Do we need a president?

liammur

Maybe someone could put in a poll on this?

I look at the candidates who are favourites (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/next-irish-president?ev_oc_grp_ids=33552) to be the next president and I just wonder do we need 1 at all? The likes of brian crowley, bertie ahern, john bruton, david norris ?

The country is bust, can ill-afford a president and I'm not sure the president carries out any necessary role whatsoever.

Rebelheart

liammur wrote: »

Maybe someone could put in a poll on this?

I look at the candidates who are favourites (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/next-irish-president?ev_oc_grp_ids=33552) to be the next president and I just wonder do we need 1 at all? The likes of brian crowley, bertie ahern, john bruton, david norris ?

The country is bust, can ill-afford a president and I'm not sure the president carries out any necessary role whatsoever.

No, of course we don't. It serves no practical purpose in Irish society. It exists solely because the British claimed that the Head of State in Ireland was their monarch and the Presidency was created as an understandable means of rejecting that/the Governor-General and offering an alternative.

Like Seanad Éireann, it is an anachronism today - supported by people who read Hello! and are into pretentious things such as image. Its sole practical functions (if they can be called that) - signing legislation and calling meetings of the Council of State - could easily be transferred elsewhere.

Iwasfrozen

God this recent cost sutting lark that has risen since the dawn of the recession two years ago is getting out of hand. You want us to scrap the head of state because you think she costs too much and has no role despite the fact she must constitutionally sign into law every single peice of legislation passed throught the Dail.

Iwasfrozen

Rebelheart wrote: »

No, of course we don't. It serves no practical purpose in Irish society. It exists solely because the British claimed that the Head of State in Ireland was their monarch and the Presidency was created as an understandable means of rejecting that/the Governor-General and offering an alternative.

Like Seanad Éireann, it is an anachronism today - supported by people who read Hello! and are into pretentious things such as image. Its sole practical functions (if they can be called that) - signing legislation and calling meetings of the Council of State - could easily be transferred elsewhere.

First off the role of the President is constitutionally bound so to get rid of her we would need to pass a referendum on it.

Secondly the President does have a role, as guardian of the constitution she is expected to be above the current popular opinion at the time and protect the rights of minorities by refusing to pass into law legislation that would see their rights rights diminished. That is why Ireland has such a long Presidential term compared to say America whose President is not above politics.

liammur

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

God this recent cost sutting lark that has risen since the dawn of the recession two years ago is getting out of hand. You want us to scrap the head of state because you think she costs too much and has no role despite the fact she must constitutionally sign into law every single peice of legislation passed throught the Dail.

Yes, I definitely would like to see that role scrapped. It's almost embarrassing that we have a president for such a tiny country, must be the cushiest political job in the world.

Iwasfrozen

liammur wrote: »

Yes, I definitely would like to see that role scrapped. It's almost embarrassing that we have a president for such a tiny country, must be the cushiest political job in the world.

Not in the world. There are smaller countries then Ireland with Presidents. Still, I think it's utter nonsense to scap the President to save costs, if only to prevent Brian Cowen from being our head of state!

Rebelheart

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

First off the role of the President is constitutionally bound so to get rid of her we would need to pass a referendum on it.

Not exactly an insurmountable problem?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Secondly the President does have a role, as guardian of the constitution she is expected to be above the current popular opinion at the time and protect the rights of minorities by refusing to pass into law legislation that would see their rights rights diminished. That is why Ireland has such a long Presidential term compared to say America whose President is not above politics.

The "role" which the President has can easily be transferred to another body. For that matter many of the functions you mentioned have been long ago. For instance, how many "minority rights" bodies are currently funded by this state? Just as the Seanad's "expertise" panels have long been overtaken by the committee system of the Oireachtas which calls in "experts" to give their views on proposed legislation, the President's role as guarantor of the constitutionality of legislation has been overtaken by developments such as the committee system and, of course, judicial review.

