Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Age of Presidential Candidates Referendum

Options
  • 05-05-2015 2:32pm
    #1
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    No one really seems to be talking about this one, simply reducing the age down to 21 from 35 for the ability to run for president.

    Haven't an opinion myself, the better presidents IMO have been the younger ones but all have been above the age by at least 10 years.

    What is the thinking or reasoning behind this? I don't think it will make a difference either way to future presidents as I can't see someone under that age getting enough support although I would love to be proven wrong with a good candidate.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I guess if it was to be framed simply, it's a question of "presidential equality".

    I imagine the reasoning behind the restriction originally was the idea that president was a ceremonial position reserved for older statesmen and politicians who had served their time in the Dáil, but would still want to keep their toe in the political sphere, and of course have a nice comfy retirement shaking hands with world leaders.

    Much of our constitution was also lifted directly from the US constitution - seen as a model of Republicanism by DeValera. The US constitution likewise stipulates a minimum age of 35.

    As you point out, there's not really any solid logical basis behind this. You're as likely to have a good candidate under 35 as a dud candidate over 35. The constitution was drafted in an era where "isms" didn't even exist (despite Art. 40 stating that all citizens are equal), and as such is peppered with these anachronisms in relation to ageism, sexism, religious discrimination, etc.

    It's not the most important reform to be put to the country, but seeing as we have it in front of us now, we should take the opportunity to remove it. We'll likely never see a candidate under 35 in our lifetime, but if we want to consider ourselves a country of freedom and equality it just makes sense to take this stuff out of our constitution.


  • Options
    #3
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

    IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?


  • Options
    #4
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    CramCycle wrote: »
    What is the thinking or reasoning behind this?

    Well, we really need to have a referendum on abortion, which is divisive; preventing governments from agreeing to blanket indemify the banks again or other reckless legislation, which would reduce the government's power; and on reforming the Seanad, which is complicated and requires serious thought and organisation.

    So the government really grasped the nettle by picking a topic that is of little controversy or interest to many.

    They can't lose. If this referendum passes then it makes no difference to them (FG/Lab are unlikely to field an U21 candidate for president anyway) and if it loses they can say "oh well, the people have spoken and we listen to you, look how democratic we are".

    To be fair to them, they also picked another issue which is important and divisive and is discussed in other threads, but I suspect that when they decided to table that issue it also seemed like something that would pass with the minimum of fuss.

    Then once we have voted, whatever happens, the little Irish flags are distributed and we can all feel happy that we have participated in democracy.


  • Options
    #5
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

    IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?

    I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.

    I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?


  • Options
    #6
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    but I suspect that when they decided to table that issue it also seemed like something that would pass with the minimum of fuss.
    It certainly will be with the minimum of fuss but I would be surprised if it passed but that said, my opinion on the other referendum is that we may see the largest turn out of young voters for a long time so maybe it will pass because there is a larger group who can relate to it.

    Its one of those things that make s no difference to me.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?

    Not really giving them a slap if they aren't campaigning for it, I am voting yes as I don't see the point in the restriction but it never would have bothered me if no one had brought it up.

    I do agree with your last statement, at least to me, there are far more important referendums of which there is far more interest than this one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?
    I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

    Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

    I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

    However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.


  • Options
    #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    seamus wrote: »
    I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

    Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

    I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

    However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.

    One of those posts I wish I could thank twice.


  • Options
    #9
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Not really giving them a slap if they aren't campaigning for it, I am voting yes as I don't see the point in the restriction but it never would have bothered me if no one had brought it up.

    If they campaign and it doesnt pass they will seem unpopular and out of touch. If they dont campaign they will seem incompetent unpopular and out of touch.

    Im afraid theres no room to bury your head in the sand when it comes to a referendum - no one wants a rudderless ship.

    Could FG/Lab be on course to lose more referenda than any other government or the most in any 5 year dail sitting? FF/PDs lost two on arbortion and europe. FG/Lab lost one on the seanad and oireachtas inquiries. i cant help but feel they are makig a bit of a mess of it.

