next president of ireland

thebaz

Its election time for next President of Ireland .
The cadidates are :-

1. Michael McDowell
2. Bono Hewson
3. Ali Hewson
4. Gerry Adams
5. Kunle
6. Sir Bob Geldof

5 realistic candidates , and the filler.

who'd do the best job and get your vote ?
who would win ?

WallysWorld

set it up as a poll, and Bono hes a great lad altogether!

Basq

Yore Ma









... get in there!

The_Minister

I think Michael D Higgens expressed an interest in the position at one time.

Heinrich

1. Daniel O'Donnel
2. Gay Byrne
3. Mary Harney
4. Ivor Callaly
5. Sinead O'Connor

:rolleyes: :mad:

simu

From the OP's list - Kunle. (but he's too young - have to be over 35)

Why? Because he's more vibrant, less sanctimonious than the rest on the list.

joebhoy1916

thebaz wrote:

Its election time for next President of Ireland .
The cadidates are :-

4. Gerry Adams


That would be funny Gerry Adams
Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces.

dermo88

I would suggest Senator David Norris.

Of course, we could then proceed on having "God Save the Queen" as our national anthem. That make the Unionists more enthusiastic about a United Ireland. Except they would'nt be smart enough to realise which queen we were referring to.

Duiske

I have an awful feeling its going to be Mary O'Rourke. Still, would be better than Michael (i AM the law) McDowell.

Ruu_Old

My answer to everything here Mary Harney..if she fails then Eddie Hobbs.

Sleepy

I think Michael D. Higgins would be perfect for the role.

netwhizkid

Duiske_Lad wrote:

I have an awful feeling its going to be Mary O'Rourke.

Physically vomits and tries to burn the image of her as president out of my mind. She'd probably sell of Áras an Uachtarán at twice its worth before then screwing up the future of the Presidency. She is at the very core of where Ireland's telecommunications took the wrong turn. If she ever becomes president I shall be taking a one-way ticket out of here before you can even say Privatisation.

thebaz

The past few leaders of our state have been too politically correct -- boring might be another word - we need someone to shake things up a bit --
i'd like to see a good boxing match between Gerry A. and Michael Mc up in the stadium to sort it out -- and the winner takes all !

Cork

Brian Crowley

mikemac

Would Michael D be eligible next time round?
Don't you have to be under 70 when elected. May be wrong on this.

I think this was mentioned in the media last time around, as that was Michael D's last chance

Hermione*

I thought Michael D. Higgins would have done a really good job as president. I'd prefer him to Mary McAleese at any rate.

Mary O'Rourke ... ugh, no!
I'd say Gerry Adams would love to get it, but I can't imagine him winning an election and the political aprties are never going to give it to him unopposed.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

I think Michael D. Higgins would be perfect for the role.

Almost. He's not a woman, but he is close.

darkman2

Firespinner wrote:

I think Michael D Higgens expressed an interest in the position at one time.

OH GOD NO!:eek:

dahamsta

The Corinthian wrote:

Almost. He's not a woman, but he is close.

Heh.

TheVan

Ali Hewson ftw.....she'd be perfect!

And don't worry, not a hope of Mary O'Rourke....she will be lucky if she wins back her seat in Westmeath!

Tbh I reckon Ivana Bakcik might go for it....she has the whole Trinity lecturer thing that McAleese and Robinson had going too and was unfortunate not to become an MEP

Dirk Gently

eamon dunphy, for the craic

constitutionus

whats the point, if its anything like the last time the government wont let you have an election :rolleyes: constitutional democracy my arse

ateam

Bertie Ahern if he's not the Taoiseach by then.

Wouldn't be surprised if Fine Gael put John Bruton forward.

dogbert_the_dog

I think the reason why there was no election last time was because of the constitutional provision that if they're parliamentry consent an outgoing president may be reappointed witrhout an election. So that would appear constitutional and democratic, the parliament being an elected assembly.
They have to have an election next time though, & my preferred option is Michael McDowell cos it would give him another seven (possibly fourteen) years in which to p**s everyone off.
The 'happy smiley everyone's friend' style of president is getting a bit hackneyed at this stage. At least we'd get our money's worth out of a confrontational one.
On the while 'p**ssing people off' ticket Bono might not be a bad option either.....

ISAW

constitutionus wrote:

whats the point, if its anything like the last time the government wont let you have an election :rolleyes: constitutional democracy my arse

This is a misinformed comment. the government have no rights under the constitution to prevent a presidential election. I believe it requires twenty members of the Oireachtas to nominate a candidate or four county councils.