The real reason for the existence of the presidency rests in the need of the nascent state, in the 1930s, to reject British state claims to the position of Head of State. The rest is ex post facto justification for the presidency.

mikemac

The President can refer bills to the Supreme Court to check they are constitutional.
Quite an important role, it's not a case of the President signing everything they are told to sign and having no power or input at all

Cost cutting is good but getting rid of our head of state is going too far.

Drafting an amendment to the constitution and holding a referendum isn't cheap either if you're going to say we can ill-afford it OP

liammur

Rebelheart wrote: »

The real reason for the existence of the presidency rests in the need of the nascent state, in the 1930s, to reject British state claims to the position of Head of State. The rest is ex post facto justification for the presidency.

Yes, has to be some silly reason like that. Anyone know how to put in a poll and we can see how many are in favour of getting rid of it.

imme

liammur wrote: »

Yes, I definitely would like to see that role scrapped. It's almost embarrassing that we have a president for such a tiny country, must be the cushiest political job in the world.

Nah, I think being Prince of Monaco would be cushier:cool:

Edit: Yes I think we do need a Pres. Just today reports issued that she's going to Russia with a trade delegation. She'll meet Russian Pres, Mayor of Moscow and St P'burg.
Now would the Pres of Russia meet Billy Kelleher (Junior Minister) who's also going.
People are naturally going to post that she's not going to sell anything, she's not a business woman. But, I think on these occasions the symbolism is important as well. It says 'hello Russia, this is Ireland'.

Iwasfrozen

Rebelheart wrote: »

Not exactly an insurmountable problem?

I'd sya it would be a huge problem. But then getting people to vote against democracy always is.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The "role" which the President has can easily be transferred to another body. For that matter many of the functions you mentioned have been long ago. For instance, how many "minority rights" bodies are currently funded by this state? Just as the Seanad's "expertise" panels have long been overtaken by the committee system of the Oireachtas which calls in "experts" to give their views on proposed legislation, the President's role as guarantor of the constitutionality of legislation has been overtaken by developments such as the committee system and, of course, judicial review.

The addition of the committee system and judicial review does not take away from the presidents role.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The real reason for the existence of the presidency rests in the need of the nascent state, in the 1930s, to reject British state claims to the position of Head of State. The rest is ex post facto justification for the presidency.

I doubt it. The leaders of the fledgling Irish state were republicans. They created the post for ideological reasons to reject the monarachy.

Rebelheart

feelingstressed wrote: »

The President can refer bills to the Supreme Court to check they are constitutional. Quite an important role.

By the time a piece of legislation gets through the bill and committee stages of the Dáil and Seanad as well as the Attorney General's office it has been as tested as those in power want it to be. If, some day down the road, a citizen (e.g. Ray Crotty, Patricia McKenna) wishes to challenge its constitutionality they can get a judicial review of the legislation. The fact that there has been some 39 successful cases of judicial review in this state does not really recommend the presidency as a foolproof office which will check for the constitutionality of legislation on our behalf.

At any rate, this power can be transferred to a much more efficient, less British royalist-like, office. Seeing McAleese and her family posing for an "official photograph" some years ago was just too much.

ardmacha

Cost cutting is good but getting rid of our head of state is going too far.

The present post of President was created in the 1937 constitution, approved at a time when the country actually was poor. The half baked threads which continually arise here saying that we cannot afford this or that seem oblivious to the fact that we could afford these in the 1930s or 1950s. The President is either a useful role (I think it is) or it is not, it is not a question of being able to afford it.

Rebelheart

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I doubt it. The leaders of the fledgling Irish state were republicans. They created the post for ideological reasons to reject the monarachy.

Which is what I said. If the British had not got somebody in the position (Governor-General/English monarch) the Irish would have had no position to fill.

liammur

ardmacha wrote: »

The present post of President was created in the 1937 constitution, approved at a time when the country actually was poor. The half baked threads which continually arise here saying that we cannot afford this or that seem oblivious to the fact that we could afford these in the 1930s or 1950s. The President is either a useful role (I think it is) or it is not, it is not a question of being able to afford it.

In the 1930's, I seriously doubt the president was costing €200K odd, before expenses etc!

