The right to Vote for Uachtarán na héireann?

everdead.ie

I have been fortunate enough to be find employment in Ireland and to be able to stay relatively close to home but I remember during my Graduation I graduated with the Engineers and while my class(IT/computer Science) had all found jobs in Ireland and turned up for Graduation the Engineering role call was full of absentees who had left for Canada, Australia, England and the States.

These people, our people have been forced to emigrate at least temporarily due to the economic situation in our country without having contributed to our downfall.

I would propose that they should maintain the right to be able to cast their vote to elect our Global representative, our head of state without having to travel thousands of miles to do so.

Surely in this "Smart Economy" we can allow people to register their passports and cast their votes through an online portal.(We can do it with Revenue Online Service)

This would also give the Irish people of Northern Ireland and any member of the Diaspora a vote as well who holds an Irish passport, how would people feel about this added number of people voting and the effects on a largely ceremonial position?

N.B. I'm not in any way suggesting giving anyone a vote on local matters by the way a local area should still elect someone to represent them.

Fratton Fred

everdead.ie wrote: »

I have been fortunate enough to be find employment in Ireland and to be able to stay relatively close to home but I remember during my Graduation I graduated with the Engineers and while my class(IT/computer Science) had all found jobs in Ireland and turned up for Graduation the Engineering role call was full of absentees who had left for Canada, Australia, England and the States.

These people, our people have been forced to emigrate at least temporarily due to the economic situation in our country without having contributed to our downfall.

I would propose that they should maintain the right to be able to cast their vote to elect our Global representative, our head of state without having to travel thousands of miles to do so.

Surely in this "Smart Economy" we can allow people to register their passports and cast their votes through an online portal.(We can do it with Revenue Online Service)

This would also give the Irish people of Northern Ireland and any member of the Diaspora a vote as well who holds an Irish passport, how would people feel about this added number of people voting and the effects on a largely ceremonial position?

N.B. I'm not in any way suggesting giving anyone a vote on local matters by the way a local area should still elect someone to represent them.

So an Irish person who has lived in Canada for twenty years can have a say, but an immigrant living in Ireland for twenty years cant?

everdead.ie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So an Irish person who has lived in Canada for twenty years can have a say, but an immigrant living in Ireland for twenty years cant?

An immigrant living in Ireland for twenty years can you can become a naturalized Irish Citizen and hold duel passports my Aunt does she is from Russia but holds both an Irish and Russian passport.

Iwasfrozen

Nope, if you don't live in the country you aren't affected by the vote so you shouldn't have one. I would like to see Irish citizens in the North get a vote though.

sarumite

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, if you don't live in the country you aren't affected by the vote so you shouldn't have one. I would like to see Irish citizens in the North get a vote though.

A person living abroad would still be Irish, holding an Irish passport and therefore the President represents them as well. Anyway, denying them a vote would require a constitutional change. The OP is more discussing how a person living abroad can fulfill their constitutional right to vote, without having to travel home to do so.

Iwasfrozen

sarumite wrote: »

A person living abroad would still be Irish, holding an Irish passport and therefore the President represents them as well. Anyway, denying them a vote would require a constitutional change. The OP is more discussing how a person living abroad can fulfill their constitutional right to vote, without having to travel home to do so.

Of course it wouldn't require a referendum. No one is trying to deny them their right to vote. Only the ability to vote from abroad. That's the status que and we should stick to it.

oscarBravo

Any proposal that involves voting in a way other than marking a ballot paper and placing it in a locked box under the same conditions as apply at any polling station in Ireland gets a "hell no" from me.

johnnyskeleton

The big issues are cost and fraud protection. Realistically, if it wasn't done through embassies collecting and distributing the ballot papers it would become a shambles. That would cost huge money. Plus, would an Irish person in Perth travel to Canberra/Sydney to vote?

What about London? Should we make it easy for them, when if they really want to vote they can be home in a couple of hours on polling day at a relatively small cost.

What about Irish people in Nepal or Mozambique? If we give the big destination countries a postal vote, then how can we deprive the smaller countries?

