How will you vote in the Age of the President referendum?

osarusan · 03-05-2015 11:57am

I'll be voting Yes.

No reason why a person should be disallowed from running at 21 (or even 18).

Let the electorate make up their mind as to the candidate's suitability based on their own personal criteria (be it experience or any other criteria), rather than the state.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 12:10pm

nm wrote: »

Come on, really?

What if the sky falls in?

Clearly you dont remember the "agreed candidate".

That almost happend.

Isnt running a non viable candidate keeping another good Man/Woman out the running?

I am still waiting to hear about suitable candidate under 45. Also how would a 21 year old gain both an educational and working understanding of the Law?

timetogo · 03-05-2015 3:12pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Clearly you dont remember the "agreed candidate".

That almost happend.

Isnt running a non viable candidate keeping another good Man/Woman out the running?

I am still waiting to hear about suitable candidate under 45. Also how would a 21 year old gain both an educational and working understanding of the Law?

We had Dana as a candidate last time. She didn't seem to have a grasp of reality let alone the law. What happened when she was president? Oh that's right, we didn't vote for her.

How would a 30 year old get an understanding of the law. The vote isn't making it mandatory to vote in a 21 year old.

anncoates · 03-05-2015 3:16pm

It's an unspoken rule of democracy that good presidents have to look like an old, benevolent aunt or uncle.

Not some young, trendy cnut with stupid hair.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 3:20pm

timetogo wrote: »

We had Dana as a candidate last time. She didn't seem to have a grasp of reality let alone the law. What happened when she was president? Oh that's right, we didn't vote for her.

How would a 30 year old get an understanding of the law. The vote isn't making it mandatory to vote in a 21 year old.

Dana is a product of spiteful County councillors against the government. She was a disaster as an MEP.

A thirty year old is only practicing law 5 years at best..... Really you need a legislator or Judge.

dudara · 03-05-2015 3:23pm

Initially, I was going to vote "No" for this amendment, but then I thought about it some more. What about a 34 year old who wanted to run? A 30 year old? They could be credible candidates and denial of this amendment wouldn't allow them to seek a nomination.

At the end of the day, this is about the legal age at which you can seek a nomination. That nomination has to be seconded (by numerous political people) and then has to pass through the gauntlet of public election. I don't believe that lowering the nomination age will lead to damage to the office of the President.

For the above reasons, I will vote "Yes"

elfy4eva · 03-05-2015 3:24pm

dudara wrote: »

Initially, I was going to vote "No" for this amendment, but then I thought about it some more. What about a 34 year old who wanted to run? A 30 year old? They could be credible candidates and denial of this amendment wouldn't allow them to seek a nomination.

At the end of the day, this is about the legal age at which you can seek a nomination. That nomination has to be seconded (by numerous political people) and then has to pass through the gauntlet of public election. I don't believe that lowering the nomination age will lead to damage to the office of the President.

For the above reasons, I will vote "Yes"

Couldn't have put it better TBH.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 3:39pm

dudara wrote: »

What about a 34 year old who wanted to run? A 30 year old? They could be credible candidates and denial of this amendment wouldn't allow them to seek a nomination.

Name One person under 45 who would be a credible presidential canidate? Other than Ronan Keating?

anncoates · 03-05-2015 3:44pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Other than Ronan Keating?

If this ever comes to pass, not only will I emigrate to England, I'll swim there.

elfy4eva · 03-05-2015 3:46pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Name One person under 45 who would be a credible presidential canidate? Other than Ronan Keating?

This is a silly argument imo, because not any one person personally knows everybody under 45. At least if you give younger people the opportunity to become a candidate they can put forward their credibility to be judged.

I just don't see the harm in giving them that opportunity.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 3:48pm

anncoates wrote: »

If this ever comes to pass, not only will I emigrate to England, I'll swim there.

Dont speak too soon. Dana got aggrieved County councillrs to back her... imagine what he could in a few years with middle aged boyzone fans?

2025 President Ronan Keating meet President Henry G. Bush on the white house lawn .... "Fair play ...... want to hear my new duet with Cat Stephens? I mean Youssif Islam"

dudara · 03-05-2015 3:49pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Name One person under 45 who would be a credible presidential canidate? Other than Ronan Keating?

This referendum is not about identifying potential candidates. It is about opening the field to more potential candidates. Trying to identify individuals is not what you're being asked to vote upon.

skooterblue2 · 03-05-2015 3:55pm

elfy4eva wrote: »

This is a silly argument imo, because not any one person personally knows everybody under 45. At least if you give younger people the opportunity to become a candidate they can put forward their credibility to be judged.

