nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How come people are blaming the President for Water Charges?

Foxhound38

Was rambling out in Pheonix Park yesterday and saw a wee protest outside the gates of the Aras from the anti-water charges crowd, and then came home to find a raft of abuse directed towards him on social media for signing the water charges bill into law.

Now, this isn't necessarily a thread on the water charges, but like it or hate it - 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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

efb

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Ran for president

Foxhound38

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.

... but he did leave the Labour Party when he was elected President. It's right there in his acceptance speech

Foxhound38

stevedublin wrote: »

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

What comes out of your tap isn't what falls out of the sky. Quite a lot of stuff to be done to it first to make it safe to drink - and all that costs money.

skooterblue2

Seanachai wrote: »

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.

Is he still a member? I thought when you assumed the office you thanked the organisation for the support given to get you there and you had to give up old affiliations. Yes this car crash government has been one farce after another.

Annasopra

efb wrote: »

Ran for president

No. The day he was elected.

Annasopra

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Is he still a member? I thought when you assumed the office you thanked the organisation for the support given to get you there and you had to give up old affiliations. Yes this car crash government has been one farce after another.

As far as I know a President isnt obliged to leave but he did.

skooterblue2

Foxhound38 wrote: »

What comes out of your tap isn't what falls out of the sky. Quite a lot of stuff to be done to it first to make it safe to drink - and all that costs money.

yes it does cost a lot of money but was supposed to be covered 4 times already in the history of the state through Corporation/county council charges, VAT, Road Tax and more recently the Universal Social Charge. Now we are being asked to stump again without a plan for improvement. This is a Tax to pay out the Anglo Irish Bond holders and when that is done this lucrative company will be privatized if it hasn't be done so already. hint Veoila

conorh91

If people are so concerned over the constitutionality of water charges and feel their interests have been personally affected, the central office of the High Court re-opens on Friday.

But nobody has those concerns.

This is a slow-news story about a few lefty lunatics and perpetually-outraged people on social media, taking personal offences at the audicity of anyone who dares criticise the Faerie King.

There are more people criticising the protest than there were at the protest.

The Journal must be delighted they finally have something to write about, that for once isn't about Kim Kardashian's arse or their brainless notions on Gaza.

Idiots all over the place.

Grayson

conorh91 wrote: »

The Journal must be delighted they finally have something to write copy/paste about, that for once isn't about Kim Kardashian's arse or their brainless notions on Gaza. Idiots all over the place.

FYP.

c_man

Imagine just as he was about to sign it, that instead he took out a lighter and set it up in flames. Constitutional crisis or legend?

Annasopra

c_man wrote: »

Imagine just as he was about to sign it, that instead he took out a lighter and set it up in flames. Constitutional crisis or legend?

Crisis and then it would be signed by someone else in his place

skooterblue2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Crisis and then it would be signed by someone else in his place

But his conscience would have been intact ... This Bill give control to the Auditor General ... meaning it will be a tax and will have to be collected like a tax rather than a bill.

Mass Non Payment will be the only way the public can show democracy

skooterblue2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As far as I know a President isnt obliged to leave but he did.

Both President McAleese and Robinson did.

Annasopra

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But his conscience would have been intact ... This Bill give control to the Auditor General ... meaning it will be a tax and will have to be collected like a tax rather than a bill.

Mass Non Payment will be the only way the public can show democracy

The Bill went through. The hysterical nonsense that its all MDHs fault is laughable.

arcticmonkeys

Phoebas wrote: »

Because they're angry.
And being angry is an excuse these days for just about any kind of bad behaviour / idiocy.

In the words of the formidable Mayor Quimby "are these morons getting dumber or just louder."

skooterblue2

c_man wrote: »

Imagine just as he was about to sign it, that instead he took out a lighter and set it up in flames. Constitutional crisis or legend?

It would have put him on Par with Robert Emmet or Silken Thomas in historical terms. He resisted mass enslavement and the plundering of our greatest and essential natural resource.

AlekSmart

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

Good piece by Eilis O'Hanlon on this very topic ....

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/eilis-ohanlon-lunatics-have-taken-over-the-social-media-asylum-30865432.html

Eoghan Harris recently wrote a prescient piece on groupthink, in which he described the process whereby mobs begin to think and act as one person, and outsiders are demonised and hounded.

The level of incoherence appears to be referenced to the level of intelligence,rather than the level of actual rage.

Once I see a National Flag written upon and draped around some lad's ample shoulders,I also tend to downgrade my recepetiveness to their line of arguement....;)

If the current level of apoplectic responses and delusional belief's in medieval practices continues then the entire country risks being sectioned !

skooterblue2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Bill went through. The hysterical nonsense that its all MDHs fault is laughable.

I never said the whole thing was his fault but he could have taken a moral position on it. At this stage if Howard the Duck ran for president against a government candidate the Duck would probably win.

conorh91

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Both President McAleese and Robinson did.

They didn't have to.

