So Michael D IS running again!

Pussyhands

mrbrianj wrote: »

"Appointment of the Taoiseach, members of the Government, judges and other officials;

Summoning and dissolving the Dáil, and convening the Oireachtas;

Signing legislation into law and/or referring Bills to the Supreme Court;"

The above are things that we do need a president for as required by Bunreacht na hÉireann.
In fairness there is lots of ceremony and its a lot about making us feel good about ourselves, which anybody could do (should be able to do), but you dont want a celebrity ego driven headbanger if there is a controversial law or some other constitutional crisis. We will be in a different world post Brexit let alone 7 years time - can you imagine Casey's form of diplomacy or Gallagher river dancing tripe trying to patch up relations with a troubled NI/UK

Consitution can be changed.

You don't need someone costing 4m a year for that.

can you imagine Casey's form of diplomacy or Gallagher river dancing tripe trying to patch up relations with a troubled NI/UK

President will have no impact on anything. What relationships are you talking about exactly?

Loafing Oaf

One possible model for a 'reformed' presidency would be, ironically, the governor-generalship as it operated under the first Fianna Fail government. The office holder, Domhnall Ua Buachalla, was essentially a random guy chosen by Dev to serve as a piece of constitutional architecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domhnall_Ua_Buachalla

De Valera explicitly instructed Ua Buachalla as Governor-General to keep a low public profile, and not to fulfil public engagements, which was part of de Valera's policy to make the office an irrelevance by reducing it to invisibility. While he continued to give the Royal Assent to legislation, summon and dissolve Dáil Éireann and fulfil the other formal duties of the office, he declined all public invitations and kept himself invisible, as advised by his Government.

I don't see a lot wrong with that setup...

Adamcp898

There's a raft of centenaries during the coming presidential term which will need commemorating. Someone capable of offering a calm, considered mark of respect will be required in order not to step on anyone's toes, inadvertently or otherwise.

VinLieger

Pussyhands wrote: »

President will have no impact on anything. What relationships are you talking about exactly?

No impact really? Crack open a history book sometime maybe?


Macalese had a huge involvement in the GFA as she was born in Belfast so was able to help build relationships across all parties involved.


But please continue dismissing the very obvious role that has been continually pointed out to you of chief diplomat.

hotmail.com

VinLieger wrote:

Macalese had a huge involvement in the GFA as she was born in Belfast so was able to help build relationships across all parties involved.

She had no role in the negotiations leading up to the Good Friday Agreement or the agreement itself. She only came into a few months before the thing!

So not sure where you're getting this "huge involvement" belief.

tayto lover

VinLieger wrote: »

No impact really? Crack open a history book sometime maybe?


Macalese had a huge involvement in the GFA as she was born in Belfast so was able to help build relationships across all parties involved.


But please continue dismissing the very obvious role that has been continually pointed out to you of chief diplomat.

Yes indeed.
MDH could have a big part to play in stopping the second Battle of the Five Armies.

VinLieger

hotmail.com wrote: »

She had no role in the negotiations leading up to the Good Friday Agreement or the agreement itself. She only came into a few months before the thing!

So not sure where you're getting this "huge involvement" belief.

I remember reading and hearing several accounts a few years after of her playing a role behind the scenes of keeping people talking, I never claimed she was involved in the frontline negotiations.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Ok folks, we've had the obligatory debate about whether the President's role is meaningful or not. Pussyhands, it's not constructive for you to summarily dismiss the duties of the President. If you want to engage in a detailed debate about whether the role of President is pointless, could be reformed etc, maybe start another thread.

For present purposes, let's keep this one focussed on the election itself.

hotmail.com

VinLieger wrote:

I remember reading and hearing several accounts a few years after of her playing a role behind the scenes of keeping people talking, I never claimed she was involved in the frontline negotiations.

Her husband spoke with some of the Loyalist groups alright, but Mary herself did not have a role in the Good Friday Agreement or it's aftermath. It's just not true to say she had a "Huge involvement " in it!

The president acts within the orders of the government.

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

She had no role in the negotiations leading up to the Good Friday Agreement or the agreement itself. She only came into a few months before the thing!

So not sure where you're getting this "huge involvement" belief.

Winning the war is the easy bit, its keeping the peace is the hard bit.



Mary and Martin did a lot of reaching out to loyalists - even getting them to visit the Aras. For most of them, it was their first time south of the border, let alone visit the Aras. Martin was made a Senator so that he could continue the peace building after Mary left the presidency.

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote:

Mary and Martin did a lot of reaching out to loyalists - even getting them to visit the Aras. For most of them, it was their first time south of the border, let alone visit the Aras. Martin was made a Senator so that he could continue the peace building after Mary left the presidency.

Everyone accepts that, but the point about her having a huge involvement is just silly. She played a minor role in the process and at all times, her actions would have been approved by the government.