Rebelheart

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd sya it would be a huge problem. But then getting people to vote against democracy always is.

If you can identify the theory of democracy which states that a state must have a nominal Head of State with little-to-no powers in order to be considered a "democracy" you might have a point with this sort of tabloid journalist line.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The addition of the committee system and judicial review does not take away from the presidents role.

It does, actually.

imme

Rebelheart wrote: »

By the time a piece of legislation gets through the bill and committee stages of the Dáil and Seanad as well as the Attorney General's office it has been as tested as those in power want it to be. If, some day down the road, a citizen (e.g. Ray Crotty, Patricia McKenna) wishes to challenge its constitutionality they can get a judicial review of the legislation. The fact that there has been some 39 successful cases of judicial review in this state does not really recommend the presidency as a foolproof office which will check for the constitutionality of legislation on our behalf.

At any rate, this power can be transferred to a much more efficient, less British royalist-like, office. Seeing McAleese and her family posing for an "official photograph" some years ago was just too much.

The Pres doesn't have to be a lawyer, it's not a prerogative of office. It just happened that our last two have been. They do have the Council of State to advise them as well. The Presidency was never envisaged as a foolproof office, as you call it. 'A constitutional protection' might be a more appropriate term.

This function of the Pres is not the 'be all and end all' of the role. We could do without a Pres if this were all there were to it. Once a bill received approval by the 2 Houses of Oireachtas (unless you want to get rid of Seanad as well) it could be deemed to be an Act by virtue of being approved by a majority.

Iwasfrozen

Rebelheart wrote: »

If you can identify the theory of democracy which states that a state must have a nominal Head of State with little-to-no powers in order to be considered a "democracy" you might have a point with this sort of tabloid journalist line.

I ment that having people vote to remove their right to vote in a head of state is going to be a tough sell.

Rebelheart wrote: »

It does, actually.

No it doesn't.

liammur

Maybe it might take bertie ahern to get into the aras to turn people off it.

Brussels Sprout

Whatever about the president at least we only have 1 of those. We have 60 senators!

imme

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Whatever about the president at least we only have 1 of those. We have 60 senators!

and we can't even elect them, save for the University Senators. Although I'm not sure how legitimate those elections are when they produce the likes of Fr Ronan Mullen:D

ardmacha

In the 1930's, I seriously doubt the president was costing €200K odd, before expenses etc!

Do you suppose that the salary of the President then was not a similar multiple of the average salary?

Einhard

I really don't see our president's role as protector of the Constitution, rather something akin to super-ambassador, and I believe that every country needs such a position. Recently she visited China and met quite a few hign ranking officials. She also attended Irish cultural events and visited the Irish stand at the Shangai biennial. Having a president at these events drums up interest of a kind that would be beyond a minister. It raises Ireland's profile. Also I think it would be rather odd to have visiting heads of state arrive in Ireland, only to find that there was no one of similar position to welcome them officially. So I'm quite happy to keep the president. She mightn't fulfill a particularly important constitutional role, but she has other important duties that i think would be to Ireland's loss if done away with.

liammur

ardmacha wrote: »

Do you suppose that the salary of the President then was not a similar multiple of the average salary?

Of course not.
It's really only since 1997 that these salaries have rocketed, and they are not in touch with reality as a result.For instance, in less than a decade
Bertie ahern's salary went up from €133K to €252K
Mary Harney's from €115K to €217K

Coillte_Bhoy

Could the posters that want the presidency abolished tell us what they would replace it with? Also can they name one parliamentaryt democracy that doesnt have head of state???

Laminations

I think having a president is a good thing. Do we need such a highly paid president? No. Qualified people should be attracted to the office of president for the privilege and opportunity to represent Ireland rather than the pay. Cutting the pay to a meagre €100,000 wouldn't damage the office and would address the cost concerns people have. Quite frankly I think any high serving politicians and public representatives including the president should be on emergency pay at the moment, seeing as the country is in an economic emergency. With half a million unemployed they cannot justify their wages from a dwindling public purse. We have threads discussing what people can 'survive on' with the dole, these elite can survive on a lot less than what they are on and still provide their services as patriots.

