How come people are blaming the President for Water Charges?

Foxhound38 · 29-12-2014 02:24PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

What if he just said he had lost his pen. Or had writers cramp from his poetry composition and was simply unable to sign it ? Then it isnt law.

Then we'd be into a full blown constitutional crisis and the Council of State would end up stepping in to sign it as the President gets impeached for failing to do the job he was elected to do.

The ONLY way he can refuse to sign a bill is if it's repugnant to the Constitution (which this isn't) - expecting him to do anything else is nonsense.

People can have their opinions on the water charges but the decision is with legislators, not the President.

Seanachai · 29-12-2014 02:24PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Blocking traffic on O'Connell bridge during rush hour (AGAIN) for some ridiculous reason best known to the protestors, actively attempting to troll ordinary joes on their way home from work or to collect the kids etc didn't help matters either.

It wouldn't affect me personally but I can understand how this would anger people. A lot of the protesters are ordinary joes also though who could not be considered radical in any sense ( I'm speaking as as a serial contrarian and an anarchist at heart ) and the fact they they are so pissed off that they came from every nook and cranny in the country speaks volumes. When I heard about certain neighbours where I'm from protesting I couldn't believe it some of them would even have been FG voters!.

I'm really stoked about what the water charges have brought to the surface though, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. People had no control or way to fight the USC or property tax which is why they're not backing down from the water charges. It will be really interesting to see how many actually pay, if it's sizeable enough then the blow to the establishment will be powerful.

suicide_circus · 29-12-2014 02:24PM

The Aras should be used to house families in which no one has ever worked.

locum-motion · 29-12-2014 02:25PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Because its all his fault. He has been behind this screwing of the little man from his palace in the park. He didnt have to sign. He could have looked out for the pp of I, and it wouldnt have become law. Presume he doesnt have to pay his own ? We pay it for him. And a mammoth pension even when he leaves the throne so that paying it will only be petty cash to him.
In line with the rest of his old labour buddies though - in favour of the water charges. Whats the point of a president if he doesnt act as a trustworthy last stand against the jack boot of the FG/Lab junta ?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

What if he just said he had lost his pen. Or had writers cramp from his poetry composition and was simply unable to sign it ? Then it isnt law.

You really don't know much about the Constitution and how government works, do you?
Perhaps you should educate yourself a little before making ill-informed comment - actually reading other posts in this thread would be a good place to start.

First Up · 29-12-2014 02:27PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Because its all his fault. He has been behind this screwing of the little man from his palace in the park. He didnt have to sign. He could have looked out for the pp of I, and it wouldnt have become law. Presume he doesnt have to pay his own ? We pay it for him. And a mammoth pension even when he leaves the throne so that paying it will only be petty cash to him.
In line with the rest of his old labour buddies though - in favour of the water charges. Whats the point of a president if he doesnt act as a trustworthy last stand against the jack boot of the FG/Lab junta ?

I assume this is a late entrant into the Most Stupid Post of the Year contest.

Kiith · 29-12-2014 02:29PM

stevedublin wrote: »

He is President for Ireland, not just President for Water Charges.

And he never will be with that attitude :pac:

Seanachai · 29-12-2014 02:32PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

But in order for him to find it repugnant it would actually have to be repugnant to the Constitution (to the extent that the Supreme Court would have to agree with him on it) - what part of it went against the Constitution?

Just because it's unpopular doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Okay, I thought it meant repugnant on a personal level. I'm not familiar with all of the legal terminology. Do you know the terms just from personal reading or from education/work?.

Seanachai · 29-12-2014 02:35PM

First Up wrote: »

I assume this is a late entrant into the Most Stupid Post of the Year contest.

Ignorant to the finer points of Irish constitutional law maybe ( As I am myself ) but not stupid. Arguing from a moral viewpoint they're pretty spot on imo. I think the jist of it is that Higgins is part of the group that are the problem.

Mr. teddywinkles · 29-12-2014 02:40PM

Think he has something like 3 pensions. Someone has to pay for it.

skooterblue2 · 29-12-2014 02:42PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

My understanding is that as long as the bill isn't repugnant to the Constitution the President has to sign it into law, no ifs or buts about it.

So why are they blaming Michael D for this?

A Blind man see the bill is morally wrong. He is a weak President who does nothing compared to his two predecessors. He has left down his people and his Nation. He is not obliged to sign anything .... he can refer it to the supreme court with no disgrace. Could have done the moral thing but he didnt. He could have been as innovative statesman as Daniel O Connell and resigned.

Not a man of the people .... not our President.

Phoebas · 29-12-2014 02:44PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Think he has something like 3 pensions. Someone has to pay for it.

He is voluntarily forgoing his Dáil and Seanad pension entitlements while he is President.

RDM_83 again · 29-12-2014 02:45PM

Seanachai wrote: »

I think if he didn't find the bill repugnant this would warrant people being pissed off with him to be honest. It wouldn't surprise me at all though, he pontificates to the high heavens about social justice often with needless word salads but like most of the government he doesn't have much in the way of backbone to back it up.

c_man wrote: »

Because Michael D ran his election on telling the people that the Presidency matters, has serious duties and he would seriously consider every bill rather than being honest and saying it doesn't matter a fuk who's in the retirement home.

i saw him on Una's Dream Ticket show having tea with one of the winners. At least we're getting some value out of him.

Both of these are good points, we can't expect Michael D not to sign it but at the same time he is getting this anger because he has commented and overstepped his boundaries in his commentary many times for a "neutral" presidency.
Michael D is a popular man particularly among the Boards.ie type because he comments on the right things.
Asylum Seekers and Gay Rights for example compared to the Left wing cause associated with the Working Class -Water Charges.
If he was as left as he portrays this should have been a feature for comment but he has been strangely quiet.
.