Again, as pointed out, should we really have a president foisted on us by people who don't live here and who don't have to live with the consequences? I'd be pretty certain that Martin mcguinness would have breezed in if a million Irish Americans who had never been here bought into the SF rhetoric.

So no, having it limited to people who live in Ireland or make the effort to come here is the only way forward. A friend of mines father who is a US citizen flew back to the states to campaign and vote against George bush (unsuccessfully, as it turned out). So anyone who really cares about who gets elected president can always just fly home if they're really that bothered.

Alternatively, if the cost of fraud prevention could be borne by the people who want the postal vote, then it might be an idea. It might even be a money spinner. However, I suspect they wouldn't be interested in actually paying for the vote.

GRMA

If the French living abroad can elect a MP safely and securely I'm sure we can figure out how to fix it so emigrants can vote for a president.

I expect a lot of resistance to letting citizens in the north east of Ireland vote from the usual suspects though

GRMA

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The big issues are cost and fraud protection. Realistically, if it wasn't done through embassies collecting and distributing the ballot papers it would become a shambles. That would cost huge money. Plus, would an Irish person in Perth travel to Canberra/Sydney to vote?

What about London? Should we make it easy for them, when if they really want to vote they can be home in a couple of hours on polling day at a relatively small cost.

What about Irish people in Nepal or Mozambique? If we give the big destination countries a postal vote, then how can we deprive the smaller countries?

Again, as pointed out, should we really have a president foisted on us by people who don't live here and who don't have to live with the consequences? I'd be pretty certain that Martin mcguinness would have breezed in if a million Irish Americans who had never been here bought into the SF rhetoric.

So no, having it limited to people who live in Ireland or make the effort to come here is the only way forward. A friend of mines father who is a US citizen flew back to the states to campaign and vote against George bush (unsuccessfully, as it turned out). So anyone who really cares about who gets elected president can always just fly home if they're really that bothered.

Alternatively, if the cost of fraud prevention could be borne by the people who want the postal vote, then it might be an idea. It might even be a money spinner. However, I suspect they wouldn't be interested in actually paying for the vote.

Maybe in your rich mans world, but not everyone can afford to do that

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

If the French living abroad can elect a MP safely and securely I'm sure we can figure out how to fix it so emigrants can vote for a president.

Sure - if, indeed, they can. There tends to be a presumption among those advocating for postal and electronic voting that other countries don't have electoral fraud, but that presumption won't do anything to prevent such fraud.

The onus is on those who wish to fundamentally alter our electoral system away from the highly secure public secret ballot that we currently have to demonstrate how remote voting could be achieved without significantly increasing the risk of electoral fraud and voter intimidation. "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid.

I expect a lot of resistance to letting citizens in the north east of Ireland vote from the usual suspects though

No more so than any other non-resident citizens.

who the fug

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any proposal that involves voting in a way other than marking a ballot paper and placing it in a locked box under the same conditions as apply at any polling station in Ireland gets a "hell no" from me.

What about postal votes

Postal voters

You will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre, however, you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are:

A full-time member of the Defence Force
A member of the Garda Siochana
An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad

What I put in bold is interesting

munchkin_utd

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, if you don't live in the country you aren't affected by the vote so you shouldn't have one. I would like to see Irish citizens in the North get a vote though.

Oh, the irony of that statement on so many levels!!

a) you do realise that the north is in every aspect and meaning of the word a foreign country?
b) you do realise that (virtually) every person born in the north is an irish citizen meaning that 800,000+ folks of a unionist persuasion are also by birth Irish citizens.
c) do you realise that emmigrants like myself follow the irish media closer than many in Ireland, and have more of a clue than 95% of folks in Northern Ireland have of whats going on in the south - and I'd even include many just a few km north of the border(like my cousins in south armagh). Just cast your mind back to how clueless Gerry Adams was on southern affairs before he educated himself.
d) the president of Ireland has such little powers that he/ she barely has an effect in the 26 counties so to say it has some sort of material affect on say taxrates or the amount is paid in dole etc is just plain wrong. Emmigrants (or 6 counties residents)may not be affected by the president, but neither are folks in the 26 counties on day to day matters

oscarBravo

who the fug wrote: »

What about postal votes

Postal voters

You will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre, however, you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are:

A full-time member of the Defence Force
A member of the Garda Siochana
An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad

What I put in bold is interesting

It's not that likely that the three categories of voter you've enumerated are going to be subject to widespread voter fraud and/or intimidation.