This gets rid of monster raving loony candidates. Though parties are not referred to in the constitution FF FG LAB or the PD's could nominate someone. The independent group could but they are really an amalgam of disparate opinions (and what are FF I hear you ask )

If you really think there is no point in having systems of elections or in constutional provision for them and also think the Government can ban elections then I suggest you change your name in this forum.

Time Magazine

TheVan wrote:

Tbh I reckon Ivana Bakcik might go for it....she has the whole Trinity lecturer thing that McAleese and Robinson had going too

Both Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese were Reid Professor of Law - the current position held by Ms. Bacik, to be exact.

She's got two things going against her. The first is abortion. She wouldn't win against a Fianna Fáil candidate in light of that issue.

The second one, clearly, is that her first name isn't Mary.

DublinWriter

Who cares?

The Presidential role is a DeValera hangover where he established a non-executive role to match that of the British Monarch during the 1920 negotiations (of course he nominated himself for the role and threw Collins into the Lion's mouth!).

The role of the Irish president should be scrapped. It costs the taxpayer too much.

What other Republic in the world has such a non-executive president?

It's just an excuse for some failed/burnt-out politician to get a big house in the park along with Mercs and perks.

While I do agree that while Mary Robinson 're-invented' the role, all that came before her (especially Hilary) treated the role like a bejewelled pension scheme.

Time for consitutional change.

ISAW

DublinWriter wrote:

Who cares?


What other Republic in the world has such a non-executive president?

Under the new Iraqi constitution, the State President's powers are limited, with most executive authority belonging to the Prime Minister of Iraq.

Austria - Though theoretically entrusted with great power by the constitution, in practice the President acts, for the most part, merely as a ceremonial figurehead.

Republic of China- The President must promulgate all laws and has no right to veto. Other powers of the President include granting amnesty, pardon, or clemency, declaring martial law, and conferring honors and decorations.

the President of Malta is a constitutional head of state, with executive power remaining with the Prime Minister.

Happy now?

Hotblack Desiato

DublinWriter wrote:

Who cares? The Presidential role is a DeValera hangover where he established a non-executive role to match that of the British Monarch during the 1920 negotiations (of course he nominated himself for the role and threw Collins into the Lion's mouth!).

Please. Google for "Govenor General." You might also wish to explain why the post of President took so long to come under Fianna Fail "control".

The role of the Irish president should be scrapped. It costs the taxpayer too much.

It costs us orders of magnitude less than other things, such as decentralisation or e-voting, of very questionable value.

Time for consitutional change.

Good luck with that.

DublinWriter

ISAW wrote:

Under the new Iraqi constitution, the State President's powers are limited, with most executive authority belonging to the Prime Minister of Iraq.

Austria - Though theoretically entrusted with great power by the constitution, in practice the President acts, for the most part, merely as a ceremonial figurehead.

Republic of China- The President must promulgate all laws and has no right to veto. Other powers of the President include granting amnesty, pardon, or clemency, declaring martial law, and conferring honors and decorations.

the President of Malta is a constitutional head of state, with executive power remaining with the Prime Minister.

Happy now?

No. China and Iraq are hardly decent examples to cite.

Leaving Austria and Malta. Two. How many functioning democratic 'republics' are there in the world again in total?

neilled

The repulic of China is actually Taiwan, a nation of 22 million people (on an island 3/4 the size of ours) with its own democratically elected governement, large reserves of curreny and armed forces that would trounce our own. It is not the Peoples Republic of China which keep threatening war should Taiwan ever want change its name from the Republic of China.

Its current preident with the job titled as specified by the previous poster is chen shui bian, democratically elected twice.

ISAW

DublinWriter wrote:

No. China and Iraq are hardly decent examples to cite.

Leaving Austria and Malta. Two. How many functioning democratic 'republics' are there in the world again in total?

You dismiss wqhat you dont like without giving any reasons.
Why isnt the Republic of China fair to cite? Note I didnt state "PEOPLES republic"

And whether or not you agree with the invasion of Iraq you must accept that they did vote for the constitution and will have a democratically elected government.

You are also changing what you claimed. Originally you made out that Ireland was the only non monarcy state with a non executive President. I pointed out four examples where the President has a similar place. These are not by means the only examples and I do not claim they are. the point is that one counter example suffices to dismiss your claim. Otherwise we can get into the "What did the romans do for us " fallacy.