Edit nothing wrong with either of these two things but they are causes that resonate with the Irish Times reading population

Phoebas · 29-12-2014 02:47PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

A Blind man see the bill is morally wrong.

The Water Services bill before him wasn't the main water bill setting up Irish Water, introducing metering and billing etc.

It was mainly just the price reductions and the conservation grant. A minor piece of legislation democratically voted for by both houses.

Foxhound38 · 29-12-2014 02:57PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

A Blind man see the bill is morally wrong. He is a weak President who does nothing compared to his two predecessors. He has left down his people and his Nation. He is not obliged to sign anything .... he can refer it to the supreme court with no disgrace. Could have done the moral thing but he didnt. He could have been as innovative statesman as Daniel O Connell and resigned.

If it wasn't unconstitutional then he is obliged to sign it. What's the point of sending it to the supreme court if it isn't unconstitutional?

Not a man of the people .... not our President.

Hate to tell you this but he was elected President so he is our President.

29-12-2014 02:59PM

He released a statement yesterday saying that he had considered the law but there was no cause to refer it to anyone. Did his job imo.

anncoates · 29-12-2014 03:03PM

Because water rain free resource our grandchildren etc.

Ghost Buster · 29-12-2014 03:05PM

Reati wrote: »

The water charges weren't an overnight surprise. Ignoring something till its done then have mass protesting after its done to try get rid of it is to me a typically Irish thing.

Ummmmm, it took a long while for all the facts to come to light.

thomasj · 29-12-2014 03:08PM

The president may refuse to sign a bill if they deem it to be unconstitutional. What some people are suggesting about the water charges.

No excuse for their actions though.

diomed · 29-12-2014 03:15PM

Lowdown

Baby's into runnin' round
Hangin' with the crowd
Puttin' your business in the street
Talking out loud
Sayin' you bought her this and that
And how much you done spent
I swear she must believe it's all heaven sent
Hey boy. you better bring the chick around
To the sad sad truth
The dirty lowdown

taxes = services

foxy farmer · 29-12-2014 03:34PM

Talk to the TDs and Seanad. In the Dail vote you had 81 for 58 against and 26 who didnt give a toss. If the 26 bothered to vote no they could have swung it. Public representatives my ass.

efb · 29-12-2014 03:48PM

When you have the likes of Fidelma - raping your on Facebook- nearly screams- he should have done more...

Some people are idiots

skooterblue2 · 29-12-2014 03:53PM

anncoates wrote: »

Because water rain free resource our grandchildren etc.

Bad News.... you need written permission from Irish Water to harvest rain water. This is also the way in the United States. I told my mother that this was going to be the future.... She replied "We will see about that!". Mam usually lies down and complies with the law of the land and as a family we have always been Law abiding and supported the law of the land since 1922.

There is nothing wrong with this constitution as it is an excellent model and has been used as a template by many countries including India. Its like the rules of the road its no good unless the rules are adhered to. I dont see the citizens
having a voice and most of the public representatives are marching to Denis O Briens' drum.

Skylinehead · 29-12-2014 04:07PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Bad News.... you need written permission from Irish Water to harvest rain water.

Only if the water goes back into the public supply. Is that a bad thing?

Alun · 29-12-2014 04:15PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Bad News.... you need written permission from Irish Water to harvest rain water.

Not this again.

You do indeed need permission from them to install a full-blown rainwater harvesting system to make sure any potential cross contamination with the water supply is avoided. And quite right too.

Not only that but before IW, the county councils had the same requirement. Again, quite rightly too.

If you just want to collect some rainwater to water the plants with etc. fire away, no one is going to stop you.

Foxhound38 · 29-12-2014 04:32PM

Some of the incoherent rage directed towards our President on social media over this is mortifying. We really need to invest more in CSPE in this country, so the next generation at least don't grow up with the same abysmal level of knowledge about how our country works.

Derp derp traitor derp derp treason etc etc

Seanachai · 29-12-2014 04:46PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Some of the incoherent rage directed towards our President on social media over this is mortifying. We really need to invest more in CSPE in this country, so the next generation at least don't grow up with the same abysmal level of knowledge about how our country works.

Derp derp traitor derp derp treason etc etc

It only came in about 3-4 years after I left secondary school I think at least at the school that I attended. I agree it is useful information to know, more so to know the ways in which you're being screwed. I have no respect for Higgins, if he was as principled as he seems to suggest in his statements he would have left the Labour Party because of their abysmal behaviour during the time of this government.

Annasopra · 29-12-2014 04:47PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

What if he just said he had lost his pen. Or had writers cramp from his poetry composition and was simply unable to sign it ? Then it isnt law.

Whats unconstitutional about it?

Annasopra · 29-12-2014 04:49PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

A Blind man see the bill is morally wrong. He is a weak President who does nothing compared to his two predecessors. He has left down his people and his Nation. He is not obliged to sign anything .... he can refer it to the supreme court with no disgrace. Could have done the moral thing but he didnt. He could have been as innovative statesman as Daniel O Connell and resigned.

Not a man of the people .... not our President.

What is unconstitutional about the bill that it needed to be refered to the Supreme court?

Annasopra · 29-12-2014 04:53PM

Seanachai wrote: »

It only came in about 3-4 years after I left secondary school I think at least at the school that I attended. I agree it is useful information to know, more so to know the ways in which you're being screwed. I have no respect for Higgins, if he was as principled as he seems to suggest in his statements he would have left the Labour Party because of their abysmal behaviour during the time of this government.

He resigned from the labour party the day he was elected as President

stevedublin · 29-12-2014 04:56PM

All these people expecting free water, you'd swear it just falls out of the sky!

How come people are blaming the President for Water Charges?

Comments