    The absence of any campaigning is really shambolic!


  • Options
    #10
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    If they campaign and it doesnt pass they will seem unpopular and out of touch. If they dont campaign they will seem incompetent unpopular and out of touch.
    From my general conversations (not a poll) a reasonable number of people are unaware that the age referendum is even on. At this point I would not be surprised if they forgot to count the votes on it.
    Im afraid theres no room to bury your head in the sand when it comes to a referendum - no one wants a rudderless ship.
    Maybe, no matter what happens, someone will grab it. If it passes, FG/Lab, we won on this (but you didn't do anything), if they lose, any other party will grab it and ask why they had it there in the first place, clearly out of touch etc. etc.
    The absence of any campaigning is really shambolic!
    +1 I am not expecting the level for the other referendum but it is still a change to the constitution, I would have thought even a bit of lip service.


  • Options
    #11
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,344 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    seamus wrote: »
    I always hate this line of thinking when it comes to referendums. "I think there are more important things to deal with, so I'm going to reject this one, which may never come up again in my lifetime".

    Ultimately if you're not interested in an amendment, then abstain. Otherwise vote for or against the amendment on its merits, and not based on the government who proposed it or its importance in your own personal pecking order.

    I agree entirely that this one got tabled just so that they could say they proposed another amendment and they don't have to even bother campaigning or discussing it, it's so unimportant to the majority.

    However, it's here right now in front of us, and I believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not give it appropriate attention. Instead we should accept or reject it based on its own merit.

    Here's what I actually said in relation to why I'm voting no:
    johnnyskeleton wrote:
    I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.

    I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.

    But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic? I mean, these things cost money and while two referenda being held at once saves money and there is little campaigning on this one, there is still some money being spent on it and that is a waste of resources. It is also a waste that they couldn't have used the opportunity to vote on something meaningful.

    To extend your logic, the government could avoid any difficult issue like Irish Water, Abortion etc in a panel discussion by saying "we're here to discuss the Fermoy bypass and we can't talk about any of those other issues".

    FG have rightly been criticised for bringing up soft referendum issues when in government to make us all feel warm and cozy in the knowledge that they care so much about social change that they will allow us to vote every other year on popular issues while avoiding the bigger, more difficult ones. I don't agree with their policy of doing so.

    I also disagree that the suggestion that there is a pecking order is irrelevant. This referendum arises from the constitutional convention, which was a big politicial issue in the last election for Labour. They made decisions on about 10 different things and the minimum age for the president was one of those issues. The government got to choose which of those issues to put to referendum and they chose, in my view, the least important.


  • Options
    #13
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.
    The current policy is ageist. The proposed amendment will mostly fix this.
    But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic?
    Voting against the proposal isn't voicing anything at all except the view that you don't want anyone under 35 to be president.

    Sending a message is a useful thing to do, once (a) you're confident that the message will be received and understood by the intended recipient, and (b) there are no side effects of doing so.

    As far as (a) goes, if you're unhappy that more important things aren't being put to referendum, write to your TDs. As for (b), voting against the proposal will continue to exclude a significant portion of the population from eligibility for election to an important public office. If that's what you want, fine: but it seems that you've decided that it's merely an acceptable price to pay in order to send a message that will be neither received nor understood, which is a position I can't agree with.


  • Options
    #14
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Here's what I actually said in relation to why I'm voting no:
    My apologies, I did actually take your statement as a springboard to rant a little, knowing full well that you were musing rather than stating your reason for voting no.
    I can expand on this if you wish, but you haven't actually suggested any reasons to vote yes.
    Well because it's an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic, codified in the primary document of our state. 35 is an arbitrary age to choose as a cut-off without any justification.

    One could argue that 18, too is arbitrary, but there is at least some level of justification in that a line must be drawn somewhere between childhood and adulthood.