Frankly your claim is logically in error. But in any case what the people of Ireland want is what they want. who are you to tell them what is good for them? surely you accept thatthe overwhelming majority of Irish people are happy with the position of president. the point jere being that if ireland was the only country without the death penalty or the only country without abortion then does that mean the Irish should change their constitution to allow for these?

DublinWriter

ISAW wrote:

And whether or not you agree with the invasion of Iraq you must accept that they did vote for the constitution and will have a democratically elected government.

Iraq still remains a basket case and shouldn't even come into consideration. Bring it back into the argument in when/if it settles down as a country.

ISAW wrote:

You are also changing what you claimed. Originally you made out that Ireland was the only non monarcy state with a non executive President. I pointed out four examples where the President has a similar place.

I asked 'where else in the world has such a situation?' and you gave me 4 examples. Kudos to you for filling me in.

ISAW wrote:

Frankly your claim is logically in error. But in any case what the people of Ireland want is what they want. who are you to tell them what is good for them? surely you accept thatthe overwhelming majority of Irish people are happy with the position of president.

Firstly, maybe you're missing the whole 'debating' thing here. Someone first proposes a position, others either oppose it or back it up, arguing the point based the merits of the argument or otherwise.

Personalised statements like "Who are you to tell them what is good for them?" are rhetorical and make you sound like you missed your bus into work this morning and the coffee-machine broke down when you arrived!

Back to the argument...since when did the Irish people 'vote' for the current arrangement of a junket presidency? Did I have an especially bad hang-over that day and miss the vote, or is the current situation itself a hang-over from 1922?

Irish people aren't like the French. We're complacent. Look at how we tolerate the current Health Service crises. Just because you don't see people out on the streets with lit-torches and cudgels doesn't mean the Irish people are for it.

constitutionus

ISAW wrote:

This is a misinformed comment. the government have no rights under the constitution to prevent a presidential election. I believe it requires twenty members of the Oireachtas to nominate a candidate or four county councils.

This gets rid of monster raving loony candidates. Though parties are not referred to in the constitution FF FG LAB or the PD's could nominate someone. The independent group could but they are really an amalgam of disparate opinions (and what are FF I hear you ask )

If you really think there is no point in having systems of elections or in constutional provision for them and also think the Government can ban elections then I suggest you change your name in this forum.

mearly pointing out that we were constitutionally entitled to a presidential election and enda kenny and co prevented us. why do you think they rigged the application date to coincide with when most councils were unable to nominate a candidate? many actually tried but were ruled to be not on the order of business. you can understand the gov parties wanting to keep macaleese but its unforgivable of the opposition to pass up an opportunity to go for the government, they knew there was demand for an election which is why labour were shamed into naming a candidat but copping out at the last minute leaving us with a president with the same democratic mandate as sadam huisein, a full 100% of the vote.

but then maybe im wrong, maybe we dont live in a country where people are forced to vote again and again in referendums untill the government get the result they want

Bogger77

DublinWriter wrote:

While I do agree that while Mary Robinson 're-invented' the role, all that came before her (especially Hilary) treated the role like a bejewelled pension scheme.

I suggest you read on the telephone tapping scandal of the early 80's, and how Hillary stood up to the great CJH and Brian Lenihan. We have a President to deal with issues exactly such as that case. He/She ensures that the Dail doesn't pass any bills in law which go against the Consitution. Thinking of O'Dailaigh here, and that buffon of a drunkard from Louth. They also ensure that changes of Government are correctly done, and looking at the FG/Lab/FF rivalary, it's not often easy.

In my life time, we haven't had any Bad presidents, and even DeV, while old, 90% or more blind still performed the functions of the office to the highest standards. Looking back to '92 election, it's clear that the Irish people took the view that the FF candiate, was not fit for the Office, due to the dirt raised (Mature recollection, etc.) and also, as they saw it as an attempt by FF old timers to reward Brian with a nice retirement.

The fact is that in order to fulfill their duties, the Irish President does need a background in Consitutional Law, but Bakick doesn't stand much of a chance. She will never get the rural vote, and her background will mean that the FG/FF wavering support will not go for her (abortion stance), plus, she's Labour and even Mary Robinson coming back for 2nd term wouldn't get in on a Red ticket.

Time Magazine

constitutionus wrote:

mearly pointing out that we were constitutionally entitled to a presidential election

Point me to the Article please? None such exists.

and enda kenny and co prevented us.