Just because certain categories of public servant are granted an exception to the requirement to vote at a polling station isn't in itself an argument for granting every voter the same exemption.

munchkin_utd

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not that likely that the three categories of voter you've enumerated are going to be subject to widespread voter fraud and/or intimidation.

Just because certain categories of public servant are granted an exception to the requirement to vote at a polling station isn't in itself an argument for granting every voter the same exemption.

sorry, but an emmigrant working for the irish government is no more Irish than an emmigrant working for a private company so they should not have the vote abroad.

They should suck it up like the rest of us abroad
OR
do like every other country in the EU and simply allow voting rights to your citizens abroad, whether limited like the UK to a number of years, restricted like for Germans who must have a provable length of residence within the current defined borders of the homeland (to ensure a connection with the homeland and limit numbers elligable) or unrestricted like most of the rest.

GRMA

Mad that there are people who dont want Irish citizens living in Ireland to have a vote for the Irish president, its stupid that Martin McGuinness(or anyone else like him) could run for president yet not vote for himself despite being an Irish citizen living in Ireland.

People need to move on and stop the "they're nothing to do with us, dem foreigners" act, the troubles are over and as a people we are on a new path - you need to move forwards too and not say the same stuff that was said in the pages of the Indo in the eighties - get out of the timewarp

oscarBravo

munchkin_utd wrote: »

sorry, but an emmigrant working for the irish government is no more Irish than an emmigrant working for a private company so they should not have the vote abroad.

That would be a very valid point, if the reason for letting diplomats have a postal vote is "they're more Irish than any other emigrant" - but nobody has ever made that argument that I'm aware of.

They should suck it up like the rest of us abroad
OR
do like every other country in the EU and simply allow voting rights to your citizens abroad, whether limited like the UK to a number of years, restricted like for Germans who must have a provable length of residence within the current defined borders of the homeland (to ensure a connection with the homeland and limit numbers elligable) or unrestricted like most of the rest.

Your first option seems to based on little more than a dog-in-the-manger philosophy: if I can't vote abroad, then nobody else should be allowed to. It doesn't attempt to examine or counter the reasoning behind the exception; it just angrily dismisses it.

Your second option makes no attempt at a cost-benefit analysis of a widespread postal voting option. There are good reasons for a public secret ballot, and any argument for an exception needs to clearly demonstrate that the inherent risks are outweighed by the benefits to the nation as a whole.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Mad that there are people who dont want Irish citizens living in Ireland to have a vote for the Irish president...

I don't think anyone doesn't want that. It's just that my idea of "living in Ireland" involves the definition of the national territory as defined by the constitution.

People need to move on and stop the "they're nothing to do with us, dem foreigners" act, the troubles are over and as a people we are on a new path - you need to move forwards too and not say the same stuff that was said in the pages of the Indo in the eighties - get out of the timewarp

When Northern Ireland is a part of the republic, I'll be only too happy to have residents of Northern Ireland voting for the president of the republic. As it is, Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and its residents don't get to vote in our elections any more than residents of Scotland do.

GRMA

Head is still in sand I see - get real, even when the constitution had a rightful claim on the six counties you wouldnt have wanted them to vote. The north is obviously a "special case" or did you learn nothing from the past 40 odd years

As has been pointed out loads of other countries allow emigrants to vote anyway

Thankfully people like you are an extreme minority outside of independent newspapers - if it were left up to you lot we would still be trapped in a cycle of violence.

who the fug

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be a very valid point, if the reason for letting diplomats have a postal vote is "they're more Irish than any other emigrant" - but nobody has ever made that argument that I'm aware of. .

I have never made the argument because I assumed they were in the same boat as the rest of us .