I just don't see the harm in giving them that opportunity.

Then come up throught the system like the rest of us have to ...... Unless you want a President Dennihy, Bruton, Barry, O Cuiv, Quinn, O Rourke. Everyone else has to cut their teeth at the coal face. Any Idea how much it cost to get elected? Senator Norris was almost Bankrupt by the time he finished...... so it would only be for the wealthy.

Samaris · 04-05-2015 1:04pm

Will ye get on away with yerselves, I don't know where this country is going. Where will this end? Drop the age of the exalted post of President so idealistic fresh-faced kids just spat out of college can run, full of grand ideas and no experience. And mark my words, with the voting age being lowered to sixteen, all the kids will be voting for Youf in power.

Where will it all end? Sixteen year old president? Children? Babies?

...I should probably make it clear that I really don't care that much

I'll probably vote Yes, since anyone running will have to prove themselves on their own merits anyway.

Hollister11 · 04-05-2015 1:07pm

I'm voting no. I'm 19 and all i can imagine is that one of my friends becomes president. They would spend there 200K salary on beer and take away. Instead of wearing Suits, they will dress in tracksuits and airmax.

TheChizler · 04-05-2015 2:43pm

Hollister11 wrote: »

I'm voting no. I'm 19 and all i can imagine is that one of my friends becomes president. They would spend there 200K salary on beer and take away. Instead of wearing Suits, they will dress in tracksuits and airmax.

Do you think it likely that the electorate would vote someone like that in?

skooterblue2 · 04-05-2015 2:51pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Do you think it likely that the electorate would vote someone like that in?

Given the choice of a religious fundemntalist, a member of Opus Dei, an internationally known Terrorist, and a deluded poet without a back bone?

TheChizler · 04-05-2015 2:54pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Given the choice of a religious fundemntalist, a member of Opus Dei, an internationally known Terrorist, and a deluded poet without a back bone?

Give Higgins some credit, he was in politics for years and much more suitable than someone who's manifesto is as you describe. Same for Norris and even Gallagher. This is a serious referendum, try to be realistic.

skooterblue2 · 04-05-2015 2:59pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Give Higgins some credit, he was in politics for years and much more suitable than someone who's manifesto is as you describe. Same for Norris and even Gallagher. This is a serious referendum, try to be realistic.

I never mentioned David Norris (who I have great time for) or Sean Gallagher (who had huge potenial due to his business exerience). We need someone with better health who was able to travel and yet had the experience of legislation and public life. This is a gimick referendum to get young people to vote...... watch it crash and burn.

If you want to change how young people take an interest in politics, it wont start with a piece of gimick legislation. It starts at the dinner table and into the class room. The role of President is for someone with a distinguished service in Public Life. I would have suggested Senator Feral Quinn would have been better choice.

Senator Ivanka Batick would be an excellent choice. There is loads of Talent out there but it needs to come forward.

mayoman3 · 08-05-2015 1:50pm

I'll be voting no on this! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

It's a no from me!

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 1:58pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Is it not against equality to deny one section of society equal rights?

The law does not concern itself with treating everyone the same as each other. The law seeks to prohibit unreasonable discrimination

It is presumed that a young fellow would not have the maturity and experience of carrying out the Job of President. They need more skills and clout than a back bench TD who got in after daddy dying

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 2:02pm

mayoman3 wrote: »

I'll be voting no on this! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

It's a no from me!

If there was an outstanding 28 year old, you would be looking for him to run for the Dail, maybe even a Minister or the Big Chief.

Why on earth would a battled hardened Grand Old Man of Dail Eireann who finally rose to the greasy pole of An Taoiseach, want to even entertain the musings and suggestions or be defied by some little runt of a President half his age, who is still only weeding himself off student politics or those silly socialist notions?

timetogo · 08-05-2015 2:06pm

mayoman3 wrote: »

I'll be voting no on this! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

Now if we get a president at 35 and he / she stays for 7 years we could be paying their pension for another 40 -> 50 years. I'd prefer if they fixed the system and changed it to 65 / 66 like for the rest of the country. Sure if we raised the age for the president to 59 then we'd have a normal age for pension rights.

mayoman3 wrote: »

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

Same with me. I don't think there's much difference between me at 30 and me at 40. The country could wait the 7 or so years you say. But is that a good enough reason? You can wait for 7 years so why not? You could say that about nearly anything.

blackwhite · 08-05-2015 2:06pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Senator Ivanka Batick would be an excellent choice. There is loads of Talent out there but it needs to come forward.