The belief that the President must be apolitical is a meme that seems to have gotten out of hand. It isn't true. There is no legal impediment to the President being a member of a political party -- he can even continue lead a political party, if the party wishes him to do so, so long as it does not interfere with his duties as President.

We know this because in 1993 Mary Robinson was invited to chair an international commission advising the United Nations on how to implement reforms. The Irish Government opposed it on grounds that it was unconstitutional for the President to take up another role while President. Mary Robinson sought legal advice and so did the Government. The legal advice was that the President can take on such roles, so long as she is not prevented from doing her Presidential duties. The Government then barred Robinson's appointment for another reason that is irrelevant here.

AlekSmart

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Bill went through. The hysterical nonsense that its all MDHs fault is laughable.

Ah here now......:eek:

skooterblue2
It would have put him on Par with Robert Emmet or Silken Thomas in historical terms. He resisted mass enslavement and the plundering of our greatest and essential natural resource.

I actually ponered upon this very element of thought today,as I sat immobile on the approaches to Dublin's, Dundrum "Town" Centre watching the enslaved masses,sitting in their greatest natural resources,(Their Cars) queuing to enter the car parks in order to purchase some more natural resources such as Coffee Makers,Iphone 6's,48"surround-sound wristwatches,hydraulic selfie-sticks or any of a hundred other "essentials" to modern Irish living....

Can't Pay,Won't Pay......all well and good,except that those darn exchequer returns tend to show rather clearly just what we ARE capable of paying for...often without the slightest peep....;)

Hysterical nonsense is right Ted :eek: !

BoJack Horseman

skooterblue2 wrote: »

but he could have taken a moral position on it.

No he couldn't.

Its not within the scope of his role to reject valid bills based on what you personally feel is moral or otherwise.

skooterblue2

conorh91 wrote: »

They didn't have to.

The belief that the President must be apolitical is a meme that seems to have gotten out of hand. It isn't true. There is no legal impediment to the President being a member of a political party -- he can even continue lead a political party, if the party wishes him to do so, so long as it does not interfere with his duties as President.

We know this because in 1993 Mary Robinson was invited to chair an international commission advising the United Nations on how to implement reforms. The Irish Government opposed it on grounds that it was unconstitutional for the President to take up another role while President. Mary Robinson sought legal advice and so did the Government. The legal advice was that the President can take on such roles, so long as she is not prevented from doing her Presidential duties. The Government then barred Robinson's appointment for another reason that is irrelevant here.

the role in the UN isnt the same as being affiliate to an organisation like : a hard line lobby group , a political party or some organisation with a clear political or social agenda.

skooterblue2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No he couldn't.

Its not within the scope of his role to reject valid bills based on what you personally feel is moral or otherwise.

Yes he could.
"I am not signing that turd, find someone else to do it".

"I feel incapable of fulfilling my duties as President and I wish to resign and I have tendered my resignation to the Taoiseach. "

Simple as .... Tell me how you could stop a man doing that?

skooterblue2

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ah here now......:eek:

I actually ponered upon this very element of thought today,as I sat immobile on the approaches to Dublin's, Dundrum "Town" Centre watching the enslaved masses,sitting in their greatest natural resources,(Their Cars) queuing to enter the car parks in order to purchase some more natural resources such as Coffee Makers,Iphone 6's,48"surround-sound wristwatches,hydraulic selfie-sticks or any of a hundred other "essentials" to modern Irish living....

Can't Pay,Won't Pay......all well and good,except that those darn exchequer returns tend to show rather clearly just what we ARE capable of paying for...often without the slightest peep....;)

Not from my perspective and many others .... the recession maybe over in Dublin but many other areas arent feeling the defrosting.

BoJack Horseman

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Simple as .... Tell me how you could stop a man doing that?

Then the next president signs the bill.

(Once the bill is deemed moral by you of course!)

IsaacWunder

Blaming Higgins for the water charges is like blaming the AA man for the fact your car ran out of petrol.

conorh91

skooterblue2 wrote: »

the role in the UN isnt the same as being affiliate to an organisation like : a hard line lobby group , a political party or some organisation with a clear political or social agenda.

There is no constitutional or legal impediment on the President being affiliated with a hardline lobby group, a political party or anyone with an "agenda" either.

Where did you get the idea that there was?

SaveOurLyric

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Blaming Higgins for the water charges is like blaming the AA man for the fact your car ran out of petrol.

Say whuuud ?

More like the AA man turning up after you have run out of petrol, he takes out a can of petrol, pours it into his own car, and drives off.

AlekSmart

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Not from my perspective and many others .... the recession maybe over in Dublin but many other areas arent feeling the defrosting.

You may need to get out a bit more...?

SaveOurLyric

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Lol, your not happy with this and you are pro water charges?

Yeh. He should have defended the government from having being bullied into slashing the water charge system from a perfectly good one as initially proposed, into the watered down nonesense that is this bill.
Dont sign it, send it back to them, and tell them to act like a government and implement the policies they know are correct. Not to jump and legislate according to the will of the ignorant mob.
And thus act as a President himself : lead the people, and do the right thing.