The Irish Presidency?????

b12mearse

During these tough economic times we here the talk of abolishing the Seanad.
Now I don't know about you guys but I think the Irish Presidency stinks just like the Seanad. We fork out in the region of 300,000 a year for a President for purely symbolic reasons. This President can remain in office for two terms of 7 years at the total cost of the tax-payer of over 4 million euro.
Not only that but we spend unknown amounts of money for her lavish ceremonies, her security and god knows what else.
Now I think in times like this the Irish Presidency should be called into question.
And also what motivates someone in wanting to become President? I mean have they our countries interests at heart or is it just personal gain?
I'd like to hear what you guys have to say...
because I really think its a god damn waste of tax-payers money!!!

LoveDucati2

I think that you will find that presidents budget is at least 7 million a year, not including renovating state houses or travel.

brianthebard

I think its hilarious that people want to target democratic institutions as a cost cutting measure. Yes the Senead and Presidency are somewhat lacking in power, but that's a reason for reform, not dismissal. Getting rid of these offices only strengthens the Dail. Cost cutting can and should take many forms, scrapping politicial offices to save a few euro isn't one of them.

b12mearse

brianthebard wrote: »

I think its hilarious that people want to target democratic institutions as a cost cutting measure. Yes the Senead and Presidency are somewhat lacking in power, but that's a reason for reform, not dismissal. Getting rid of these offices only strengthens the Dail. Cost cutting can and should take many forms, scrapping politicial offices to save a few euro isn't one of them.

I gree. But come on..14 years for an Irish President. That makes me sick.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

b12mearse wrote: »

I gree. But come on..14 years for an Irish President. That makes me sick.

How much do you think it costs to have an election?

The answer is a lot.

b12mearse

But why should one person benefit from a maximum 14 year term. There should be a couple of years shaved off that term

Thomas_S_Hunterson

b12mearse wrote: »

But why should one person benefit from a maximum 14 year term.

Because they were voted in for two successive 7 year terms.

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

I think its hilarious that people want to target democratic institutions as a cost cutting measure. Yes the Senead and Presidency are somewhat lacking in power, but that's a reason for reform, not dismissal. Getting rid of these offices only strengthens the Dail. Cost cutting can and should take many forms, scrapping politicial offices to save a few euro isn't one of them.

Seanad Éireann is in reality an aberration of Irish democracy. It serves no purpose in this society, except to provide jobs for the boys. This institution was borne out of a desire to shore up the Anglo-Irish ascendancy in the 1920s and have an Irish equivalent of the British House of Lords. It was insisted upon by the British as a means to control what they viewed as an untrustworthy Irish Catholic majority.

The development of the committee system in the Oireachtas from the 1970s made the one useful function of the Seanad, the advisory role played by expert panels, redundant. Now, the committee system is larger than ever and the Seanad is reduced to being a halfway house for failed politicians who have, ironically for the "democracy" argument, been rejected by the electorate.


I have yet to hear solid reasons for the existence of Seanad Éireann. Mantra about "democracy" is not supported by the facts.

PS: There are some good threads on the Seanad here already, including one about the recent Late Late Show debate on it.

Rebelheart

As for the presidency it is a simple and straightforward replacement of the British Governor-General position. It was originally proposed to be removed, and De Valera famously appointed a Maynooth shopkeeper, Dónall Ó Buachalla as Governor-General and Ó Buachalla just stayed working away in his shop. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domhnall_Ua_Buachalla


It is essentially a mirror image of the English monarch, which while understandable in the 1930s is not necessary now that the state is well established.

On the other hand, the "Hello" type girls seem to like it and the fashion that goes along with it. It does have some functions, although they could easily be transferred. And, very importantly, it is much cheaper than the Seanad.

brianthebard

Yes Rebelheart, thats all true up until the creation of the 1937 constitution, you're a bit out of date. And I fully admitted that both Seanad and Presidency are lacking in power, but taking them out of the equation altogether doesn't improve that. All it does is leave the Dail completely in charge. We need more checks and balances, not less.

oscarBravo

We should abolish the presidency, the Seanad, and all TDs but one. We should have an election every ten years (they're expensive) for the office of Taoiseach, who will be paid average industrial wage.

I've given this a lot of thought, and can't see any drawbacks. Think of the cost savings!

DJCR

I agree with the above.... Our political system mirrors the English System ... as well as our number one language (Lets face it, I'm not altogether happy about it either), a lot of our culture + our legal system + our accounting system etc etc etc ...

How do you suggest a reform?

I for one like having a President that isn't in the newspaper everyday for dodgy dealings or taking a hammering from the opposition parties! The position shows a United Front to foreign guests and dignatries.

On the other side I do think the Seanad needs reform... perhaps to the tune of the House of Representatives in the US.

Its a complicated situation and one that should have been solved a long time ago ... not just now because we are broke!!

francish

b12mearse wrote: »

During these tough economic times we here the talk of abolishing the Seanad.
Now I don't know about you guys but I think the Irish Presidency stinks just like the Seanad. We fork out in the region of 300,000 a year for a President for purely symbolic reasons. This President can remain in office for two terms of 7 years at the total cost of the tax-payer of over 4 million euro.
Not only that but we spend unknown amounts of money for her lavish ceremonies, her security and god knows what else.
Now I think in times like this the Irish Presidency should be called into question.
And also what motivates someone in wanting to become President? I mean have they our countries interests at heart or is it just personal gain?
I'd like to hear what you guys have to say...
because I really think its a god damn waste of tax-payers money!!!

I think we should not abolish the office of President. However, in tough times, could we not cut the budget expenditure by at least 75%. A lot of expenditure of office is not essetial to a country that is dire financial difficulties.

O'Coonassa

Er.. IMO we should have a real senate and a real president like in a real Republic.

Driseog

I don't see anything wrong with having someone semi-detached from the political system representing the country abroad.
Who would you prefer Mr. Cowan or Mrs. McAlseese?

johnnyskeleton

The position of president is an important one, which many people refuse to acknowledge. The president acts as the guardian of democracy and of the constitution. The present has powers to refer any bill to the Supreme Court to see if it constitutional or not.

Just because the current president is somewhat light on this important role, doesn't mean that it should be abolished.

Dr Galen

the role of the president and also the Seanad need to be redefined.

At present, we appear to have a President who is little more than a figurehead clothes horse, (this isn't a personal attack on the lady, she's very nice and very intelligent, I've met her several times), which tbh is a waste. The office of president fulfills an important constitutional role, as has been already noted, we just haven't had need for the president to step in and refer much leglislation to the courts for review.

The Seanad is a different matter though. It has certainly become a jobs for the boys type institution and needs radical reform. Apart from a few of the old reliables I doubt many people could actually tell you who actually sits in there.

The idea of the Seanad should be to provide a check and a balance to the Dail chamber. Debate around proposed leglisation, a second pair of eyes if you wil. At present, we have a situation whereby, if Brian, Brian and Mary want to do something, they get it written up, go round in a few circles in the Dail, and then it goes through anyway. I'm not an expert on affair of a constitutional nature, but certainly the has to be a better and more accountable way of doing things.

johnnyskeleton

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

The office of president fulfills an important constitutional role, as has been already noted, we just haven't had need for the president to step in and refer much leglislation to the courts for review.

I disagree. The Criminal Justice (Sex Offences) Act, 2006; the Criminal Justice Act, 2007; the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Act, 2007 and a number of other acts IMO should have been referred to the Supreme Court but weren't. This new Surveylance powers bill and the one about double jeopardy ought (if they are passed by the dail) be referred under art 26 but somehow I don't think they will be.