Mary McAleese

newman10

Is it time for the President to go on National TV and give us all the information which the Government is refusing to tell. Tell us the truth Explain what is happening and maybe a little hope.

We need leadership from someone with no political axe to grind and moral leadership from the President is something I would welcome

LordSutch

Cant stand the woman myself, but I did hear Mary Robinson on the Six One news the other day saying that "We cant blame England" for our current woes! very true, but I thnik we could do with something more substantial from the current one, or Mr Cowan (not very likely though).

Einhard

newman10 wrote: »

Is it time for the President to go on National TV and give us all the information which the Government is refusing to tell. Tell us the truth Explain what is happening and maybe a little hope.

We need leadership from someone with no political axe to grind and moral leadership from the President is something I would welcome

No. If people need Mary McAleese to hold their hands and tell them what's going on, then chances are they wouldn't have the intelligence to understand what it is she'd be saying.

newman10

Einhard wrote: »

No. If people need Mary McAleese to hold their hands and tell them what's going on, then chances are they wouldn't have the intelligence to understand what it is she'd be saying.

She would make more sense than Cowen & Co

Dempo1

Surely you hardly expect Mary to question the actions of her main sponsor (FF), if anything perhaps it would be nice if she went to nation and resigned in shame & embarrassment for being representative of this appalling shower in FF:mad:

Awful_Bliss

In all honesty I'd forgotten about her. Great point OP. But she's keeping as quiet about it all as her FFail buddies. But out of them all shouldn't she be the one to say something? After all, 'she's representing us all'.

newman10

Dempo1 wrote: »

Surely you hardly expect Mary to question the actions of her main sponsor (FF), if anything perhaps it would be nice if she went to nation and resigned in shame & embarrassment for being representative of this appalling shower in FF:mad:

I do not consider her an FF president but she is the President of the Irish Republic and as leader of the Republic has a chance to show some moral leadership while we are drowning in all this FF crap

Awful_Bliss

newman10 wrote: »

I do not consider her an FF president but she is the President of the Irish Republic and as leader of the Republic has a chance to show some moral leadership while we are drowning in all this FF crap

I wish I could see some of her leadership.

Manach

The powers and role of the President, under the constitution, are very limited.
The last time the government and a sitting President clashed was under the term of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. This led to his resignation.
So even if the current president had a mind to make a public statement against FF, this might lead another constituational crisis.

Einhard

newman10 wrote: »

She would make more sense than Cowen & Co

But why do you need her to tell you what's happening? It's easy to buy a few papers, even cheaper to read them online. People should form their own opinions on things, not relying to people on high telling them what they ought to think.

Zynks

Edit: Forget it, stupid comment
We might be more likely to get some leadership from QE thank from MMcA. Hope I am wrong though.

Einhard

newman10 wrote: »

I do not consider her an FF president but she is the President of the Irish Republic and as leader of the Republic has a chance to show some moral leadership while we are drowning in all this FF crap

What do you mean by moral leadership? What exactly would you expect her to say? And actually she has a responsibility to remain apolitical.

Dempo1

newman10 wrote: »

I do not consider her an FF president but she is the President of the Irish Republic and as leader of the Republic has a chance to show some moral leadership while we are drowning in all this FF crap

She does not represent me and she certainly is a FF president. Mary Robinson would have had more back bone. Unfortunately our constitution does not permit presidents get involved in Politics, shame really and this is why i hope a maverick is elected next time.

locomo

Dempo1 wrote: »

Surely you hardly expect Mary to question the actions of her main sponsor (FF), if anything perhaps it would be nice if she went to nation and resigned in shame & embarrassment for being representative of this appalling shower in FF:mad:

Given her office is costing millions per year ( her salary, pension, expenses, hangers-on, perks etc ) , if she had any morality she would resign or at least volunteer to have a 70% paycut. We are a small country, the same population as that of a greater Manchester, and cannot afford overpaid underworked primadonnas like her.

Dyr

Dempo1 wrote: »

Mary Robinson would have had more back bone.

Only because she's taller though

newman10

Einhard wrote: »

But why do you need her to tell you what's happening? It's easy to buy a few papers, even cheaper to read them online. People should form their own opinions on things, not relying to people on high telling them what they ought to think.

I know very well what is happening ,am an Owner/Manager of a Small Business, dont need some ar**hole from the Examiner to put a copy of the Declaration on it pages to teach me some history.

I saw what 80's did in regard to emigration, social changes etc so now I am looking for someone who can offer leadership, not the same old sh*t which I have heard over the last 30 months

newman10

Einhard wrote: »

What do you mean by moral leadership? What exactly would you expect her to say? And actually she has a responsibility to remain apolitical.