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Head is still in sand I see - get real, even when the constitution had a rightful claim on the six counties you wouldnt have wanted them to vote.

It's arguable whether the claim on Northern Ireland was ever "rightful", but even pre-GFA, the constitution acknowledged that the effect of laws enacted under its auspices was limited to the territory of the Free State.

It's kinda funny that you accuse me of having my head in the sand, and demand that I "get real", when you're the one invoking a definition of "Ireland" that's at odds with reality in order to support your argument.

The north is obviously a "special case" or did you learn nothing from the past 40 odd years

Oh, it's a special case alright.

As has been pointed out loads of other countries allow emigrants to vote anyway

Loads of other countries have property taxes, but it doesn't stop us getting our knickers in a twist over their introduction.

Thankfully people like you are an extreme minority outside of independent newspapers - if it were left up to you lot we would still be trapped in a cycle of violence.

People like me in what way, exactly? Evil, twisted, sick bastards who have the temerity to disagree with your worldview?

GRMA

Your at odds with reality when you say that if I walk a few hundred meters down the road from my family home I am no longer in Ireland.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Your at odds with reality when you say that if I walk a few hundred meters down the road from my family home I am no longer in Ireland.

Yeah, the idea that you could walk from one country across a border into another one is just the most ludicrous thing imaginable. How unbelievably deluded of me.

Death and Taxes

I fail to understand why those not normally resident in the juristiction should get a vote in any election/referendum.
I have yet to hear a convincing arguement as to why they should.

johnnyskeleton

GRMA wrote: »

Maybe in your rich mans world, but not everyone can afford to do that

This faux inferiority complex is all very well, but why should people in Ireland's tax money be used to pay for people in Australia's right to vote? They can afford their flights, they presumably have jobs over there, if they care so much about the Irish president then they can cover the cost of their postal vote or else accept that they no longer live here and so it is impractical for them to get the vote.

johnnyskeleton

munchkin_utd wrote: »

sorry, but an emmigrant working for the irish government is no more Irish than an emmigrant working for a private company so they should not have the vote abroad.

They get paid in Ireland, pay Irish taxes, and are there in the service of their country rather than for work/lifestyle reasons. This is especially true of soldiers who risk their lives on peacekeeping missions etc.

Edit: can't believe I said their for there. I blame autocorrect.

everdead.ie

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I fail to understand why those not normally resident in the juristiction should get a vote in any election/referendum.
I have yet to hear a convincing arguement as to why they should.

They are citizens of our country who have mainly been forced due to economic circumstances to move abroad to work. They are still Irish and should have the ability to select their head of state.



On the subject of those government officials who are allowed vote from abroad I imagine this largely tailors for those ambassadors who are working in Irish embassy's which are considered Irish soil.

Brian Shanahan

everdead.ie wrote: »

Surely in this "Smart Economy" we can allow people to register their passports and cast their votes through an online portal.(We can do it with Revenue Online Service)

I wouldn't touch e-voting, in whatever form, with a barge pole. It way too easy to fradulently change the votes and results.

Foreign citizen voting should be done the way most countries do it, by setting up a booth at the Irish embassies and allow those who are registered with an address in that country to vote from their local embassy.

JustinDee

Nope.
I don't see one reason why anyone migrating overseas should be given a vote. I'm an Aussie citizen and I never registered to vote abroad.
Anyway, given the typical apathy of the Irish electorate, who's to say moving abroad makes them any less feeble of will to get off their arse and vote?

If somebody emigrates, they choose to do so. As with migration from rural Ireland to urban Ireland, nobody is holding a gun to a migrant's head and kicking them out or forcing them onto a coffin ship. They're not exactly moving to the third world either.
As it happens, emigrating during the grey, depressing 80s was the best thing I ever did. I lived in a number of countries, loved the experience and returned here end of 2005. Not the end of the world.

carpejugulum

Voting by mail should be available to people living abroad.
But foreign tax payers should also be allowed. The condition should be consecutive income tax payments for at least 4 years, for example.