OhNoYouDidn't

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Could the posters that want the presidency abolished tell us what they would replace it with? Also can they name one parliamentaryt democracy that doesnt have head of state???

Thats the key bit. Whats the alternative to having no head of state? The President is a key political role and has made some important decisions over the years, even of some of the rash of teenage rightwingers on this site are too young / ignorant to know about them. What they are in effect arguing as that all political power in the state will be concentrated at cabinet level and the Office of President and Senate who have oversight and veto should be axed, which lets face it, is not exactly a good thing with the chimpanzees in there at the moment.

This chop x, y and z institutions of state to save a small amount of money polemic is very tedious at this stage.

OhNoYouDidn't

ardmacha wrote: »

Do you suppose that the salary of the President then was not a similar multiple of the average salary?

Do you think Dev was on industrial average? Of course it was a highly paid position.

amacachi

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats the key bit. Whats the alternative to having no head of state? The President is a key political role and has made some important decisions over the years, even of some of the rash of teenage rightwingers on this site are too young / ignorant to know about them. What they are in effect arguing as that all political power in the state will be concentrated at cabinet level and the Office of President and Senate who have oversight and veto should be axed, which lets face it, is not exactly a good thing with the chimpanzees in there at the moment.

This chop x, y and z institutions of state to save a small amount of money polemic is very tedious at this stage.

Educate us.

OhNoYouDidn't

liammur wrote: »

Yes, I definitely would like to see that role scrapped. It's almost embarrassing that we have a president for such a tiny country, must be the cushiest political job in the world.

So we should give Brian Cowen literally dictatorial powers?

The executive already has a far stronger role than was envisaged, and people are arguing to scrap the two bodies that have oversight removed to save a relatively small amount of money?

If the seanad and president are scrapped, exactly what would stop the Government of the day declaring a state of emergency and scrapping elections?

OhNoYouDidn't

amacachi wrote: »

Educate us.

A brief example from this presidency

The Council of State met on 21 December 2004 to advise the President, Mary McAleese on whether to refer the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. The purpose of the bill was to retroactively render lawful the fees charged by the government, since 1976, on nursing home patients that at the time levied were illegal. The president referred the bill to the Supreme Court the following day. On 16 February 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the bill was an unconstitutional attempt to violate the right to property, and struck it down

In December 2004 it was found that certain pensioners and other long stay patients residing in nursing homes had been illegally charged fees by the state over a number of years. The Health Amendment Bill proposed not only to ensure that all fees charged in future would be legal, but also to retroactively render legal all fees charged in the past. The proposed law was controversial both because it amounted to an ex post facto law, and because it attempted to prevent many senior citizens who had been charged illegally from suing the state for compensation. In its February 2005, ruling the Supreme Court found that, if the bill were allowed to become law, its ex post facto provisions would violate Article 43 of the Constitution of Ireland which guarantees the right to private property.

The whole O'Dálaigh incident was also very important in putting manners on the Government of the day

amacachi

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

A brief example from this presidency

The Council of State met on 21 December 2004 to advise the President, Mary McAleese on whether to refer the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. The purpose of the bill was to retroactively render lawful the fees charged by the government, since 1976, on nursing home patients that at the time levied were illegal. The president referred the bill to the Supreme Court the following day. On 16 February 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the bill was an unconstitutional attempt to violate the right to property, and struck it down

In December 2004 it was found that certain pensioners and other long stay patients residing in nursing homes had been illegally charged fees by the state over a number of years. The Health Amendment Bill proposed not only to ensure that all fees charged in future would be legal, but also to retroactively render legal all fees charged in the past. The proposed law was controversial both because it amounted to an ex post facto law, and because it attempted to prevent many senior citizens who had been charged illegally from suing the state for compensation. In its February 2005, ruling the Supreme Court found that, if the bill were allowed to become law, its ex post facto provisions would violate Article 43 of the Constitution of Ireland which guarantees the right to private property.