Her comments that Protestants are brought up to hate Catholics didn't go down well with Unionits either by the way.

jm08

Pussyhands wrote: »

President will have no impact on anything. What relationships are you talking about exactly?

Michael D. was invited to make a keynote speech to represent Ireland and Europe at Nelson Mandela's lying in State.


Can't see any of the other candidates being requested to do that!


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/president-higgins-delivers-mandela-keynote-speech-1.1624811

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

Everyone accepts that, but the point about her having a huge involvement is just silly. She played a minor role in the process and at all times, her actions would have been approved by the government.

Her comments that Protestants are brought up to hate Catholics didn't go down well with Unionits either by the way.

Nothing goes down well with Unionists, particularly when there is a fair bit of truth in it.

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote:

Can't see any of the other candidates being requested to do that!

jm08 wrote:

Michael D. was invited to make a keynote speech to represent Ireland and Europe at Nelson Mandela's lying in State.

Things like this have no impact on anyone's daily lives. It's great for Michael D to make the speech, but it isn't something anyone really cares about.

His speech has to be approved by the government in any case.

mrbrianj

It not that much of a concern what "work" our future president could do for north south relations on the island. What is a concern is if we elect some ego driven celebrity and they decide to make populist or even extremist statements.

We already have Ni Riada and Gallagher stating they will campaign for a united Ireland regardless of what the GFA allows for, Unionist opinions etc. I can say I want a united Ireland by hook or by crook, but I dont have to be diplomatic about such things, The president on the other hand...

Casey thinks he is "The Peter", borrowing tactics from "The Donald". God knows what his twitter declarations would be like.

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

Things like this have no impact on anyone's daily lives. It's great for Michael D to make the speech, but it isn't something anyone really cares about.

His speech has to be approved by the government in any case.

Its not in the President's job description to have an impact on anyone's daily life.



He was asked to speak, representing Ireland and Europe to address about 70 heads of State. Obama was also a speaker. That was very prestigious and certainly puts Ireland on the map.

Edit: As far as I know he writes his own speeches, so I doubt if the Government had any serious imput other than to approve it (though it says in that piece in the Irish Times that he didn't speak from a script).

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote:

He was asked to speak, representing Ireland and Europe to address about 70 heads of State. Obama was also a speaker. That was very prestigious and certainly puts Ireland on the map.

jm08 wrote:

Edit: As far as I know he writes his own speeches, so I doubt if the Government had any serious imput other than to approve it (though it says in that piece in the Irish Times that he didn't speak from a script).

Do you actually believe that these speeches put Ireland on the map? I'm not even sure what on the map even means! These global events with countless speeches happen all the time! Michael D's speech gets forgotten instantly.

The point I'm making is that people have to put the role and powers of the presidency into perspective. It's a cosy highly paid ceremonial job.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Things like this have no impact on anyone's daily lives. It's great for Michael D to make the speech, but it isn't something anyone really cares about.

His speech has to be approved by the government in any case.

not all speeches have to be approved by Government.
He writes all his own speeches

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

Do you actually believe that these speeches put Ireland on the map? I'm not even sure what on the map even means! These global events with countless speeches happen all the time! Michael D's speech gets forgotten instantly.

The point I'm making is that people have to put the role and powers of the presidency into perspective. It's a cosy highly paid ceremonial job.

Of course it puts Ireland on the map. How often do you get a couple of former US presidents sitting down listening to an Irish President. Cameron, Hollande, Merkel - they were all there and Michael D. was asked to speak for European leaders. Obama spoke for the US. The Chinese had their Deputy Head of State.



Someone needs to do the ceremony. Argue that it is paid too well, but someone does need to do it.

Rhineshark

mrbrianj wrote: »

It not that much of a concern what "work" our future president could do for north south relations on the island. What is a concern is if we elect some ego driven celebrity and they decide to make populist or even extremist statements.

We already have Ni Riada and Gallagher stating they will campaign for a united Ireland regardless of what the GFA allows for, Unionist opinions etc. I can say I want a united Ireland by hook or by crook, but I dont have to be diplomatic about such things, The president on the other hand...

Casey thinks he is "The Peter", borrowing tactics from "The Donald". God knows what his twitter declarations would be like.

Ni Riada, while I prefer her in general to most of the rest, was further down my list due to the whole Brexit thing. If she and Gallagher are both inclined to stick their oar in regarding campaigning for a UI, they're both dropping down my list. It's weirdly become a prospect in the closer future than we all thought. But the best way to actively cause trouble up there is to feed into the Unionist paranoia that RoI wants to annex the place.

The president needs to be a diplomat and the hardline Unionists are difficult enough to talk to anyway without our President ruffling their feathers even if he or she has no actual power.

Bleh.

Higgins
Freeman
Duffy
Ni Riada
Gallagher
Blank

I guess. So far.

Humour Me

VinLieger wrote: »

I remember reading and hearing several accounts a few years after of her playing a role behind the scenes of keeping people talking, I never claimed she was involved in the frontline negotiations.