    As the constitution endeavours (though fails, continually) to consider all citizens "be held equal before the law", it seems somewhat contradictory to then decide that persons under 35 are not fit to run for President, without any reasoning.
    But on your point more generally, surely we are entitled to voice our dissatisfaction that a referendum is being held on an irrelevant topic? I mean, these things cost money and while two referenda being held at once saves money and there is little campaigning on this one, there is still some money being spent on it and that is a waste of resources. It is also a waste that they couldn't have used the opportunity to vote on something meaningful.
    Yep, there are plenty of fora to do that. Letters to the Editor, local & general elections. Rejecting an amendment because you disagree with the government is somewhat cutting your nose off to spite your face. Even if one honestly rejects the amendment because you don't approve of it, you've at least exercised your right to decide on the future of the constitution.
    Rejecting it in protest is devaluing your own right in an attempt to annoy someone unaffected by it.
    To extend your logic, the government could avoid any difficult issue like Irish Water, Abortion etc in a panel discussion by saying "we're here to discuss the Fermoy bypass and we can't talk about any of those other issues".
    It happens all the time, especially in the Dail. It has to, otherwise you'd never get anything done.
    FG have rightly been criticised for bringing up soft referendum issues when in government to make us all feel warm and cozy in the knowledge that they care so much about social change that they will allow us to vote every other year on popular issues while avoiding the bigger, more difficult ones. I don't agree with their policy of doing so.

    I also disagree that the suggestion that there is a pecking order is irrelevant. This referendum arises from the constitutional convention, which was a big politicial issue in the last election for Labour. They made decisions on about 10 different things and the minimum age for the president was one of those issues. The government got to choose which of those issues to put to referendum and they chose, in my view, the least important.
    And this is all perfectly valid and relevant. In an election, not in a referendum.


  • Options
    #15
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I'm voting no to this one because the default is to keep the constitution the same and I haven't heard any good reasons for this one to be passed beyond the purely theoretical.
    is age equality vs age discrimination theoretical?
    I think it is irrelevant and I suspect a lot of people will vote no to give the goverment a bit of a slap, which in fairness they well deserve. Why couldn't they vote to remove the reference to blasphemy law or the religious oath / preamble / special place of the catholic church provisions instead?
    good question not a reason to vote no.


  • Options
    #16
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    NIMAN wrote: »
    I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !
    could you imagine a 34 year old president?

    previous thread on this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95319114 so I don't repeat myself too much


  • Options
    #17
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Pretty much my thinking on it, I do wonder though, no political part y has voiced an opinion on it and I can see alot of people voting no on the basis that they deem people under a certain age to immature or lacking in experience.

    IS there a will by any party to see it passed or rejected?
    FG are in favour and Noonan and Kelly spoke in favour yesterday, Labour are taking no position, but referendums are different and strict enforcement of party line is not always applied.


  • Options
    #18
    mayoman3
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭mayoman3


    I definitely have an opinion on this one! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

    1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

    2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

    Don't mean to be a party pooper but it's a hell no from me!


  • Options
    #19
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    mayoman3 wrote: »
    I definitely have an opinion on this one! I can't see any convincing reason to lower the age of a potential president but I can see a couple of reasons to keep it at 35.

    1. If we end up getting a 21 year old president and they stay in office for one 7 year term, we would be potentially paying their pension for another 60/70 years!

    they can change the law at any time to limit that pension till their of retirement age, not a reason to say no to this referendum amending the constitution.

    2. I know that I personally matured a lot in my late twenties/early thirties. 35 is a decent age to be afforded the right to run for president. Even if there was an outstanding 28 year old who would fit the position, I'm sure that person and the country as a whole could wait a further term to see them elected!

    do you think the country should be prevented from electing TDs (potential cabinet ministers) under 35?


  • Options
    #20
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    I know that this referendum is almost certainly going to lose by a large majority, but I'm voting yes to it. Personally, I think that the age to run for President and T.D. should be lowered to 18. This is for the simple reason that I feel one should either acquire all of their adult rights (under the Constitution or legislation) at the age of majority. You either reach the age of majority and become a fully equal adult (in terms of age), or you don't. So one should then, logically, have all of their political rights age 18.

