Norris for president

Iwasfrozen

danman wrote: »

when was the president ever decided on without a vote?

You get elected, then you get the choice of another 7 years.

No, you've got it wrong. you don't automatically get another seven years. The only reason there wasn't an election last time was because the President ran un-opposed.

MikeC101

danman wrote: »

when was the president ever decided on without a vote?

If all parties agree on nominating one person, there isn't a direct vote from the electorate. Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and....Douglas Hyde (?) were elected in this manner.

goat2

MysticalRain wrote: »

A good choice indeed

would be a great embassador, clean sheet, very well able to speak, perfect, he gets my vote

danman

Many apologies. In my memory, Hilary, Robinson and now Mary McAlese all got their 2nd term unoposed.

walshb

JohnWhale wrote: »

I think the position of president would give him less power than he currently has as a senator.

Lets sub the word power for prestige then.

gizmo555

danman wrote: »

Many apologies. In my memory, Hilary, Robinson and now Mary McAlese all got their 2nd term unoposed.

Your memory's still letting you down

Robinson resigned as president 4 months before the end of her 1st term, to take up the position of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Euro_Kraut

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Norris is not in the Labour party.

I know. But they can still nominate him. As they did with Adi Roche in 1997. As FF did with Mary McAlless and FG did with Austin Currie in 1990.

Realistically you need the backing of a party to be able to run. There is the council routes for independants however I would imagine that Norris would prefer to have a party machine behind him. Labour would be the most obvious match up.

DirksDiggler

I'd vote for a convicted child molester if it were to keep Bertie out of the Aras.

Why not go for Norris? If nothing else he and his partner's official state visits to various countries would make for interesting viewing.

Perhaps to China or some middle Eastern hell hole! :eek:

Manach

"Send President Norris to Saudi Arabia" - you know, I might actually vote for that

bijapos

DirksDiggler wrote: »

I'd vote for a convicted child molester if it were to keep Bertie out of the Aras.

Why not go for Norris? If nothing else he and his partner's official state visits to various countries would make for interesting viewing.

Perhaps to China or some middle Eastern hell hole! :eek:

Germanys foreign minister Guido Westerwelle is openly gay and brings his partner with him on trips, they are currently in South America. Could get interesting when they go to more sensitive countries.

Icelands prime minister or president is gay too, but she might not have much cause to travel anywhere too controversial.

tech77

Nehaxak wrote: »

I want an answer from those of you here that support him for president, exactly why or how do you see him as a good president for Ireland ?

Big deal, so have many others and not like he made any difference or impact whatsoever on anything at all you mentioned, here or there.

Isn't the position of President more ambassadorial/symbolic than executive?

So i think people here are just thinking: who has the personality, character (he's a decent sort unlike others i can think of) and who wouldn't shame us on the world stage.

I don't think people are favouring him because he's gay.
I think he'd be an interesting choice if nothing else.
He'd certainly be better than Bertie Ahern in terms of the stuff mentioned above.

Grimreaper666

I can't believe anyone is seriously going to vote for this guy as president, you might as well vote in Bozo the clown! The whole president thing should be scrapped anyway or make it an honorary thing with a weekly wage rather than what we're paying for it now anyway. Time to get real, we can't afford such luxuries anymore and the sooner we realise that the better.

BeardyFunzo

I think not having a vote on the last term of the president has done the office a good deal of damage.

You have to remember that the president is the last person to sign off on legislation and in theory they could take a stand against something reprehensible. Look at what happened in Iceland with their recent referendum- it was the president that forced that referendum to happen after public outcry over the crappy deal they were nearly forced to take.

You stick a man like Norris in there and you've got someone who'll take a stand if needs be.

If you looked at the office that way you'd probably care about it and you'd probably be less inclined to vote along a party line and look more at the candidate's moral values and personality.

Grimreaper666

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

I think not having a vote on the last term of the president has done the office a good deal of damage.

You have to remember that the president is the last person to sign off on legislation and in theory they could take a stand against something reprehensible. Look at what happened in Iceland with their recent referendum- it was the president that forced that referendum to happen after public outcry over the crappy deal they were nearly forced to take.

You stick a man like Norris in there and you've got someone who'll take a stand if needs be.

If you looked at the office that way you'd probably care about it and you'd probably be less inclined to vote along a party line and look more at the candidate's moral values and personality.

We're already after getting some seriously crappy deals as it is and no president stepped in to save the day, presidents should be above politics but as usual in Ireland it's all very much about politics, the office should be scrapped along with Lord Mayors and all these Mickey mouse local council muppets with chains around their neck on their own little ego trips, it's hilarious really if you stop and look at them if it wasn't costing us so much money!!!

Green Gooner

He made a remark in the Seanad regarding expenses or something what was it (within the last 6 weeks I'd say)? It was to do the the media coverage of it or......anyone remember? I remember thinking to myself, my view of him went down

Euro_Kraut

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

You have to remember that the president is the last person to sign off on legislation and in theory they could take a stand against something reprehensible.

The president cannot refuse to sign a bill. She may refer it to the supreme court (on the advice of the Council of State) but only if it some how is deemed to be unconditional. If the Supreme Court then finds that it is constitutional the President must sign it and it may never be challenged again.

This is not Iceland. The President is limited by the constitution.

BeardyFunzo

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The president cannot refuse to sign a bill. She may refer it to the supreme court (on the advice of the Council of State) but only if it some how is deemed to be unconditional. If the Supreme Court then finds that it is constitutional the President must sign it and it may never be challenged again.

This is not Iceland. The President is limited by the constitution.

Pity.

I suppose they could stand down instead of signing and delay things, but that's not really much use is it?