The Ivana Bacik who has failed to be elected any time she has stood for the Dáil? (Including failing to secure a nomination in 2011, but then being parachuted in by party HD regardless - and still failing to get elected)

The one who believes that prison should only be used for men, and that women should never be sent to prison no matter what crime they are convicted of?

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 2:12pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never mentioned David Norris (who I have great time for) or Sean Gallagher (who had huge potenial due to his business exerience). We need someone with better health who was able to travel and yet had the experience of legislation and public life. This is a gimick referendum to get young people to vote...... watch it crash and burn.

If you want to change how young people take an interest in politics, it wont start with a piece of gimick legislation. It starts at the dinner table and into the class room. The role of President is for someone with a distinguished service in Public Life. I would have suggested Senator Feral Quinn would have been better choice.

Senator Ivanka Batick would be an excellent choice. There is loads of Talent out there but it needs to come forward.

What great business forays has Gallagher being involved in lately? What have the outcomes been with some of those investments from that programme? A smallish player in the construction business and a part farmer, wow. Heedy stuff alright.(hey, if he avoided the crash, more power to him) No way would a Taoiseach, Minister for Jobs, a Minister for Enterprise or the great Unelected Super Minister, Dennis O'Brien have allowed any President go within an arse roar of a business mission too many photo opportunities (sadly, even if the President was qualified) Dail must approve of most speeches sure.

Norris, a President of a Republic, which he wanted to return to the Common Wealth just to keep a minority community happy?

If Batick was so good, she would have little difficulty in getting a seat in Dun Laoghaire, of all places and enjoy a decent share of left over votes from Gilmore. Sadly, Presidency role requires personality (and two faced people)

Quinn, not a bad idea.

Sorry for picking on your suggestions, you are right about how to get the kids into politics

Podge_irl · 08-05-2015 2:22pm

mayoman3 wrote: »

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

I've heard this a couple of times and it has got to be up there with some of the stupidest reasons for voting no. The presidential pension is an utterly miniscule amount of money in the grand scheme of things and keeping an arbitrary age-related constitutional bar on people running for the sake of a hypothetical saving of 5c per citizen is insane.

TheChizler · 08-05-2015 3:34pm

mayoman3 wrote: »

I'll be voting no on this! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

It's a no from me!

You must remember, this referendum is not to do with electing a 21 year old, it is to do with allowing them to become a candidate. Unless they're worthy, or the electorate are all a bunch of messers, a 21 year old not up for the job isn't going to get it.

McG · 08-05-2015 3:39pm

Seems ridiculous to deny anyone of voting age the ability to run. I'm not saying I'd vote for them but they should have the option.

BrensBenz · 08-05-2015 5:47pm

It's one thing being eligible to stand for President but another thing entirely being elected.

In the most recent presidential elections, we were presented with a pretty unappealing bunch, particularly after the excellent "two Marys"!. It became a selection of the least worst but the electorate still managed to select the most suitable person from the bunch to carry out the duties of President, both here and overseas.

Over the decades, the Irish electorate has done a good job of sending the "best in show" to the Aras. Perhaps a 21+ year-old candidate hasn't the life experience to be a good president but I'm confident that the electorate will see this weakness, weigh it against the weaknesses of the other candidates and, once again, give the nod to the best person overall.

So lads, relax. We're no eegits!

skooterblue2 · 08-05-2015 6:14pm

blackwhite wrote: »

The Ivana Bacik who has failed to be elected any time she has stood for the Dáil? (Including failing to secure a nomination in 2011, but then being parachuted in by party HD regardless - and still failing to get elected)

The one who believes that prison should only be used for men, and that women should never be sent to prison no matter what crime they are convicted of?

I stand corrected. I only ever saw her standing up for social reform and womens rights. I never heard those statements before. We should possibly leave her nomination rest for the foreseeable future.

skooterblue2 · 08-05-2015 6:30pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What great business forays has Gallagher being involved in lately? What have the outcomes been with some of those investments from that programme? A smallish player in the construction business and a part farmer, wow. Heedy stuff alright.(hey, if he avoided the crash, more power to him) No way would a Taoiseach, Minister for Jobs, a Minister for Enterprise or the great Unelected Super Minister, Dennis O'Brien have allowed any President go within an arse roar of a business mission too many photo opportunities (sadly, even if the President was qualified) Dail must approve of most speeches sure.

Norris, a President of a Republic, which he wanted to return to the Common Wealth just to keep a minority community happy?

If Batick was so good, she would have little difficulty in getting a seat in Dun Laoghaire, of all places and enjoy a decent share of left over votes from Gilmore. Sadly, Presidency role requires personality (and two faced people)

Quinn, not a bad idea.