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

When Northern Ireland is a part of the republic, I'll be only too happy to have residents of Northern Ireland voting for the president of the republic. As it is, Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and its residents don't get to vote in our elections any more than residents of Scotland do.

AFAIK members of the Defence Forces from NI have the right to vote in ROI elections.

oscarBravo

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

AFAIK members of the Defence Forces from NI have the right to vote in ROI elections.

...and?

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and?

...and therefore there already are people resident in NI that vote in ROI elections.

oscarBravo

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

...and therefore there already are people resident in NI that vote in ROI elections.

First, I thought you had to be registered in a constituency to qualify to vote, even for a postal ballot. If you have evidence to the contrary - that members of the defence forces who are not resident in Ireland are eligible to vote - I'd be interested to see it.

Second, members of the defence forces are already exceptional in that they're among the very few citizens who qualify for a postal ballot, and as such are not exactly setting a precedent.

You may be falling into the trap of assuming that I have some sort of deep-seated hatred of Northern Ireland residents and wish to disenfranchise them. On the contrary; if they don't live in Ireland, they don't get to vote here, for the same reason my sister who lives in Australia doesn't get to vote here. It's just that simple.

VinLieger

who the fug wrote: »

What about postal votes

Postal voters

You will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre, however, you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are:

A full-time member of the Defence Force
A member of the Garda Siochana
An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad

What I put in bold is interesting

Why is that interesting? They either still technically live on Irish soil in the Embassy or Residence or work regular hours there. And for the other 2 they are employed by the state for the protection of the state they again still live in Ireland but are stationed either in another part of the country too far away from their constituency or in a completely other country, neither of which is a permanent situation or a choice they made.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - if, indeed, they can. There tends to be a presumption among those advocating for postal and electronic voting that other countries don't have electoral fraud, but that presumption won't do anything to prevent such fraud.

The onus is on those who wish to fundamentally alter our electoral system away from the highly secure public secret ballot that we currently have to demonstrate how remote voting could be achieved without significantly increasing the risk of electoral fraud and voter intimidation. "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid. No more so than any other non-resident citizens.

My partner (German citizen) voted secretly by post in the last Bundestag elections. We were in Ireland visiting my family at the time. They use multiple coloured envelopes. Forget exactly how it's done but it works.

Irish politicians would die at the thoughts of not being able to buy elections with populist but economically suicidal policies.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

My partner (German citizen) voted secretly by post in the last Bundestag elections. We were in Ireland visiting my family at the time. They use multiple coloured envelopes. Forget exactly how it's done but it works.

Sure, if by "works" you mean that the vote probably got counted. Our electoral system is designed with more than that in mind, though.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, if by "works" you mean that the vote probably got counted. Our electoral system is designed with more than that in mind, though.

If you mean preventing voter intimidation don't forget that in this day and age it's easy to intimidate someone into photographing their marked ballot with a camera phone, so even the system you appear to believe fully secure is not.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

If you mean preventing voter intimidation don't forget that in this day and age it's easy to intimidate someone into photographing their marked ballot with a camera phone, so even the system you appear to believe fully secure is not.

I'm not claiming it's fully secure; I'm arguing that just because there are ways to get around the security of the ballot isn't a good reason to forget about securing the ballot altogether. If we're to accept that argument, we might as well scrap polling stations and replace them with X-Factor style text voting.

A Dub in Glasgo

I see we have the annual discussion about letting Irish emigrants vote. On the one side, you have the closed minds who advocate no change because they don't like it and on the other side you have the open minds who advocate change because they understand through experience that Irish citizens who are working abroad are pretty much denied what most other nationalities have.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I see we have the annual discussion about letting Irish emigrants vote. On the one side, you have the closed minds who advocate no change because they don't like it and on the other side you have the open minds who advocate change because they understand through experience that Irish citizens who are working abroad are pretty much denied what most other nationalities have.

...and, as in so many discussions, the dismissal of people who see things any other way than yours as "closed minds".

oppenheimer1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The big issues are cost and fraud protection. Realistically, if it wasn't done through embassies collecting and distributing the ballot papers it would become a shambles. That would cost huge money. Plus, would an Irish person in Perth travel to Canberra/Sydney to vote?