Just to follow up on Mary McAleeses role, I haven’t seen mention of this anywhere else but Mary Lou McDonald was on the most recent Irish Times politics podcast. She said that the Presidential expenses were increased to their current level by Bertie to allow Mary McAleese to support north south relations. This would indicate that she was doing a lot of background work with full support from the government.

I haven’t seen any reference anywhere in the media that the expense allowance was increased for Mary McAleese, but I assume Mary Lou knows what she’s talking about (in this instance at least)

jm08

The bridge across the Boyne was named after her for her work in the Peace Process. This is what Enda had to say when it was being renamed:

“The work Mary McAleese and Martin McAleese did for people — on both sides — changed minds, attitudes and lives across the island and across the communities.”

“In her presidency, for those of the Unionist community, Dublin became not an alien city to be feared and avoided, but a place of real and warm welcome particularly Aras an Uachatarain itself. She made it that from the day she took office six months before the Good Friday Agreement.”

“The relationship between two islands and its peoples changed profoundly thereafter,” he said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/motorway-bridge-renamed-after-mary-mcaleese-1.1422070

Cork Boy 53

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Douglas Hyde was older than MDH is now when he took office and lasted a full term. Do I get a gold star too?:p

Eamonn deValera was the same age Michael D is now when he first took up residence in the Aras in 1959 and stayed there for the next 14 years. None of this is relevant to the current election campaign.

Cork Boy 53

Not sure if this has been posted already but it seems Gallagher has done a U-turn about his position on appearing in the debates and has now stated that he will appear on tomorrow night`s VM1 debate even though Michael D will not be there.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBOMfKc.img?h=499&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=218&y=208

A sign of desperation IMO.

AGC

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already but it seems Gallagher has done a U-turn about his position on appearing in the debates and has now stated that he will appear on tomorrow night`s VM1 debate even though Michael D will not be there.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBOMfKc.img?h=499&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=218&y=208

A sign of desperation IMO.

See people can change their minds......

Do think SG’s mistakes are already made though. He should have been at all debates from the start.

Adamcp898

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already but it seems Gallagher has done a U-turn about his position on appearing in the debates and has now stated that he will appear on tomorrow night`s VM1 debate even though Michael D will not be there.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBOMfKc.img?h=499&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=218&y=208

A sign of desperation IMO.

A massive oversight on his own behalf about his ability to keep himself visible and in the electorate's mind without appearing in the debates.

CrabRevolution

I think Gallagher has made several bad judgements in this campaign. He must have assumed that after he won the court case vs. RTÉ he could just reset the clock to the 23rd October 2011 and he had a great shot at the presidency.

His first mistake was probably running at all. All he did was remind people of "that guy we last heard from 7 years ago who we didn't elect because of his Fianna Fáil work".

Then his stance of not appearing on debates unless Michael D was present. It definitely seemed arrogant to regard yourself as being on an equal footing with the President and to regard the other candidates as not worth bothering with.

Lastly was his disregard of other candidates. He probably assumed he would get the most publicity and had 2nd sewn up so didn't need to engage much, but Ní Riada and especially Casey are fast on his tail so he's had to backtrack and has now decided to take part in the debates to seem relevant again.

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote:

Of course it puts Ireland on the map. How often do you get a couple of former US presidents sitting down listening to an Irish President. Cameron, Hollande, Merkel - they were all there and Michael D. was asked to speak for European leaders. Obama spoke for the US. The Chinese had their Deputy Head of State.

You seem to believe that former US presidents are important? Putting Ireland on the map isn't even definable.

Anyway you're free to believe whatever you like about the presidency and speeches that no one takes notice of.

An Ciarraioch

hotmail.com wrote: »

jm08 wrote:

Of course it puts Ireland on the map. How often do you get a couple of former US presidents sitting down listening to an Irish President. Cameron, Hollande, Merkel - they were all there and Michael D. was asked to speak for European leaders. Obama spoke for the US. The Chinese had their Deputy Head of State.

You seem to believe that former US presidents are important? Putting Ireland on the map isn't even definable.

Anyway you're free to believe whatever you like about the presidency and speeches that no one takes notice of.

But when the foreign policy of a President conflicts with that of the government, it sends mixed messages to an international audience - Casey, for instance, has previously called for Irexit, and has voiced support for ending neutrality:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/peter-casey-we-need-an-urgent-national-debate-on-irexit-from-a-massivelyflawed-eu-35980674.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/peter-casey-irelands-neutrality-an-outdated-concept-866384.html

Rhineshark

hotmail.com wrote: »

You seem to believe that former US presidents are important? Putting Ireland on the map isn't even definable.

Anyway you're free to believe whatever you like about the presidency and speeches that no one takes notice of.

Well, they are. Being as they are highly influential people.

Bear in mind that just because you don't take any notice of them does not mean that no-one does.