Is it not the people’s constitution that the Constitutional Review Convention will be examining?

The Constitutional Review Convention should be a totally open process even in the period preceding its launch.

It is offensive to the spirit of deliberative democracy that the Dáil Opposition groups are being consulted behind closed doors so that the convention’s structure may be presented by Cabinet as a fait accompli to the people with the veneer of cross-party approval.

When have the people ever been consulted on the
Constitutional Review Convention?

The odd strucutre of 30 lawyers 30 random citizens and 30 politicians arbitrarily laid down by the Labour Party looks set to proceed without explanation.

Ok there may be a citizens’ assembly subsection and a wandering consultative process like the Forum for Europe.

The Taoiseach’s office will then deliberate (or secure deliberatrions) on the Convention’s report and present draft amendments to the top seats at Cabinet.

The Dáil will then dutifully pass and present the Cabinet’s constitutional anmmendments to a referendum.

Not much actual change here.

Barrage? Academia must now be overwhelmed by political correctness and the requirement to be ‘ever so polite’, non-adversarial and non-confrontational since I endured my indentured labour in the hallowed groves where Finbarr taught. Still I expect the vitriolic and visceral feuds go on behind the scenes since the prizes remain as small as they always were.

And yes. I did read the report. I’m just not sure what it adds to the sum total of human knowledge. The recommendations strike me as just another helping of good old ‘motherhood and apple pie’. And what is worse is that the research is conducted as if Ireland has a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and, by failing to frame the research in the context of significant dysfunction, it simply sustains the optical illusion.

Governments in all developed economies are assailed on all sides by various narrow sectional economic interests and try to hold the ring – but, inevitably, are forced to give in and to cobble together deals behind closed doors that, almost by definition, are not in the general public interest. But in many other countries, parliaments are a bit more powerful and are able to exercise some restraint, the major competing political blocs are defined by their views on the role of the state and this confict is in the public interest, individual members of parliament (or groups of members) are often quite ‘bolshie’ in the general public interest, consumer interests are often represented and advocated more effectively and, even if ‘deals’ are done behind closed doors, there tends to be much more transparency about the nature of these deals.

In Ireland every interest group grabs what it can without effective scrutiny or restraint – leaving everyone worse off. And the academics are as adept at this game as any others. Ireland simply can’t afford to allow this game to continue – particularly while continued fiscal adjustment is squeezing the domestic economy.

You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem.

@Ciaran,

Just a factor, and ulikely to be a deciding factor, but I didn’t think it was fully explored.

Congratulations to you and your colleagues on this initiative and thanks for posting the report on this site. The report is excellent, in my view, and provides much valuable information not just on how or why voters acted as they did on this particular referendum, but on electoral behaviour in referendums in general. The report is particularly important in the context of a possible referendum on the Compact Treaty as it’s called before the end of this year or early next year since it provides useful insights to voters’ responses to political interventions, and those of expert opinion, on issues that may arise in the course of any campaign.

A couple of things were surprising. For example, voters’ reliance and trust in the media as an information source since one of the characteristics of this particular referendum was that the traditional mainstream media was a Johnny-come-lately to the public debate. As I recall, it was civil liberties groups who first raised the flag of doubt on the internet. The contributions of Finbar Lehane to the debate on this site stimulated me, for one, to start looking further into what was being proposed by the Government and to which I had hitherto been in favour on the same grounds of principle as the rest of the 74%, but then latterly became opposed to what was being put forward by the Government.

The manner in which the referendum proposal was being rushed through the Oireacthas also raised doubts, both in the sense that the electorate’s approval was being taken for granted by the Government and as such, we the citizens were being patronised (again!) by our representative betters. Perhaps the complacency of the government and the mainstream media as regards the proposal arose from the fact that all parties in the Dail favoured this extension of powers and appeared not too disposed to examine the measure in any great detail? The Dail reports on the Bill would tend to support this. Apart from Mary Lou Mc Donald’s initial questioning of the wording, the rest of it was pretty bland stuff. I think a separate study of Oireacthas members’ views on how the referendum was cast and the campaigning strategy of members of the government and thier respective parties as well as the views of the political media would provide a useful complement to your report.