What about London? Should we make it easy for them, when if they really want to vote they can be home in a couple of hours on polling day at a relatively small cost.

What about Irish people in Nepal or Mozambique? If we give the big destination countries a postal vote, then how can we deprive the smaller countries?

Again, as pointed out, should we really have a president foisted on us by people who don't live here and who don't have to live with the consequences? I'd be pretty certain that Martin mcguinness would have breezed in if a million Irish Americans who had never been here bought into the SF rhetoric.

So no, having it limited to people who live in Ireland or make the effort to come here is the only way forward. A friend of mines father who is a US citizen flew back to the states to campaign and vote against George bush (unsuccessfully, as it turned out). So anyone who really cares about who gets elected president can always just fly home if they're really that bothered.

Alternatively, if the cost of fraud prevention could be borne by the people who want the postal vote, then it might be an idea. It might even be a money spinner. However, I suspect they wouldn't be interested in actually paying for the vote.

No, the big issue is extending the franchise to people who do not live in the country any more. While the president is mostly a figurehead, s/he does have important constitutional roles. The size of the irish vote abroad would dwarf those living here by an order of magnitude. This simply wouldn't be fair, as the presidential election is essentially a single constituency vote and this cohort would essentially choose our president. They wouldn't then have to live with the consequences, but citizens living here would.

I would be utterly opposed to giving Irish citizens abroad a postal vote. Only resident citizens should have the vote.

However I would be open to having an overseas single seat constituency in the Seanad, or a non voting TD in the Dail.

munchkin_utd

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No, the big issue is extending the franchise to people who do not live in the country any more. While the president is mostly a figurehead, s/he does have important constitutional roles. The size of the irish vote abroad would dwarf those living here by an order of magnitude. <snip>

firstly, a vote limited to "emmigrants" would MASSIVELY reduce the number eligible. This can be simply implemented as anyone who has lived in the Republic in the past 20 years has a PPS number so you are not talking of millions as is often quoted.
It also would limit it to folks that have a clue and a close personal link to the country seeing as they are 1st generation Irish, born (or brought up) in the country.
Germany limits the vote to emmigrants who can prove they have lived in the country for a period of time which tidily excludes folks in say Australia, Argentina or USA with german passports due to their granny emmigating decades ago.

secondly, what is wrong in principle anyhow with someone who has left the country but still is as uptodate in current affairs as anyone in the 26 counties voting and influencing the direction of the nation to a better, more prosperous, more pleasant country?

Do you think that the Irish emmigrants will elect a monster raving looney party which will choose to bring the country into crisis with an unsustainable economical model that leaves the place in financial ruin and in debt of 10s of billions of euros?

Oh, I forgot - thats what happened WITHOUT any emmigrants having an input. And even when things were going bad, the masters of handshakes at funerals and knocking on doors - Fianna Fail - got RE-ELECTED .

VinLieger

There is no argument beyond "they dont live here anymore" it doesnt matter if they intend to come back or still have a proclaimed vested interest them not living here means they no longer get a choice in any democratic decision made here and i dont care what other countries do, if the other countries were jumping off a cliff should we do it too? That argument is just plain ridiculous

oppenheimer1

munchkin_utd wrote: »

firstly, a vote limited to "emmigrants" would MASSIVELY reduce the number eligible. This can be simply implemented as anyone who has lived in the Republic in the past 20 years has a PPS number so you are not talking of millions as is often quoted.
It also would limit it to folks that have a clue and a close personal link to the country seeing as they are 1st generation Irish, born (or brought up) in the country.
Germany limits the vote to emmigrants who can prove they have lived in the country for a period of time which tidily excludes folks in say Australia, Argentina or USA with german passports due to their granny emmigating decades ago.

secondly, what is wrong in principle anyhow with someone who has left the country but still is as uptodate in current affairs as anyone in the 26 counties voting and influencing the direction of the nation to a better, more prosperous, more pleasant country?

