the adjustments now required represent a major political, economic and social challenge for every single person in this country.

Everybody in this country will be affected and everybody will have to play their part in overcoming the challenge.

With unemployment rising, we must not allow the full burden of adjustments fall on those who lose their jobs.
Those who are in employment, whether in the private or the public sector, will also share the burden. A particular responsibility lies on those who have benefitted most from the rapid growth of the economy over recent years, whether as investors, self-employed or employees. They are being asked to show solidarity with those who are less well off.

It is that sense of solidarity which marks Irish society at its best. It is the spirit which gave rise to the social partnership process, which has contributed so much.

Social solidarity,(a call to pull together and tighten our belts?) and Europe are the central planks of a recovery and while we only need to nod to Europe at the moment it is not beyond reason that we end up heading to Brussles in need of more sophisticated assistance.

Even if we don’t go with the bank crisis, there are two funds we have already passed on (the globalisation adjustment fund and the EIB small and medium business credit scheme. It may have seemed politically impossible to take the funds following the defeat of Lisbon but with a renewed election cycle to think about we may have to head over and from there, social solidarity and republican values will carry us over the line.

At least it looks like a narrrative, though not an economic plan, nor a coherent policy strategy. But it is a start. The one everyone has been crying out for.

TDs WILL receive a pay rise of some €2,500 a year today under the final phase of the current national pay agreement. It will bring the basic salary to more than €100,000.

The Taoiseach’s pay will go up by almost €7,000 a year while senior civil servants and judges will get similar increases under the final 2.5 per cent phase of Sustaining Progress.

All public servants will benefit from the 2.5 per cent award and it will also apply to public service pensions.

Minister’s already passed up their pay rise, citing economic  circumstance and the imperative of wage restraint. Will TDs be so like minded? Should they be? Are they worth the E100,000 they earn – a figure that puts them E60,000+ over the average industrial wage?

It taps the zeitgeist – that same notional entity that yields such high sales to the Sunday Independent. A national mindset, or perhaps more correctly an opinion, which sees our politicians as detached and untouched. Detached from the realities of everyday life and untouched by the troubles which plague those lives – troubles like paying bills, mortgages, commuting, childcare, piss-poor community infrastructure and on and on.

That was the same detachement and distrust that gave the ‘no’ side the benefit of the doubt in the Lisbon Referendum for it is not an Irish problem alone, it is one that appears around Europe and within the EU. People see their representatives as “milking it”. Like Pee Flynn -

Click here to view the embedded video.

(thanks Gavin for video)

- they must struggle on as they live life in many places saving the people from themselves. It is the attitude which Gay Mitchell is coming to represent on the airwaves as he seeks to give out to those who do not have the professional qualifications (whatever they are) to decide this issue.

The pay rise reported today is one of those moments which feeds this perception. It is a bitesize fact which reinforces the idea people have of our leaders. To be honest, one must ask the question – can a person on E100,000 come within an asses roar of understanding the average citizen? If they can – and no doubt some or many do – how do they prove it?

Throughout the campaign, the organisation, responding to different media, gave differing figures about its budget, before finally settling on a €1.3 million figure, insisting that the money had come in small donations.” It is clear that if you add up the figures that the budget must have been above €2 million,” Mr Roche claimed. “It comes back to the question, where did they get their money from?”. Labour spokesman Joe Costello likewise slates the organisation as: “It is unacceptable that a single wealthy individual whose business interests are largely based outside this country should be able to use his wealth to influence the outcome of a constitutional referendum and at the same time not have to disclose the source of the funding.”.

The “yes” side are the last people with a right to lecture others on fundraising. The report of the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) for 2007 is instructive. They found that the State’s 14 registered Dáil political parties disclosed just 13 per cent of what they claimed they spent in their General Election campaigns. Sipo said political parties disclosed donations worth €266,485. Sinn Féin and the Greens received €187,223 and €29,750 respectively from their elected representatives. Fianna Fáil and Labour each disclosed three donations totalling €19,044 and €18,648 respectively. Both Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats furnished no donation statements. Fine Gael has filed no disclosures since 2001. Political-parties are only required to disclose political donations over €5,079. The report indicates that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin, the Greens and the PDs spent €10.2 million in last year’s General Election – te vast majority of which is undeclared. Fine Gael’s representatives and unsuccessful candidates disclosed in donations just 7% (€191,095) of what was actually spent, compared to 18% for Fianna Fáil (€648,000) and 1.6% (€8,079) for the Progressive Democrats.

People in glass-houses shouldn’t throw stones. The right to fundraise should not be the preserve of elected officials, who all too often in world history have been shown to be prone to inducements to act and advocate against the public good, as the Act of Union and the French parliament’s 1940 vote to establish the Vichy Regime show. We must never return to the dark says preceding the McKenna judgement which removed the ability of yes campaigns in referenda to crowd out dissenting voices by monopolising both fundraising and airtime to peddle propaganda for their causes.