The whole O'Dálaigh incident was also very important in putting manners on the Government of the day

Why couldn't the council of state have the power to refer it to the supreme court itself then? And can't anyone challenge a bill/law to test the constitutionality of it?

OhNoYouDidn't

amacachi wrote: »

Why couldn't the council of state have the power to refer it to the supreme court itself then? And can't anyone challenge a bill/law to test the constitutionality of it?

Are you recommending abolishing the President but keeping the office?

I think it preferable to have a statutory second look at legislation than have to rely on individual citizens having to go to the expense of suing the state in order to see if the government of the day has broken the law myself. Especially seeing as judges are political appointees.

amacachi

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you recommending abolishing the President but keeping the office?

I think it preferable to have a statutory second look at legislation than have to rely on individual citizens having to go to the expense of suing the state in order to see if the government of the day has broken the law myself. Especially seeing as judges are political appointees.

Of course there has to be oversight, but it really could be streamlined, or, just a crazy idea, why not have every bit of legislation checked? If you have little faith in judges because they're political appointees then why point to legislation being referred to them under the current system as a good thing?
Also it seems that individual citizens having to sue the state isn't really prevented by the current system;

Rebelheart wrote: »

The fact that there has been some 39 successful cases of judicial review in this state does not really recommend the presidency as a foolproof office which will check for the constitutionality of legislation on our behalf.

OhNoYouDidn't

amacachi wrote: »

Of course there has to be oversight, but it really could be streamlined, or, just a crazy idea, why not have every bit of legislation checked? If you have little faith in judges because they're political appointees then why point to legislation being referred to them under the current system as a good thing?

Ehhhh, thats what we do at the moment and people what that check and balance abolished to save money? How much would a constitutional court cost to set up?

amacachi wrote: »

Also it seems that individual citizens having to sue the state isn't really prevented by the current system;

But its hardly encouraged. If it became the only mechanism to test legislation, I fear every nutter would tie the courts up in a manner they can't now and it would end up costing more than the office of the President does today.

I'm fundamentally in favour of saving money and reforming our Republic, but when people come out with suggestions like this, can the offer a cheaper alternative model?

liammur

Laminations wrote: »

I think having a president is a good thing. Do we need such a highly paid president? No. Qualified people should be attracted to the office of president for the privilege and opportunity to represent Ireland rather than the pay. Cutting the pay to a meagre €100,000 wouldn't damage the office and would address the cost concerns people have. Quite frankly I think any high serving politicians and public representatives including the president should be on emergency pay at the moment, seeing as the country is in an economic emergency. With half a million unemployed they cannot justify their wages from a dwindling public purse. We have threads discussing what people can 'survive on' with the dole, these elite can survive on a lot less than what they are on and still provide their services as patriots.

Correct.
It's disgraceful the amount of ministers, junior ministers, senators, etc we have in the country on huge wages and all they are doing is causing destruction.

FreudianSlippers

Wow this thread in the Politics forum? I think some people need to go back to school. It is the foundation of our democracy that we have a president. It is necessary for balance between the Judiciary and Legislative branches to have an Executive branch.
While our President is usually considered nothing more than a figurehead, the importance and the power of the President's Article 26 powers are beyond question.

goose2005

OisinT wrote: »

Wow this thread in the Politics forum? I think some people need to go back to school. It is the foundation of our democracy that we have a president. It is necessary for balance between the Judiciary and Legislative branches to have an Executive branch.
While our President is usually considered nothing more than a figurehead, the importance and the power of the President's Article 26 powers are beyond question.

Not really, considering that the ordinary citizen can also get the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of a law. The only difference is that the President can do so before it is passed. Surely worth the €7,000 a week.

drkpower

goose2005 wrote: »

Not really, considering that the ordinary citizen can also get the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of a law. The only difference is that the President can do so before it is passed. Surely worth the €7,000 a week.

