Presidents of Eire: Yes or No?

omnicorp

Should Ireland continue to have a president who's just a figure-head, has no real power and lives at tax-payers expense?

Do we really need one?
A queen by another name,
Just as wasteful,
No use at all,
Maybe they were in the past,
Maybe in other countries,
But not here.
We may as well have Bono,
as some people reccomend,
Or Jeremy Dixon, say others.
What is the point in wasting
people like McAleese?
Or Robinson?
Who could do so much more
if they were given the position,
The power,
Or the job.
Why don't we rid ourselves
of this wasteful occupation,
This hole for money,
This Beurocracy?

Flukey

Of course we should have a President. Every country should have a head of state. Yes the tax payer supports the office, but it is not a huge amount on the scale of things, compared to our friends across the Irish Sea. They support not just the head of state, who is not even elected, but a huge range of their family and many others on top of that. King George the VI should be the last King of England.

BlitzKrieg

uhmm? is that meant to be a poem?


And I think we should have a president. The international kudos they gain us (esp. the Robinson years) is more then enough in my opinion.

arcadegame2004

Yes we should continue to have one. They act as a barrier to unconstitutional legislation when they use their power to refer bills to the Supreme Court to test their constitutitonality, which in turn can cause government's to be more careful when drawing up legislation. We also need a Head of State to show that we have moved out of the British sphere of influence and don't want the British monarch as our Head of State.

I question though if the office has enough power, considering we elect it.

BuffyBot

Or Jeremy Dixon, say others.

Others...you mean you, in the other three threads you've mention this in...

frodi

Yes we should have a president. One with some real meaningful powers to keep the crooked/bent/useless politicians in check.

Lennoxschips

The only problem is, if we give the office of president real power, all crooked/bent politicians will be running for it.

Hagar

Lennoxschips wrote:

The only problem is, if we give the office of president real power, all crooked/bent politicians will be running for it.

Sadly true

omnicorp

How about no president?
Or a council?
And instead of Decentralisation, give the Councils more power so that they can run the areas taht they are elected to run.

DublinWriter

We should have a president, but based on a true Republican model such as France or the US, and not some hang-over from the British pre-1922 vice-regal era that we have now.

Basically, make the Taoiseach positon the Presidential postion and abolish the current ''chief handshaker" job that the Presidential role is at the moment.

Having said that, it took someone as great as Mary Robinson to actually make the role look worthwhile.

flogen

keep the presidential position as it is.
I would prefer to see the chief decision maker (Taoiseach) being kept to his or her job, rather than have to do the head of state tours as well.
Also, I dont like the idea of having an elected figure who both makes and passes policies. The way things are, it doesnt really matter what the president thinks, its just up to them to ensure all new legislation is constitutional. For the president to be the one making the decision, one can only imagine the law bending that would take place.
DublinWriter, I see your point, but the American political system is a terrible one IMO, it lacks choice or political differences among parties, and for one person to wield such power is frankly worrying.

flogen

DublinWriter

flogen wrote:

Also, I dont like the idea of having an elected figure who both makes and passes policies.

As opposed to what? An unelected one? Oh please.

flogen wrote:

The way things are, it doesnt really matter what the president thinks, its just up to them to ensure all new legislation is constitutional.

So what if the president *thinks* that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional? Would you seriously expect him or her to say "hang on a minute here lads!".

As I stated earlier, the current Irish Presidential job is directly inherited from the old Viceroy job pre 1922 in terms of roles and responsibilites. Even the Presidential residence in the Park was the old Viceregal lodge.

The reason for this being we had presidents before we were ever officially a Rebublic (1949).

The Viceregal position was to mirror the position and authority of the Crown in each country of the British Empire, and as such, could not interfere, or show favour, in matters political. Sound familiar?

I'd rather get my money's worth and have a fully working politcal presidential position rather than a handshaker and rubberstamper in chief.

flogen

DublinWriter wrote:

As opposed to what? An unelected one? Oh please.

No, you've seriously misread that sentance. I just dont want one person who comes up with new legislation and has the power to pass them into law. I'd much prefer to have two seperate elected officials, one whom makes legislation, one whom independendly decides if it is legal.

So what if the president *thinks* that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional? Would you seriously expect him or her to say "hang on a minute here lads!".

well, yes. If a piece is unconstitutional, the president cannot sign it into law, it has to be sent back to the Dail to be re-worded, or for a referendum to be announced. thats the presidents job (on top of the head of state touring etc).

We all know where the presidents position comes from, and we all know it used to be a retirement position for politicians, but its history isn't genuine reason to abolish the position.

flogen

omnicorp

flogen wrote:

No, you've seriously misread that sentance. I just dont want one person who comes up with new legislation and has the power to pass them into law. I'd much prefer to have two seperate elected officials, one whom makes legislation, one whom independendly decides if it is legal.




well, yes. If a piece is unconstitutional, the president cannot sign it into law, it has to be sent back to the Dail to be re-worded, or for a referendum to be announced. thats the presidents job (on top of the head of state touring etc).

We all know where the presidents position comes from, and we all know it used to be a retirement position for politicians, but its history isn't genuine reason to abolish the position.

flogen

But the reason it's a waste of money is,

Rezmuter Duane

How can people say that the post of President is a waste of time when both herself, and her husband Martin (McAleese) are taking an active role in the peace process with Martin talking to the UDA. Also, when you think of all the international prestige the Robinson years brought to Ireland, one can only ask why the President isn't encouraged to get more involved in the running of this country!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

omnicorp

well, why don't we either:
Give her(him) more power,
Axe the job completely.
?
The middle-ground isn't very good for the state?

sceptre

Right, that's enough. Stop dragging up old threads just because you started them. It's not as though you only get internet access for ten minutes every six weeks. Do it again and I'll ban you for a month. A calendar month.