Sorry for picking on your suggestions, you are right about how to get the kids into politics

This only proves my point how hard it is to select a decent candidate.....
This is the modern day of social medial. Everything you say is recorded and with some people with Twitter it is like everything they think is in the public domain. (Personally I think it has ruined many job prospects, facilitated social faux pauxs and destroyed friendships).

As for Sean Gallagher? Any man who has come through this recession without financial disgrace and risen out of it has nothing to be ashamed of. I do firmly believe he was a pawn in setting up Brian Cowen for that photo oppertunity. Any decent man would have warned him of the dangers of dealing with an "independent cigarette importer".

Fergal Quinn like Michael D Higgins needed that position 20 years ago.

skooterblue2 · 08-05-2015 6:45pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

The presidential pension is an utterly miniscule amount of money in the grand scheme of things and keeping an arbitrary age-related constitutional bar on people running for the sake of a hypothetical saving of 5c per citizen is insane.

Sorry I grew up in the 1980's when the recession was as deep as this one now. Never waste a penny. Still no one has come up with a suitable candidate under 50.
For his pension every year we could have four Special Needs Assistants or Carers. Until you are told you cant have one it is then you will want one. Foolishness with money is what got us into this recession. The President should be a suitable candidate. If you dont run a sensible candidate you a keeping a good man/woman out of the race.

A young candidate could be "engineered in", lets say if one candidate had a questionable Uncle. The another party ran a candiate who had massive outstanding bank debts, another had taken holidays in Eastern Europe through friends he had in the Unions. Another was of special interest to Northern police. The under 35 candidate may appear increasingly attractive. For the past few years the nominations for TD's Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have come from Head office instead of the local Cumann.

ByfocalPhoto · 10-05-2015 7:58am

Queen Elizabeth II became head at state at age 27. She has done a good job. Of course she was well advised.
I can't help looking at some of the young people active in Irish politics.
A lot of people would have voted for Michael Collins had he stood at age 30.
There are a good few Irish politicians who have made a good contribution in their 20's, Simon Harris etc.

All we are telling them is that they can stand, they still need to get the votes to get the gig..

skooterblue2 · 10-05-2015 11:49am

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth II became head at state at age 27. She has done a good job. Of course she was well advised.
I can't help looking at some of the young people active in Irish politics.
A lot of people would have voted for Michael Collins had he stood at age 30.
There are a good few Irish politicians who have made a good contribution in their 20's, Simon Harris etc.

All we are telling them is that they can stand, they still need to get the votes to get the gig..

And Elizabeth the first was only 25 but both Queens were groomed for position from an early age. Both would be savvy to public life and traps laid for them. Simon Harris is a determined guy but you just need that extra bit of savvy you get from dealing with people ..... particularily underhanded ones.

As for Collins and DeValera, There are many who would vote for either and an equal number who would vote for neither. I think the president should be the first citizen and a figure head for peace and diplomacy. Once again it is very hard to find a suitable candidate. Even people who you would think would be a sure thing like Adi Roche, people with grudges came out to settle old scores.

ShoulderChip · 10-05-2015 12:02pm

Niall Quinn would be a good president.

skooterblue2 · 10-05-2015 1:19pm

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Niall Quinn would be a good president.

Yeah on the diplomacy front and he did manage to sit on the same board as Roy Keane, that is a big achievement, popular face for charities and all round nice guy. There is the thing about the constituional law. Very hard to find the diplomat, the law background and clean background who actually wants to do it. Me? honestly! I wouldnt want to do for all the tea in China if I was a S.C. with time served on charities in my career twilight years.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 10-05-2015 11:32pm

I'll probably vote no.

I also think that there should be a clause added to the conditions in becoming President that you have to have served at least 5 years in the Dáil or a County Council.

Seeing as Miriam O'Callaghan being linked with running for President and Gay Byrne was in the last election, there is a danger that it would turn into a celebrity filled popularity contest.It should only be contested between people with a genuine interest in politics.

Sobko · 10-05-2015 11:36pm

I'm voting yes. Why should there be any age discrimination. We complain that the youth show no interest in politics but then we preclude them from, certain positions in politics. Would it be right to discriminate against 70 year olds applying for the job? No. Same here. If people vote a 21 year old in its democracy.

Sobko · 10-05-2015 11:37pm

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'll probably vote no.

I also think that there should be a clause added to the conditions in becoming President that you have to have served at least 5 years in the Dáil or a County Council.

Seeing as Miriam O'Callaghan being linked with running for President and Gay Byrne was in the last election, there is a danger that it would turn into a celebrity filled popularity contest.It should only be contested between people with a genuine interest in politics.

