Gerry Adams for President?

Permabear · 03-12-2008 8:57pm

This post has been deleted.

cooperguy · 03-12-2008 9:31pm

bmaxi wrote:

If I didn't know it was 2008, I'd swear you were referring to Eamon De Valera.

If you honestly think those situations are the same then you need a serious history lesson

Fratton Fred · 03-12-2008 9:51pm

if he did become president of "The Republic of Ireland" would that not be in effect recognising that "The South" is a "Republic". I thought SF did not consider it a legitimate state because it only covers 26 of the 32 counties and refused to call it the Republic.

Or something like that anyway.

Permabear · 03-12-2008 10:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 03-12-2008 10:25pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why was it a mistake? Take the first instance I mentioned and be precise, if you would.

cson · 03-12-2008 10:26pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if he did become president of "The Republic of Ireland" would that not be in effect recognising that "The South" is a "Republic". I thought SF did not consider it a legitimate state because it only covers 26 of the 32 counties and refused to call it the Republic.

Or something like that anyway.

Official title of the office is "President of Ireland" not President of the Republic of Ireland. So in effect he wouldn't technically cede anything. It harks back to when the Constitution was drafted in 1937, it has since been amended by the good friday agreement to remove the claim to NI, but the title of President hasn't been changed.

On an aside, the reform committee also proposed 10,000 signatures or ballot cards be sufficient for nomination so he could get in that way too, I'm sure there are at least 10,000 SF empathisers in the land.

Tbh, I didn't really mean for this thread to descend into a "should he/shouldn't" be eligible for President argument. I mean't to use him as an example. Personally I'd be against the 10,000 signatures reform as a way for nomination as it'd throw up a lot of frivilous nominations. Boards.ie could probably have someone run President that way.

Permabear · 03-12-2008 10:30pm

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred · 03-12-2008 10:30pm

cson wrote: »

Tbh, I didn't really mean for this thread to descend into a "should he/shouldn't" be eligible for President argument. I mean't to use him as an example. Personally I'd be against the 10,000 signatures reform as a way for nomination as it'd throw up a lot of frivilous nominations. Boards.ie could probably have someone run President that way.

A Boards campaign to get one of the BGRH brothers elected as President, I like it :cool:

Nodin · 03-12-2008 10:32pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Frank Aiken, for example. Why was his political career a "mistake"?

cson · 03-12-2008 10:33pm

Thats what I mean about allowing 10,000 signatures/ballot cards to qualify someone for to run for President. It'd be fooking crazy.

No offence to the brothers or anything.

jill_valentine · 03-12-2008 10:33pm

Sorry cson.

I do definitely think the Presidential selection system needs major reform, after the farce last time around. I doubt it'll happen though.

pierrot · 03-12-2008 10:36pm

no,no,no

Permabear · 03-12-2008 10:39pm

This post has been deleted.

cson · 03-12-2008 10:41pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Sorry cson.

I do definitely think the Presidential selection system needs major reform, after the farce last time around. I doubt it'll happen though.

Its actually not that badly run an office and wouldn't need much reform at all. In fact the Canadians use it as a template in their arguments to set up their own Presidential office (They're still represented by Queen Elizabeth as their defacto Head of State amazingly).

Basically having studied it all day today very little needs to be changed about the office only (a) The nomination process (To avoid a repeat of the last "election") and (b) The age limit.

Permabear · 03-12-2008 10:46pm

This post has been deleted.

cson · 03-12-2008 10:50pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I fully agree, I'm only stating what the Constitution says, and if you had quoted the entirety of that post you would have realised that. According to the Constitution of the country the title of President is "President of Ireland".

Of course nowadays it is largely irrelevant and is not worth the effort to put the article to referendum as it is a minor matter. Of course during the height of the troubles it was a contentious issue with President Hillary and O'Kelly (?) refused permission by the Govt to travel to English ceremonies.

The Good Friday agreement has set in stone the North regarding jurisdiction and this is unlikely, if ever, to change.

Phototoxin · 03-12-2008 11:03pm

Sorry, but someone with Adams' background will never be Ireland's head of state. How can you propose appointing a former IRA terrorist as an international ambassador and supreme commander of the Defence Forces?

at least he'd be more qualified. Anyway the president doesn't do a lot anyway.

Nodin · 03-12-2008 11:05pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And that would be because of....? the flares and sideburns....?

Jack Sheehan · 03-12-2008 11:24pm

If he ever did become president, I would be profoundly ashamed of my country.

bmaxi · 03-12-2008 11:54pm

cooperguy wrote: »

If you honestly think those situations are the same then you need a serious history lesson

All a matter of perception, dear boy.

Permabear · 04-12-2008 12:15am

This post has been deleted.

SeanW · 04-12-2008 12:20am

I don't like the idea of Gerry Adams for president but it might be a good idea to let him run in an election. Might fire up the whole presidential election process and make it bit less pointless if there were numerous interesting participants in the race.

TOMASJ · 04-12-2008 12:43am

Gerry Adams if he stands, would make a excellent president of Ireland, he would be the second from from the occupied six, and as you are all aware a lot of folk were not in favour of Mary McAleese, some because she was on speaking terms with Sinn Fein,
As someone stated in an earlier post he would not be and will not be the first (labelled by some an ex terrorist) to become president.

Permabear · 04-12-2008 1:03am

This post has been deleted.

TOMASJ · 04-12-2008 1:18am

Things change, who'd have America would have a black president, or that Paisley would be 1st minister sharing power with IRA/Sinn Fein.:D

Permabear · 04-12-2008 1:25am

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch · 04-12-2008 1:44am

And its not even the 1st of April .............

Hopefully the bearded one with the 'whiff of sulphur' will drop off in his sleep one of these days before he gets any ideas above his station, anyway - I thought all this rubbish about a possible Provo President had evaporated after Sinn Fein's humiliation in the last Southern Election - thankfully it Aint goin to happen . . .

cson · 04-12-2008 1:54am

Again the focus of the thread is lost, I'm going to lay the blame squarely at my own door and request a mod change the thread title as it is misleading. Perhaps "Irish Presidency & Election" may be a better title.

Just to clear up; I am not advocating Gerry Adams as next President of Ireland. I merely sought to use him as an example of how someone like him (Despite the obvious reservations and plain horror of some of the electorate) could be nominated if suggested reforms were to proceed.

In the course of the day I've actually learned that the reason Presidential power is so limited is that the parties of the time (1937) were afraid the postion would be used as a gateway to a dictatorship in Ireland given various other States at the time had fallen this way (Nazi Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy). Hence the President is largely devoid of power, which one questions; is this really relevant today given how bedded down in democracy the state is.

LordSutch · 04-12-2008 2:03am

David Norris

Nodin · 04-12-2008 9:42am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be up to the electorate to decide, really.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was only a few months ago Nelson Mandela still needed a special exemption made to allow him enter the US, as he was still on the "terror" list. Britain has refused at least one Israeli ambassador due to their involvment in "terrorism". Yet life goes on, time passes, wounds at least scab over somewhat.

Theres no real reason been given why Adams couldn't make sterling work of it, or at least have a go, save this "O No3S - T3rrrorizm" kind of talk. There seems to be some sort of special evil that some want to be attached to the "bearded one". It's rather ironic that he's left more distance between the "paramilitary terrorist past" than some of his detractors.

Camelot wrote:

David Norris

I'd vote for him.

Gerry Adams for President?

Comments