We consider our Political leaders immoral so anything would be better

I would expect her to tell us the TRUTH not what FF/Dept of Finance want us to hear.

The Country not a political party is in a mess

Dempo1

Bambi wrote: »

Only because she's taller though

LOL:D Mary might get more involved if heaven for bid the IMF arrived at Belfast City Hall.

What we need is more women as in the attached!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_YZZ3OWpGA&feature=player_embedded

Einhard

Dempo1 wrote: »

She does not represent me and she certainly is a FF president. Mary Robinson would have had more back bone. Unfortunately our constitution does not permit presidents get involved in Politics, shame really and this is why i hope a maverick is elected next time.

By a maverick, you mean someone who disregards the Constitution?

Einhard

newman10 wrote: »

We consider our Political leaders immoral so anything would be better

I would expect her to tell us the TRUTH not what FF/Dept of Finance want us to hear.

The Country not a political party is in a mess

You mean her version of the truth. I don't understand how you think that, purely by dint of her position, she has a a clearer understanding of what is happening than anybody else. She wouldn't be telling the truth; just her opinion. And IMO, that's no more valuable or insightful than yours or mine.

newman10

Einhard wrote: »

You mean her version of the truth. I don't understand how you think that, purely by dint of her position, she has a a clearer understanding of what is happening than anybody else. She wouldn't be telling the truth; just her opinion. And IMO, that's no more valuable or insightful than yours or mine.

I accept your point but lets have a STATE Of THE NATION address

Einhard

newman10 wrote: »

I accept your point but lets have a STATE Of THE NATION address

TBH, if we're to have a state of the nation address, I'd much rather it be delivered by the likes of Olli Rehn or Jean Claude Trichet than Mary McAleese or anyone from the Irish establishment.

Dempo1

Einhard wrote: »

By a maverick, you mean someone who disregards the Constitution?

Nope, just someone who would occasionally stir it up, just like Robinson Versus Haughey, someone who would occasionally refer ridiculous bills to the supreme court, someone who would creatively ask difficult questions whilst of course remaining apolitical, someone who has more charisma than a dead sheep to be frank.

cremeegg

Dempo1 wrote: »

LOL:D Mary might get more involved if heaven for bid the IMF arrived at Belfast City Hall.

What we need is more women as in the attached!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_YZZ3OWpGA&feature=player_embedded

CLASSIC!

Dempo1

cremeegg wrote: »

CLASSIC!

Yep, almost as good as Pat Rabbits mauling of a FF minister on Prime time last night.

kaiser sauze

Dempo1 wrote: »

Nope, just someone who would occasionally stir it up, just like Robinson Versus Haughey, someone who would occasionally refer ridiculous bills to the supreme court, someone who would creatively ask difficult questions whilst of course remaining apolitical, someone who has more charisma than a dead sheep to be frank.

lol

I have such a disdain for that woman.

She could address a joint session, like Robinson did, but the government would have to approve and the government would also approve the speech.

later12

kaiser sauze wrote: »

lol

I have such a disdain for that woman.

She could address a joint session, like Robinson did, but the government would have to approve and the government would also approve the speech.

That might have had more relevance in 1937, but now I see no reason why she cannot address the state through other forms of media.

I share your disrespect for that woman. Her silence has reversed the integrity of the Presidential office that Mary Robinson had established. She is little more than a mute porcelain doll, the Government's bankrupt emblem, a banner for the passivity and the resignation of the failed leadership of this country, not an advocate of the Republic or its people.

My name is URL

Has she ever spoken out against where the country was heading over the last few years.. suely she could have done that without directly clashing with FF? I don't think there's any point in having her address the nation now. It'd be nothing but empty claptrap at this stage anyway.

wilson10

newman10 wrote: »

Is it time for the President to go on National TV and give us all the information which the Government is refusing to tell. Tell us the truth Explain what is happening and maybe a little hope.

We need leadership from someone with no political axe to grind and moral leadership from the President is something I would welcome

Do you really think that she knows any more than the rest of us.

She only knows what she's told and I reckon she's on a "need to know" basis.

kaiser sauze

later10 wrote: »

That might have had more relevance in 1937, but now I see no reason why she cannot address the state through other forms of media.

I share your disrespect for that woman. Her silence has reversed the integrity of the Presidential office that Mary Robinson had established. She is little more than a mute porcelain doll, the Government's bankrupt emblem, a banner for the passivity and the resignation of the failed leadership of this country, not an advocate of the Republic or its people.

