What good is the presidency ?

Batsy

puppetmaster wrote: »

you spout on about unelected undemocratic people in Europe yet you come out with this. :rolleyes:

The British monarch isn't a politician and, like the Irish President, is only ceremonial.

Therefore we rightly feel, unlike the Irish, that we don't need to elect our Head of State. Because what's the point? Electing a ceremonial Head of State is a complete waste of time and resources. That's something you Irish can learn from the British.

Batsy

vellocet wrote: »

Well it would be embarrassing to tell Catholics., Jews, Muslims and Shiks they couldn't run I suppose.

It'd only be as "embarassing" as telling Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs that they couldn't run for Pope. What's the difference? You wouldn't want a Protestant as Head of the Catholic Church so why should we have to tolerate a Catholic as Head of the Church of England?

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

The British monarch isn't a politician and, like the Irish President, is only ceremonial.

Therefore we rightly feel, unlike the Irish, that we don't need to elect our Head of State. Because what's the point? Electing a ceremonial Head of State is a complete waste of time and resources. That's something you Irish can learn from the British.

A) You don't have a constitution.
Your Queen has no powers under your non-existent constitution.

So the President and the Queen are nothing alike.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A) You don't have a constitution.

Yes, we do. Except that we are clever enough to not have an actual bit of paper entitled "CONSTITUTION."

Instead, the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, treaties etc which go back centuries.

Amongst the documents which make up the British constitution are the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement.

Your Queen has no powers under your non-existent constitution.

Yes, she does.

The British monarch has several powers in domestic and foreign affairs.

They are:


Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

Yes, we do. Except that we are clever enough to not have an actual bit of paper entitled "CONSTITUTION."

Instead, the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, treaties etc which go back centuries.

Amongst the documents which make up the British constitution are the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement.




Yes, she does.

The British monarch has several powers in domestic and foreign affairs.

They are:


Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

No written constitution anyway.

The Queen is a useless position... ceremonial. Not sure why you even bother giving that German family all that lavish lifestyle.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Queen is a useless position... ceremonial.

Just like your President.

And I'd rather have a politically-neutral monarch as Head of State than a stinking politician.

There's nothing more pointless in electing a ceremonial Head of State. The British don't do it so why do the Irish?

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

Just like your President.

And I'd rather have a politically-neutral monarch as Head of State than a stinking politician.

There's nothing more pointless in electing a ceremonial Head of State. The British don't do it so why do the Irish?

Art 26 is a useful function. It's very important that someone can refer bills to the Supreme Court.

Clearly it's something you know nothing about, so I'll just wait for the next comeback :rolleyes:

paddyandy

We exist in the Shadows of Great Britain without a high profile person such as a President.Pop singers footballers and the like don't give us the sort of dignity a president can give.On the other side of the globe we are probably confused with britain.A president attends very important occasions abroad we should'nt feel excluded.Only a President can fill certain Roles internationally.

FreudianSlippers

paddyandy wrote: »

We exist in the Shadows of Great Britain without high profile person such as a President.Pop singers footballers and the like don't give us the sort of dignity a president can give.On the other side of the globe we are probably confused with britain.A president attends very important occasions abroad we should'nt feel excluded.Only a President can fill certain Roles internationally.

I trust you're not being sarcastic, as our president also is vital in bridging connections with Irish-Americans around the world.

snafuk35

What good is the Presidency?
Well it's a cosy well paid job with lots of foreign travel and plenty of limelight.
Sure what's bad about that? I'd like to do it myself.

dunnariogh

dumb question but what would happen if nobody voted,ie a boycott?

FreudianSlippers

dunnariogh wrote: »

dumb question but what would happen if nobody voted,ie a boycott?

Someone would vote.

dunnariogh

agreed,but maybe we shouldnt,looking at the candidates

paddyandy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I trust you're not being sarcastic, as our president also is vital in bridging connections with Irish-Americans around the world.

There are plenty of other things for the irish abroad the ballyhoo attends to that function very well.