I would be totally against precluding people who did not serve in the Dail or CC.

Talib Fiasco · 10-05-2015 11:39pm

Instead of lowering the age of who can run for president, we should set a limit on the age someone can be to run for president. Where the hell are we going with a 70+ year old president

Dirty Dingus McGee · 10-05-2015 11:41pm

Sobko wrote: »

I would be totally against precluding people who did not serve in the Dail or CC.

Something needs to be done to stop people who have shown no interest in politics from potentially becoming the head of state.

sunshine and showers · 10-05-2015 11:46pm

I'm voting yes. Although 21 as the set age for political positions irks me. 18 is either the age of majority in this country or it isn't. I'm not saying I'd vote for an 18 year old (I actually wouldn't to be honest), but it's the principle of the thing.

If we're going to waste money on this referendum (there are far more pressing constitutional matters, this vote seems too Celtic Tiger for words), then we might as well do it right!

TheChizler · 11-05-2015 1:34am

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Something needs to be done to stop people who have shown no interest in politics from potentially becoming the head of state.

The country could stop them by not voting for them?

silverfeather · 11-05-2015 1:36am

No I think the younger they are the more likely parties will just stuff their sons and daughters in.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 11-05-2015 5:33am

TheChizler wrote: »

The country could stop them by not voting for them?

Your right.But I'd just be worried that that may not happen.

skooterblue2 · 11-05-2015 6:39am

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'll probably vote no.

I also think that there should be a clause added to the conditions in becoming President that you have to have served at least 5 years in the Dáil or a County Council.

Seeing as Miriam O'Callaghan being linked with running for President and Gay Byrne was in the last election, there is a danger that it would turn into a celebrity filled popularity contest.It should only be contested between people with a genuine interest in politics.

Miriam O Callaghan maybe .... Gay Byrne Definitely not, no legislative experience. After seeing the hatchet jobs done on David Norris and Adi Roche I wouldnt want my private family business dug up. Once again very hard to find suit able people who would run

skooterblue2 · 11-05-2015 6:58am

Sobko wrote: »

I'm voting yes. Why should there be any age discrimination. We complain that the youth show no interest in politics but then we preclude them from, certain positions in politics. Would it be right to discriminate against 70 year olds applying for the job? No. Same here. If people vote a 21 year old in its democracy.

How about common sense discrimination, you wouldnt put a 21 year old as the CEO/President at the helm of a MNC? You would tell him to come up through the ranks like everyone else. Tell them to start out in the local Party Cumann, University students Union, Trade Union Movement. Doesnt this sound like a much more common sense Path?

I still havent heard of a suitable candidate under 45? Political education doesn't start in College or in the Union or Cumann it starts at the dinner table. Youths show no interest in politics because they dont understand it because they dont recieve that type of education for one of two reasons. Either the television is turned on at dinner or they eat in front of the TV.

When I was 7, I was allowed to stay up to see the 9pm news (circa 1986). Now I didnt know where Belfast, Beirut or Bagdadh (Better action than the A-Team) were but I knew what was going on there and by 9, I knew all the Government ministers names and departments. Family values, Dad comes home to dinner with the family and everyone talks about their day. This is the real issue. Politics, commerce, trades, charity, sport all start at the family dinner table. Bring back this and you will see the tide turning in politics and education and family values.

skooterblue2 · 11-05-2015 7:07am

TheChizler wrote: »

The country could stop them by not voting for them?

What happened if you had an "Agreed Candidate", Like John Hume. While the British/IRA early peace talks were starting through back door channels like Fr Alex Reed. John Hume told the media they were going on. Back then there were high tensions and anything like that could destablise the party leaderships of any party or faction.

There was talk of the Irish Government puting John Hume in as an Agreed Candidate to put a gagging order on him. It died a natural death when the people spoke out. We got Mary Robinson instead and she was a complete game changer. I bet some old guys wished she never got into Trinity and stayed at home and minded the kids.

Podge_irl · 11-05-2015 8:54am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I still havent heard of a suitable candidate under 45?

Which is utterly and completely beside the point.

skooterblue2 · 11-05-2015 9:10am

Podge_irl wrote: »

Which is utterly and completely beside the point.

Which is exactly the point! Otherwise it would all be O Cuiv's, Brutons, Haughys, Barrys and Healy-Raes that would be on the Ticket. The nomination should e for someone who served their time and given the State a lifetimes service (minimum of 21 years service), with the associated skills with the positions.

How will you vote in the Age of the President referendum?

Comments