The Irish questions

The question was: should the Seanad (the upper chamber of the Irish parliament) be abolished.  This chamber is not elected (as such): 11 members are appointed by the Prime Minister, 6 by the graduates of two universities, and 40 or so by panels that were intended to represent certain sections of society, but now are nominated by party hacks.  These last senators are elected by MPs, Outgoing senators and local councillors, so there is a rough indirect democratic legitimacy to it (better, at least than the House of Lords).

The problem is, though, the question of what a second chamber is for?  Its essense is inherently anti-democratic, if it has the same electorate as the first, why should there be any priority (or difference)?  If different, what justifies giving a different section of society prority in having exclusive rights to elect legislators?  Now, there may be a case that minorities need some protection, but that should extend, surely, to having their proper say in the democratic process.

As it is, the Seanad had limited power, including the right to ask the President to refer legislation for referendum (it has, to my knowledge, never been used, since the 11 government appointees pretty much guarantee a government majority, it is in effect just an extension of the directly elected chamber).

Now, there has just been a referendum, and the abolition of the Seanad has been rejected by a slight majority (on a 40% turnout, which isn't bad).  Interestingly, the populous East voted to retain and the rural west voted againt: perhaps the city dwellers fear the preponderance of the power of the rural vote? 

So, an undemocratic institution now has a democratic mandate, and everyone is talking about reform.  What is interesting is that it clearly wasn't just a bloody nose for the government, as a referendum to establish an appeals court was heavily passed.