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, this is actually getting annoying.

He is not in the Labour party people.

Neither was Mary Robinson, she had resigned in the 80s. He can still be nominated by Labour

anymore

Good old Norris has come put against opening the pubs on Good Friday - he cant be all bad !

MarchDub

bijapos wrote: »

He is almost singlehandedly responsible for decriminalising homosexuality in this country. Remember, up until 1993 it was essentially against the law here. He had to go the whole way to the European Court of Human Rights toi get this seeing that as late as 1988 the Supreme Court thought it was fine for it to be criminalised. Through doing this he helped to drag us morally at least into the late 20th century.

Made homosexuality acceptible, nothing wrong with a public figure stating that they are openly gay, makes it more acceptable to the masses.

I'm not a Joycean but his promotion of Bloomsday has brought a large number of tourists into the country.

Speaks his mind on issues where others prefer to ignore the fact that the issue is in the room.

Personally I would prefer a president who is not attached to any political party, gives them more room to manouver.

Yes, the issue was the 1885 British Law that we inherited [The Criminal Law Amendment Act] - the same law that sent Oscar Wilde to prison for two years hard labour for "gross indecency". The Irish courts had refused to overturn this law in the 1980s [the British overturned it in the 1960s] and Norris was practically alone in his determination to overturn the law in Ireland and therefore decriminalise homosexuality. The attitude in Ireland was "the law is not enforced" etc. "what harm" etc.

I admire the way David Norris spoke out in an atmosphere that was not necessarily supportive at the time and went to the European Court of Human Rights to have the Irish law struck down.

Dave!

I'd certainly vote for him over Bertie, but I'm not mad about him tbh. As mentioned, I find his personality very annoying and he's a giddy b*stard. Fair enough when he's a senator/public personality here in Ireland, but seeing as the president's role is to represent us internationally, I'd prefer someone more dignified and humble, and less eccentric than him.

How can we follow Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese with a clown like Norris?

Whatever about the noble things he's done for human rights, that won't be known internationally, they'll just see him giggling and doing cartwheels around the stage and think he's a gobsh*te.

For what it's worth, I quite like the symbolism of a homosexual (or [insert other minority group here]) as President. Dig another one out and I'll be happy to vote for them.

Just my opinion ! Norris grates me !

raindog.promo

Green Gooner wrote: »

He made a remark in the Seanad regarding expenses or something what was it (within the last 6 weeks I'd say)? It was to do the the media coverage of it or......anyone remember? I remember thinking to myself, my view of him went down

Can't find his comment, but a list of seanad expenses from 2005 - 2008
puts somewhere just under middle ground (80 odd thousand euro, compared to the top 1o most expensive who are all claiming over €200,000)

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/oct/25/seanad-members-claim-over-10m-in-expenses-for-last/

Annasopra

Dave! wrote: »

Whatever about the noble things he's done for human rights, that won't be known internationally, they'll just see him giggling and doing cartwheels around the stage and think he's a gobsh*te.

that stuff is known internationally, also he can be very serious as well

dRNk SAnTA

I love David Norris, what a man. The bravery that it took to fight for gay rights in backwards Ireland is unrivaled by anybody else in the Dail or the Seanad.

He's also a funny, energetic, eleoquent guy who loves Irish literature. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have representing Ireland abroad.

paulaa

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I love David Norris, what a man. The bravery that it took to fight for gay rights in backwards Ireland is unrivaled by anybody else in the Dail or the Seanad.

He's also a funny, energetic, eleoquent guy who loves Irish literature. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have representing Ireland abroad.

I agree with you. He is a well educated man who can hold his own in any company. He would be a great ambassador for Ireland.

walshb

Who'll be the first Lady? Or is it, the first man?:)

paulaa

walshb wrote: »

Who'll be the first Lady? Or is it, the first man?:)

Another reason to have him as President. He wouldn't cost as much as a single man

anymore

Dave! wrote: »

I'd certainly vote for him over Bertie, but I'm not mad about him tbh. As mentioned, I find his personality very annoying and he's a giddy b*stard. Fair enough when he's a senator/public personality here in Ireland, but seeing as the president's role is to represent us internationally, I'd prefer someone more dignified and humble, and less eccentric than him.

How can we follow Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese with a clown like Norris?

Whatever about the noble things he's done for human rights, that won't be known internationally, they'll just see him giggling and doing cartwheels around the stage and think he's a gobsh*te.

For what it's worth, I quite like the symbolism of a homosexual (or [insert other minority group here]) as President. Dig another one out and I'll be happy to vote for them.

Just my opinion ! Norris grates me !

Read the Constitution, the President's role is not to represent us internationally !

Martin 2

anymore wrote: »

Read the Constitution, the President's role is not to represent us internationally !

Is it unconstitutional for the president to represent Ireland internationally in a ceremonial capacity? I would think not otherwise we'd have heard something about it, after all isn't one of the roles of the president to be a sort of protector of the constitution, referring problems therewith to the supreme court.

If not, then I would take it as an added bonus that we would have a capable president to represent us whether it be on trade missions or at cultural or sporting occasions.

anymore

Martin 2 wrote: »

Is it unconstitutional for the president to represent Ireland internationally in a ceremonial capacity? I would think not otherwise we'd have heard something about it, after all isn't one of the roles of the president to be a sort of protector of the constitution, referring problems therewith to the supreme court.

If not, then I would take it as an added bonus that we would have a capable president to represent us whether it be on trade missions or at cultural or sporting occasions.

No it is not unconstitutional but it is only window dressing. I think many of these ceremonial vists should be dumped. They just seem to be there to bolster the already exagerrated self-opnion of politicians.