Not the only difference by a long shot. You cant decide tomorrow to challenge any law merely because you think it may be unconstitutional; the law you are concerned about must be affecting you personally in a real and actual manner. The Prez can refer any proposed law. In addition, if you challenge a law, a futire Court can decide differently at a latter date. Using the Prez referral procedure, if the law is deemed constitutional, it can never be challenged again. There are other differences and advantages to the Prez referral procedure, but they are the main ones.

Of course, one could develop a system which allows someone else to do the referring (ie the Council of State) but just wanted to correct your misperceptions.

FreudianSlippers

drkpower wrote: »

Not the only difference by a long shot. You cant decide tomorrow to challenge any law merely because you think it may be unconstitutional; the law you are concerned about must be affecting you personally in a real and actual manner. The Prez can refer any proposed law. In addition, if you challenge a law, a futire Court can decide differently at a latter date. Using the Prez referral procedure, if the law is deemed constitutional, it can never be challenged again. There are other differences and advantages to the Prez referral procedure, but they are the main ones.

Spot on, thank you.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, one could develop a system which allows someone else to do the referring (ie the Council of State) [...]

It was my understanding that the thread proposed to remove the office of the President in its entirety - i.e. the entire Executive branch. I totally accept your point that the Council of the State could be adapted to fill the Presidential role in Re Art 26, but how would the Council decide when to convene?

amen

I may be wrong but don't Army officers have an oath of allegience to the president ?

drkpower

OisinT wrote: »

It was my understanding that the thread proposed to remove the office of the President in its entirety - i.e. the entire Executive branch. I totally accept your point that the Council of the State could be adapted to fill the Presidential role in Re Art 26, but how would the Council decide when to convene?

I suppose that's the problem; ultimately, one person will have to be given the responsibility to invoke this procedure, as well as to grant/deny a dissolution of the Dail - that role could be given to a political appointee or to someone else, but is that reallly a better sytem that the one we have? Personally, I dont agree with getting rid of the presidency for that very reason (aswell as a few others i cant be arsed elaboration upon right now:D).

Anyone who advocates removing the presidency must show either
1. that the advantages of getting rid of the President (a few quid, perhaps?) outweigh the potential problems associated with another individual exercisings these functions (ie. political influence etc).
or
2. these functions are not necessary.

The second proposition is ludicrous and i have never seen anyone demonstrate the former.

FreudianSlippers

drkpower wrote: »

I suppose that's the problem; ultimately, one person will have to be given the responsibility to invoke this procedure, as well as to grant/deny a dissolution of the Dail - that role could be given to a political appointee or to someone else, but is that reallly a better sytem that the one we have? Personally, I dont agree with getting rid of the presidency for that very reason (aswell as a few others i cant be arsed elaboration upon right now:D).

Anyone who advocates removing the presidency must show either
1. that the advantages of getting rid of the President (a few quid, perhaps?) outweigh the potential problems associated with another individual exercisings these functions (ie. political influence etc).
or
2. these functions are not necessary.

The second proposition is ludicrous and i have never seen anyone demonstrate the former.

I totally agree with you on these points. I fail to see how getting rid of the office of the President is really going to benefit us in the long-term. To axe the position to save money now is very shortsighted when real reform of the Oireachtas could save potentially more money into the future and have positive impacts on the Irish political system.

Lockstep

amen wrote: »

I may be wrong but don't Army officers have an oath of allegience to the president ?

Well, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (they exercise "supreme command of the Defence Forces") and all commissioned officers hold their commission from the president (Art 13.5 of the Constitution). However, comissions are made on the advice of the government under the Defence Forces Act.
In addition, all serving members of the Defence Forces swear on the Constitution when they enlist (and that they will be faithful to it) so in effect, Defence forces members owe loyalty to the President by their role as Commander in Chief.

I'm well in favour of having a president, especially the Irish version; it serves as the embodiment of the state, a neutral figure for the nation to rally around and to represent Ireland abroad/embody civilian control over the armed forces.
I'm uncomfortable with the American/French/Russian role where the President has real political power, as it stands, I like the figurehead role they play.

the groutch

if it's about saving money, get rid of the Seanad