My name is URL wrote: »

Has she ever spoken out against where the country was heading over the last few years.. suely she could have done that without directly clashing with FF? I don't think there's any point in having her address the nation now. It'd be nothing but empty claptrap at this stage anyway.

Just to point out what has been said earlier: she can't do what you wish.

If she did, there would be a constitutional crisis and she would likely be asked to resign.

The president can't fart without the government approving it.

kaiser sauze

wilson10 wrote: »

Do you really think that she knows any more than the rest of us.

She only knows what she's told and I reckon she's on a "need to know" basis.

Cowen is only obligated to keep her 'generally informed'.

later12

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Just to point out what has been said earlier: she can't do what you wish.

I do not agree that the President cannot publicly express popular sentiment on this crisis, either publicly, or privately to the government, without infringement of her role as set out in the constitution. As well as her promise to abide by the constitution, she ought to equally remember the oath she took before the government, the judiciary and the people of this republic that she "will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland".

kaiser sauze

later10 wrote: »

I do not agree that the President cannot publicly express popular sentiment on this crisis, either publicly, or privately to the government, without infringement of her role as set out in the constitution. As well as her promise to abide by the constitution, she ought to equally remember the oath she took before the government, the judiciary and the people of this republic that she "will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland".

I agree that she should be. Our Presidency and our Seanad need more teeth, not to be abolished.

The fact is, and this is without checking the text of the constitution right now, that she can do literally nothing without 'prior consent of government'.

later12

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I agree that she should be. Our Presidency and our Seanad need more teeth, not to be abolished.

The fact is, and this is without checking the text of the constitution right now, that she can do literally nothing without 'prior consent of government'.

McAleese has gotten herself into hot water with her speeches in the past (comparing the plight of ulster catholics to the jews, being one).

I am not a republican, a nationalist or a patriot. But for someone who describes herself all of these things, who took an oath to stand up for the welfare of the people of this republic, I call this silence, and her fear of hot water on this occasion, entirely hypocritical.

A speech, or discourse with the media on this issue, is not unconstitutional.

KeithAFC

later10 wrote: »

McAleese has gotten herself into hot water with her speeches in the past (comparing the plight of ulster catholics to the jews, being one).

I am not a republican, a nationalist or a patriot. But for someone who describes herself all of these things, who took an oath to stand up for the welfare of the people of this republic, I call this silence, and her fear of hot water on this occasion, entirely hypocritical.

A speech, or discourse with the media on this issue, is not unconstitutional.

She is an idiot.

Krusader

Dempo1 wrote: »

She does not represent me and she certainly is a FF president. Mary Robinson would have had more back bone. Unfortunately our constitution does not permit presidents get involved in Politics, shame really and this is why i hope a maverick is elected next time.

Dustin, anyone ???

DarkJager

McAleese has always struck me as being someone who is more concerned about making appearances up the North than in the country she is supposed to be President of. She's rarely seen or heard from, and when she does talk it usually results in her foot ending up in her mouth.

cml387

Since I was wondering about this point I checked the constitution:Article 7

7. 1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.
2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.
3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

kaiser sauze

later10 wrote: »

A speech, or discourse with the media on this issue, is not unconstitutional.

OK, I need to park this and get back to you in a few hours, mmmkay?

Just a lot going on here now.

later12

cml387 wrote: »

Since I was wondering about this point I checked the constitution:Article 7

7. 1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.
2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.
3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

again, we are not talking about an oireachtas address - most people here are talking about a speech or some sort of media interview

cml387

later10 wrote: »

again, we are not talking about an oireachtas address - most people here are talking about a speech or some sort of media interview

2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.
3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

Forget it.It's not going to happen.

rubensni

later10 wrote: »

I do not agree that the President cannot publicly express popular sentiment on this crisis, either publicly, or privately to the government, without infringement of her role as set out in the constitution. As well as her promise to abide by the constitution, she ought to equally remember the oath she took before the government, the judiciary and the people of this republic that she "will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland".

What good would this expression of "popular sentiment on this crisis" by the president actually achieve? Her job is to open community centres and receive ambassadors, not to go on the TV and rant about bankers, Fianna Fail and the IMF.