Do you think that the Irish emmigrants will elect a monster raving looney party which will choose to bring the country into crisis with an unsustainable economical model that leaves the place in financial ruin and in debt of 10s of billions of euros?

Oh, I forgot - thats what happened WITHOUT any emmigrants having an input. And even when things were going bad, the masters of handshakes at funerals and knocking on doors - Fianna Fail - got RE-ELECTED .

You see they could elect someone with crazy policies, without having to live with the consequences. If you don't live here then you should have no say in how the country is run. No taxation without representation is used by people living in colonies without a vote. The corollary should also be true, no representation without taxation.

The idea that someone who has recently left the country should get the vote is utterly daft. They've gone. If anything it should be people who are moving to the country under the life of the administration being elected should have it.

A Dub in Glasgo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You see they could elect someone with crazy policies, without having to live with the consequences. If you don't live here then you should have no say in how the country is run. No taxation without representation is used by people living in colonies without a vote. The corollary should also be true, no representation without taxation.

The idea that someone who has recently left the country should get the vote is utterly daft. They've gone. If anything it should be people who are moving to the country under the life of the administration being elected should have it.

What policies does the President of Ireland have?

oppenheimer1

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What policies does the President of Ireland have?

Well a president could have a policy of referring everything to the Supreme Court. Or s/he could have a policy of talking out of turn and causing constitutional crises.

A bad president could potentially do a lot of damage to the country.

Brian Shanahan

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well a president could have a policy of referring everything to the Supreme Court.

Considering that the President can only refer laws to the Supreme court on the advice of the Council of State, and that the Supreme court can dismiss a referral that's a non-runner.

Or s/he could have a policy of talking out of turn and causing constitutional crises.

The UK seem to be surviving Prince Philip quite easily, and you couldn't possibly get someone worse than him for talking out his arse.

A bad president could potentially do a lot of damage to the country.

Only if he decided to start mowing down the crowd next time Obama visits the Aras.

murphaph

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You see they could elect someone with crazy policies, without having to live with the consequences. If you don't live here then you should have no say in how the country is run. No taxation without representation is used by people living in colonies without a vote. The corollary should also be true, no representation without taxation.

What about the long term unemployed? No income taxes from them and any indirect taxes are coming from others via their welfare payments. I hardly think we should remove their right to vote.

What about expats like me who do continue to pay income taxes in Ireland?

Why do you think expats would make such terrible choices? The Irish electorate repeatedly elected known crooks for years and in some cases continues to do so!

oppenheimer1

murphaph wrote: »

What about the long term unemployed? No income taxes from them and any indirect taxes are coming from others via their welfare payments. I hardly think we should remove their right to vote.

What about expats like me who do continue to pay income taxes in Ireland?

Why do you think expats would make such terrible choices? The Irish electorate repeatedly elected known crooks for years and in some cases continues to do so!

I don't think all expats would make a bad choice, its just they have nothing invested in the decision, so are liable to make any wacky choice. The same of course could be said for people living here, but then we have also to live with the decisions we make.

Yes the Irish electorate has elected some crooks in its time - and now has to live with the consequences. Thats my main point - expats could choose a sweet talking crook but not have to live with him or her.

The long term unemployed do pay taxes here such as household charges, vat, excise among many others. Also being resident makes them invested in the decision in a way expats are not for example by choosing a politician with policies that could potentially improve their living standards.

However any citizen who is fully tax resident in Ireland, despite being overseas (for example, a company secondment) should have the right to a postal vote. I'd even consider extending the franchise to those citizens who hold taxable assets in the state. However Joe on the buildings in Australia should have no say in how we conduct our business here.

oppenheimer1

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The UK seem to be surviving Prince Philip quite easily, and you couldn't possibly get someone worse than him for talking out his arse.

For all the talking out of his arse that Prince Philip has done, he has not caused a constitutional crises. Charles seems more outspoken though, it will be interesting to see how he handles the constraints of the office should he become King.

We have been fortunate that our Presidents have all understood the role of the president well. If a president were to directly criticise a government policy or to go off message in a formal address to the nation there would be a crises.