If FG were to support a candidate, it would have been Mary McAllese, who ran as an independent.

why do you think they rigged the application date to coincide with when most councils were unable to nominate a candidate?

The election date was not rigged. And county councils roughly approximate to parliamentary showings in the Dáil, that is to say that there are relatively as many FF/FG people on county councils as there are in the Dáil. Thus even if there was an opportunity to go before the councils, party members would have to go against the party line and possibly face action. Not going to happen.

many actually tried but were ruled to be not on the order of business.

Back this up.

you can understand the gov parties wanting to keep macaleese but its unforgivable of the opposition to pass up an opportunity to go for the government

Why? Should they not be allowed to decide who they think is the best candidate? FG put their hands in the air and agreed that she did a good job and they had no problem with her in the role again. Why should they be obliged to run a candidate they think isn't as good?

they knew there was demand for an election

No there wasn't. There was not one citizen who could have reasonably challenged her. She has approval ratings of c. 90%!

which is why labour were shamed into naming a candidat but copping out at the last minute leaving us with a president with the same democratic mandate as sadam huisein, a full 100% of the vote

If Labour had run the dead duck of Michael D. they'd have lost something in the region of €1m, he would not have won. Thus they'd have €1m less to spend on the upcoming General Election, which I consider a far more important act of democracy.

but then maybe im wrong, maybe we dont live in a country where people are forced to vote again and again in referendums untill the government get the result they want

They weren't forced to vote again and again. It was put to them again once, with a slight ammendment, and passed quite comfortably.

ISAW

DublinWriter wrote:

Iraq still remains a basket case and shouldn't even come into consideration. Bring it back into the argument in when/if it settles down as a country.

It was one of four counter examples. But tell me what in the constitution of Iraq ( and we are discussing the constitution here in relation to non executive Presidents) do you think they voted wrong on?

isaw wrote:

Originally Posted by ISAW
Frankly your claim is logically in error. But in any case what the people of Ireland want is what they want. who are you to tell them what is good for them? surely you accept thatthe overwhelming majority of Irish people are happy with the position of president.

Firstly, maybe you're missing the whole 'debating' thing here. Someone first proposes a position, others either oppose it or back it up, arguing the point based the merits of the argument or otherwise.

And the position YOU proposed was the idea that Presidents with non-executive roles do not exist in other democracies. You were wrong. Your premise was wrong. But how you logically progressed from that is also in question. Also you conclusion that you must be right is offset by the fact that no matter what you believe is right the people of Ireland do not subscribe to that belief in this case!

Personalised statements like "Who are you to tell them what is good for them?" are rhetorical and make you sound like you missed your bus into work this morning and the coffee-machine broke down when you arrived!

a completely empty argument. My point was you do not have the authority to decide what is right for Ireland. Your counter that "that sounds silly to me" only reenforces my point.

Back to the argument...

Back up YOUR argument! You are the one argueing from authority. You claim to know what is good for the Irish people. Where is you evidence?

since when did the Irish people 'vote' for the current arrangement of a junket presidency?

In spite of the terms you couch it in the people voted for it in 1937. they have ample provisions to change what they want. They have not donme so in relation to the Presidence. who are you to second guess them? And what evidence do you have that they are wrong?

Did I have an especially bad hang-over that day and miss the vote, or is the current situation itself a hang-over from 1922?

The hang overs were adopted under "transitory Powers" in 1937. The rest was accepted by people then.

Irish people aren't like the French. We're complacent. Look at how we tolerate the current Health Service crises. Just because you don't see people out on the streets with lit-torches and cudgels doesn't mean the Irish people are for it.

this is again a logical error. Affirming a consequent. People on the streets implies people are not for something. Therefore YOU assert that people not on the streets does not imply people are for something. It may well be true but so what? WHo are you to tell the Irish people (who by the way voted for the constitution and against several ammendments) what is good for them? You can howl at the Moon telling people that you must be correct and that the constitution must be changed to abolish the Presidency but you had better come up with some supported reasons if you want others to agree with you.

TomF

It's probably too soon for a male president, so I'm betting the next president will be another woman.

DublinWriter

TomF wrote:

I'm betting the next president will be another woman.

...called Mary.

LordSutch

1/ Gay Byrne
2/ Joe Duffy
3/ Brian Kennedy
4/ Podge & Rodge
5/ Sinead O'Connor

Nice mix to choose from here, you have wisdom, charm, youth, a duo, North, South, and an Ex nun!

Ronan Keating will get in with his 'life is a rollercoaster just gotta ride it' manifesto.