Quite frankly this country has had too many outlets for expression of popular sentiment and those moanfests have driven us into this mess as much as anything else. Ignoramuses nattering on about how they wouldn't vote yes to the Lisbon treaty because they couldn't be arse|d reading up on it; whining about debt forgiveness; griping about how head shops should be closed; whinging about property taxes, stamp duty and planning regulations at the height of the property boom; their opinions put on a pedestal because they have an ill informed gripe and the price of a telephone call. Meanwhile the experts were ignored.

later12

rubensni wrote: »

Quite frankly this country has had too many outlets for expression of popular sentiment and those moanfests have driven us into this mess as much as anything else. Ignoramuses nattering on about how they wouldn't vote yes to the Lisbon treaty because they couldn't be ar5ed reading up on it; whining about debt forgiveness; griping about how head shops should be closed; whinging about property taxes

You can't lump the office of the Presidency in with Whineline.
Many people are grossly unhappy, in fact furious, about the governance of their country and the loss of its autonomy. The issue of sovereignty, considering how it was won, and the social and economic impact this is having on the citizens of this Republic, is something, I think, that requires some comment from the office holder of that person who is obliged, as per her solemn oath, to "dedicate [her] abilities to the service and welfare" of the people of this Republic. Opening health centres and receiving ambassadors may be part of the job spec, but is not part of her oath.

What this would provide is a copper fastening of the public spirit at a time when they feel totally dejected, demoralised, and unheard. The Government do not appear to listen, and I believe that some input on the president's behalf would go some way to restoring the peoples' faith in the integrity of this democracy and in this Republic.

cml387 wrote:

2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.
3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

Forget it.It's not going to happen.

This does not have to be a formal, planned or direct address. I am saying any comments on recent developments that reflect the public mood and the public frustration, however unpopular with the government, would be welcome.

Frankie Lee

She is a thundering disgrace.

cml387

later10 wrote: »

You can't lump the office of the Presidency in with Whineline.
Many people are grossly unhappy, in fact furious, about the governance of their country and the loss of its autonomy. The issue of sovereignty, considering how it was won, and the social and economic impact this is having on the citizens of this Republic, is something, I think, that requires some comment from the office holder of that person who is obliged, as per her solemn oath, to "dedicate [her] abilities to the service and welfare" of the people of this Republic. Opening health centres and receiving ambassadors may be part of the job spec, but is not part of her oath.

What this would provide is a copper fastening of the public spirit at a time when they feel totally dejected, demoralised, and unheard. The Government do not appear to listen, and I believe that some input on the president's behalf would go some way to restoring the peoples' faith in the integrity of this democracy and in this Republic.



This does not have to be a formal, planned or direct address. I am saying any comments on recent developments that reflect the public mood and the public frustration, however unpopular with the government, would be welcome.

Obviously if she says them to herself or husband or dog then that's ok.

Otherwise she can address the nation on any subject as long as it has approval of the government.

later12

cml387 wrote: »

Obviously if she says them to herself or husband or dog then that's ok.

Otherwise she can address the nation on any subject as long as it has approval of the government.

Not true, i don't know why you want to persist with this argument.

She can say what she wants while opening a shelter for downtrodden husbands of famous political heads of states, or a centre for failed Fianna fail politicians (like herself, for what it's worth) if she so wishes. The consitution simply refers to a national address, which is precluded.

People, I genuinely believe, would support some act of solidarity on her behalf, however obscure.

cml387

People, I genuinely believe, would support some act of solidarity on her behalf, however obscure.

I agree with you,and it's for this reason that I looked up the constitutional position of the president.

Unfortunately the president cannot "say whatever she wants" opening anything.Even the most innocuous remark about the current situation would be impossible for her to say due to her non-partisan position(and btw I'm no huge fan of her, I have no strong feelings either way.).

later12

cml387 wrote: »

Unfortunately the president cannot "say whatever she wants" opening anything.Even the most innocuous remark about the current situation would be impossible for her to say due to her non-partisan position(and btw I'm no huge fan of her, I have no strong feelings either way.).

I would respectfully ask you whether or not anger over the loss of our autonomy, and concern about our economic future, is a partisan issue?

cml387

later10 wrote: »

I would respectfully ask you whether or not anger over the loss of our autonomy, and concern about our economic future, is a partisan issue?

Brian Cowen,Brian Lenihan,Mary Harney to name but three senior politicians all say that there is no loss of autonomy in the involvement of the IMF in our affairs.
They are of course wrong,but if they believe it,then it is a partisan issue.

kaiser sauze

later10 wrote: »

This does not have to be a formal, planned or direct address. I am saying any comments on recent developments that reflect the public mood and the public frustration, however unpopular with the government, would be welcome.

The president cannot do informal addresses.

cml has answered your query since I was onto you last.

My name is URL

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The president cannot do informal addresses.

cml has answered your query since I was onto you last.

What would it take for her to be able to do so? I know a change in our constitution would be required, but how would that be brought about? Is there any political party which would support such a change in our constitution, and such a drastic change in the separation of powers in Ireland