It’s not surprising to find that when parties do not actively campaign either for or against a referendum, this appears to increase the likelihood of a proposal being rejected. Certainly, there’s a precedent in regard to the Nice and Lisbon Treaty various campaigns. For Nice 1 and Lisbon 1, on the ground party campaigns were minimal whereas much more intensive efforts were mounted second time round which succeeded in reversing the previous votes. This raises a further question for the mainstream political parties in that it appears visible party-political activity is apparently essential to securing public engagement on referendum issues. Any illusions they may currently entertain that results can be achieved just by relying on the media or the internet and abandoning ‘old-fashioned’ doorknocking campaigning is at their own peril. Delay in mobilising party activity arguably also puts party spokespersons on the back foot, forced into reacting defensively to challenges from external sources or within the media when these inevitably arise. In this latest referendum, it proved disastrous for the government side.

Finally, I think the Irish electorate have shown themselves to be quite adept in discriminating between what they will accept or reject. In the three-pronged referendum proposal on abortion in 1992, voters selected between the options within one proposal. So its hardly a surprise that the judges pay proposal was passed, whilst the Oireachtas powers proposal was rejected by the same voters. Interestingly, the Attorneys General called for rejection of both proposals, as I recall, but their argument against the judges pay referendum was discarded by voters whereas their critique of the Oireachtas powers’ measure appears to have been influential on voting intentions. Perhaps the trenchant criticism subsequently directed against the AGs by certain members of the government became a factor in this?

I don’t think there is any evidence to support Paul’s contention of any tacit whispering campaign by Fianna Fail. Like the rest of the mainstream parties, FF were practically invisible on the ground throughout the campaign anyway.

Sorry for the length of this comment, but it’s stimulated by the results of your fascinating poll and the many questions which it raises for discussion.

On a serious note Jane et al., is there any reason why voter behaviour in the other referendum was not examined? was this simply what the brief stipulated – or were there any other considerations?

The term a ‘damp squib’ has become hackneyed from overuse. We need a term to convey the sense of something totally sodden but that projects the optical illusion of being capable of ignition without any possibility whatsoever of this happening.

Another example is the possibility that, while most voters were happy to give the judges a well-deserved kicking, many wanted to give the Government some sense of their discontent with the programme of austerity so they were not going to give it the inquiry powers and the Presidency. It looked for a while that the mix of Gallagher in the Park and a yes to the inquiry power would fit the bill. The extent to which the mix switched when the Gallagher campaign nose-dived is interesting.

I suppose it should not be surprising that the relevant questions are never posed directly – nor an attempt made to answer them. No wonder we keep fumbling around in the dark. The irony is that most voters know the score, but the pols and all their camp-followers find it more comforting and rewarding to continue to suspend disbelief and to project and sustain these wonderful optical illusions.

Regarding our AGM on March the 3rd. The afternoon is an open session and will be of a more general nature where key reform ideas will be identified and the Constitutional Convention will also be discussed.
For further views from 2nd Republic see our article “Politicians can’t fix Ireland – ordinary people must take the lead.”
in the Journal.ie

/readme/column-politicians-can%e2%80%99t-fix-ireland-%e2%80%93-ordinary-people-must-take-the-lead/

John Hughes
Second Republic Workgroup

The abolish of the Seanad has repeatedly and categoratlly been stated by the Taoiseach to something that will be outside of the Conventions deliberations. Meanwhile, the term limit of the President is said to be something that it will deliberate.

So, while the the Constitutional Convention will deliberate whether the President should serve five years or seven, the question of reform or otherwise of the Seanad is something that is not up for discussion? Instead, the People will simply be asked whether to abolish it or not – no discussion of alternatives. Now, that’s a bad sign before anything has even begun. Similarly, surely the more important questions are those that ask, not how long the President serves, but what does the President do?

Obviously, half a loaf is better than no bread. But why do we always have to do things half arsed?

I know we have this ReformScorecard exercise to monitor what the Government and various parties are advancing, but, for me, it spreads the net far too widely across the entire gamut of politcial reform options. If every criterion were fully satisfied we would have ‘political heaven on earth’ – and I think we all realise that this isn’t achievable (and might not even be desirable). There are also subtle conflicts between the conception and implementation of various options that might not be readily apparent – and there are always the unintended (and often detrimental) consequences that spring from the very best of intentions.

That’s why I have this (some will say ‘obsessive’) focus on reform (indeed, in principle, restoration) of the powers, resources and procedures of the Oireachtas. This is the crucible in whch all other reform options would be developed, tested and refined.

So, if you’re game I think the effort would be much appreciated. However, despite what might be assembled, I’m still scratching my head about the best way of engaging TDs. Nothing will happen until they see some benefit or advantage in coming on board.