Shouldn't we blame our President?

drunken_munky52

How come she never gets stick for ANYTHING. Shes always just idling in the background, and does nothing. Never gets her hands dirty.

As the head of state, she is represents the Irish state, not the government. She in a corporate sense, is the CEO who technically has appointed mere subordinates (Cowen & the Cabinet) to do all her work for her.

She is ultimately responsible for everything. Why not march outside An Aras? She is the last person to sign off on a new law, and she will sign it off weather she likes it or not.

It seems the Irish presidential institution is not only a farce, its a institution that we never think of actually using to the peoples advantage. How much tax payers money is been spent on it? To what end? Will we be hearing any cuts to this in the budget.

Victor

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Will we be hearing any cuts to this in the budget.

The president has taken a cut in her salary and reduced her budget.

Bobeagleburger

Do we need a president really?

Pygmalion

rarnes1 wrote: »

Do we need a president really?

Unless people vote against having one in a referendum then yes.
I'd say most people have no idea what the president does (or fails to do) but will never give up their right to elect one.

imme

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

How come she never gets stick for ANYTHING. Shes always just idling in the background, and does nothing. Never gets her hands dirty.

As the head of state, she is represents the Irish state, not the government. She in a corporate sense, is the CEO who technically has appointed mere subordinates (Cowen & the Cabinet) to do all her work for her.

She is ultimately responsible for everything. Why not march outside An Aras? She is the last person to sign off on a new law, and she will sign it off weather she likes it or not.

It seems the Irish presidential institution is not only a farce, its a institution that we never think of actually using to the peoples advantage. How much tax payers money is been spent on it? To what end? Will we be hearing any cuts to this in the budget.

She is not a business (your CEO reference), if the state were a business the 'best' analogy would be that she is non-Exec Chairman. She can't be held responsible for the successes or failures of a Government. In that sense she is non political, she's above politics.
Cowan & Co are not her subordinates. She appoints the Taoiseach and government, which refelcts the position in the Dáil after the electorate has spoken in a general election or after a government has collapsed.

She does sign off on bills making them acts of the Oireachtas, BUT that doesn't mean she agrees with them or supports them. Hers is a constitutional office, so when she signs off a bill it means that in her opinion it is not against the constitution. If she feels it might be, she can refer it to the Supreme Court to test it's repugnancy to the Constitution.

Maybe you're mixing up the nature of the Irish president with executive presidents like the French or US or Russia.

cson

Apolitical guardian of the Constitution.

I'd reccommend you read up a bit about the office OP, that way you can give an informed opinion of the office. I'd suggest James Casey's Constitutional Law in Ireland as a starting point.

Riddle101

I agree the president is a joke, she's just Ireland's postergirl. Her main role these days is to show her face at events. If she goes to an international event, then she does it as an Irish representitive showing an Irish face, so that other coutries think Ireland actually cares and it's also good publicity for Ireland. When she does it at home, she does it just because it's good publicity for her to be shown at it. Other then that she does nothing. Oh wait, she also signs important documents, but it's not like it makes a difference.

patwicklow

Riddle101 wrote: »

I agree the president is a joke, she's just Ireland's postergirl. Her main role these days is to show her face at events. If she goes to an international event, then she does it as an Irish representitive showing an Irish face, so that other coutries think Ireland actually cares and it's also good publicity for Ireland. When she does it at home, she does it just because it's good publicity for her to be shown at it. Other then that she does nothing. Oh wait, she also signs important documents, but it's not like it makes a difference.

and her hubby plays loads of free golf and fine dining
in a 5 star golf club...........i know iv served him

Bigdeadlydave

If I am not mistaken the President can call meetings of the Oireachtas? If so I believe she shouldn't have let the TDs take their summer holidays.

dsmythy

I'd rather the head of the Seanad be the head of state giving it some sort of meaning while combining expenses.

Riddle101

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

If I am not mistaken the President can call meetings of the Oireachtas? If so I believe she shouldn't have let the TDs take their summer holidays.

Yeah I can imagine that
Mary McAleese- I've called this meeting to say that you can't take your summer holidays.

Brian Cowen- Now now Mary, you know the deal. We give you position the postion of Preisdent with the big fat paycheck and the nice house, and in return you just smile for the camera and don't get involved in politics.

cson

Christ, the ignorance of the role of the President in the Irish Constitution is shocking by some people. Really, I don't know how you can attempt to offer even a rudimentary opinion on the Office without any understanding of what it entails.

FYI: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Read articles 12-14.

From the Office itself;

http://www.president.ie/

Please do take the time to inform yourself about the Office.

imme

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd rather the head of the Seanad be the head of state giving it some sort of meaning while combining expenses.

The head of the Seanad, the Cathaoirleach, is a political creature so is partial. There needs to be a President to preside over the dissolution of the Dáil, how would that work out.
If we had a close series of elections you could have some very short lived presidencies.
interesting idea nonetheless, are there any comparables?

sceptre

I just deleted an exchange here in this thread that I tagged as "silliness, replying to silliness - one or the other". If I deleted your post(s) in this thread and you don't feel either of these applied and your post should be restored, PMing me is how you might start appealing for that.

/mod

sceptre

As for the original question in this thread, have a look at the Irish constitution for details on what the president's job actually is. The role doesn't encompass almost any of the things you've listed.

fergalr

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

How come she never gets stick for ANYTHING. Shes always just idling in the background, and does nothing. Never gets her hands dirty.

As the head of state, she is represents the Irish state, not the government. She in a corporate sense, is the CEO who technically has appointed mere subordinates (Cowen & the Cabinet) to do all her work for her.

She is ultimately responsible for everything. Why not march outside An Aras? She is the last person to sign off on a new law, and she will sign it off weather she likes it or not.

It seems the Irish presidential institution is not only a farce, its a institution that we never think of actually using to the peoples advantage. How much tax payers money is been spent on it? To what end? Will we be hearing any cuts to this in the budget.

(Disclaimer: I really amn't qualified to post this sort of thing and probably dont know what I'm talking about).

The role of the president here really isn't the chief executive, like the president of the US is. Its a different role, and in practice is largely diplomatic, with some administrative functions.

However, I think that our current system is better with the role of president than without it. Its another (in theory separate) - role which (again, in theory) provides some sort of a check and balance on some of the rest of what goes on.

The fact that its a separate office, that is directly elected by the people, that is required to look over bills before their are signed in, is a good thing for democracy, in my mind. The president is also on a 7 year rotation as opposed to a 4 year one, so may sometimes have different party allegiance to the ruling party, and probably has different career goals anyway.

I'd ideally like if the position had a little more teeth. I'd also have liked if the current president referred several pieces of legislation last year, but that's not really a political theory issue.
In an ideal world, I think I'd prefer if our model was closer to the american one where we had a more separate legislature and executive, and directly elected the taoiseach as president, and did away with the current office, but thats another story.

One other point - people talk a lot about cutbacks and wastes of money as good reasons for changing our political institutions.
I mean, WTF, is it really that important what it costs, if they actually run the country right? How much is a functioning democracy, and a well run country worth, in terms of money? We should be much more concerned about whether the system is functioning properly, than whether we can save money on it.

Raiser

Handbag, Coat, Shoes and a polite smile - if all are present and accounted for then its 99.9% of the role fulfilled.