FreudianSlippers

They're pretty shockingly awful, I'll give you that... but even if you got 99.99999% of the country not to vote, I'd probably just walk down and write my own name in

paddyandy

When foreigners on the other side of the world ask you 'Where are you from'? You tell them and then they ask 'Where is ILAND '? Then you realise the need for a President.Many people outside Europe never heard of us.We think we're famous but only in Europe.We need a President or we vanish into the folds of Britannia's Skirts.

Babooshka

paddyandy wrote: »

When foreigners on the other side of the world ask you 'Where are you from'? You tell them and then they ask 'Where is ILAND '? Then you realise the need for a President.Many people outside Europe never heard of us.We think we're famous but only in Europe.We need a President or we vanish into the folds of Britannia's Skirts.

Why is that bad though? We need to become self sufficient again, not worry about whether an eskimo or an Islamic sheep herder knows who we are. Personally I don't mind whether other countries have heard of us or not. I just want the country run well, and with a limit to the gravy train our top people are on, that's all that concerns me, right now. Pride can come when we have something to be proud of.

mike65

Couldn't a (already existing) Council of State could do the same job?

paddyandy

Babooshka wrote: »

Why is that bad though? We need to become self sufficient again, not worry about whether an eskimo or an Islamic sheep herder knows who we are. Personally I don't mind whether other countries have heard of us or not. I just want the country run well, and with a limit to the gravy train our top people are on, that's all that concerns me, right now. Pride can come when we have something to be proud of.

We were never self sufficient...What people think is very important we suffered stereotypes for long enough like others have.We will never get a well run country we just don't do that sort of thing well and never have. We have plenty to be proud of but living in the shadow of Britain is'nt good for our self esteem.Now bubbleh.

Babooshka

paddyandy wrote: »

We were never self sufficient...What people think is very important we suffered stereotypes for long enough like others have.We will never get a well run country we just don't do that sort of thing well and never have. We have plenty to be proud of but living in the shadow of Britain is'nt good for our self esteem.Now bubbleh.

You're right, which is why I think we're better off concentrating on turning the country inside out from within and shaking it upside down until it is run better, we don't need the sanctimonious pomp and ceremony that comes with a president and his/her entourage or creating a spunout public image, as much as we need the foundations shaken and reformed.

I don't think we have a lot to be proud of currently, unless you're into sport. Economically and socially we desire a lot. I don't know what your last two words meant.

FreudianSlippers

mike65 wrote: »

Couldn't a (already existing) Council of State could do the same job?

Not Constitutionally, no.

oscarBravo

MFarrell86 wrote: »

The system that has allowed us become one of the oldest surviving parliamentary democracies in Europe ain't all that bad.

One of the what now?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...I have seen few things over the past while as unconstitutional as forcing decent people to take on the debt of irresponsible gamblers.

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you think it's unconstitutional, take a case to the Supreme Court - the only body in the land with the authority to actually make that determination.

FreudianSlippers

Babooshka wrote: »

You're right, which is why I think we're better off concentrating on turning the country inside out from within and shaking it upside down until it is run better, we don't need the sanctimonious pomp and ceremony that comes with a president and his/her entourage or creating a spunout public image, as much as we need the foundations shaken and reformed.

I don't think we have a lot to be proud of currently, unless you're into sport. Economically and socially we desire a lot. I don't know what your last two words meant.

We live in a global world, self sufficiency is a thing of the past. We need to focus on what we have that we can sell. Lucky that's renewable resources and energy. Britain is a large buyer of energy and we could offset a significant amount of our "outgoings" by producing surplus renewable energy.

Babooshka

I am in lots of relationships whereby I depend on others and they depend on me, but I still consider my self reasonably self sufficient (yes no man is an island, I know!).

My point was about worrying less about image and getting our "name" out there (re the points Paddyandy made above) and more about making things right from within before we go promoting ourselves. Let's have something worth promoting and sort ourselves out before we go poncing off to lots of countries looking for a pat on the head for being great. So yes, concentrating on renewable energy, great idea...couldn't our minister for trade and enterprise do that, do we need a president for that?