    That's not to say that I would vote for someone who is 18 to be the President or my T.D. - it just doesn't make sense to me to have different age limits for voting and running for office!


  • Options
    #21
    Royal Legend
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭Royal Legend


    NIMAN wrote: »
    I can just imagine this country having a 21yr old President !

    I can imagine this country having a 21" tall president :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Royal Legend
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭Royal Legend


    expectationlost wrote: »
    they can change the law at any time to limit that pension till their of retirement age, not a reason to say no to this referendum amending the constitution.


    do you think the country should be prevented from electing TDs (potential cabinet ministers) under 35?


    most definitely YES, especially when the likes of this one was elected in Waterford. http://www.labour.ie/ciaraconway/

    Its fair to say she will now get a TD pension and she is not even 35 yet, but she will never be elected as a TD again in Waterford.


  • Options
    #23
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Royal Legend wrote: »
    [/B]

    most definitely YES, especially when the likes of this one was elected in Waterford. http://www.labour.ie/ciaraconway/

    Its fair to say she will now get a TD pension and she is not even 35 yet, but she will never be elected as a TD again in Waterford.

    do TDs get their pension payments immediately like presidents and ministers currently do?


  • Options
    #24
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #25
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    In many respects the state treats persons over 18 and under 25 as children.

    I appreciate that. I'd just rather that such age discrimination wasn't enshrined in the Constitution so that it could be easily done away with by legislation.


  • Options
    #26
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,433 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    I think if this referendum passed the dynastic families in the dail would be getting their son/daughter to run for President. This would give them practice before they become councillors/members of the seanad and then the rail itself! :)

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #27
    SF12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭SF12


    I'm voting no on this one. As someone else said, it' a maturity thing - most people are not the same person in their early 20s as they are in their 30s.

    The other reason is related to that - the president is "ornamental" but they do sign things into law. I'd be a bit concerned that you might have someone in their early 20s as president, being asked to sign something controversial into law that they are all fired up against due to family opinion/lack of understanding/general lack of world (or life) experience, and they would refuse to do it, to the detriment of the country.

    I understand that not every piece of legislation keeps everyone happy, but sometimes things require seeing the bigger picture, and I'm not convinced that you have that ability in your early 20s. On top of that, yes, there is the pension and all that other stuff.

    As for the other part to the referendum - I am utterly fed up listening to it/hearing about it, can we just get it over with.....


  • Options
    #28
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    SF12 wrote: »
    I'm voting no on this one. As someone else said, it' a maturity thing - most people are not the same person in their early 20s as they are in their 30s.
    At what point though, I know several people over the age of 35 who would not be capable in terms of maturity of being president, there are many under 35 who could potentially be.
    The other reason is related to that - the president is "ornamental" but they do sign things into law. I'd be a bit concerned that you might have someone in their early 20s as president, being asked to sign something controversial into law that they are all fired up against due to family opinion/lack of understanding/general lack of world (or life) experience, and they would refuse to do it, to the detriment of the country.
    This is a bit vague to me, my understanding is that they are required to sign it into law or get a supreme court decision on its constitutionality and then go on that or else risk being impeached (or whatever it is we do when the president is not fit for purpose). Referring an act to the supreme court is thought of as foolish if the president does not agree with it as if the court find it is within the rules of the constitution it then becomes protected from challenge in the future (some may be able to clarify my understanding) or wise if they know it will pass but they don't want it to be challenged relentlessly by opposition.
    I understand that not every piece of legislation keeps everyone happy, but sometimes things require seeing the bigger picture, and I'm not convinced that you have that ability in your early 20s. On top of that, yes, there is the pension and all that other stuff.
    Some do, some don't , surely that would be a choice for the electorate to decide. Certainly the people have no one else to blame if the person elected is to immature. There were candidates the last time who were in with a chance that I felt were not mature enough.


  • Options
    #29
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    seamus wrote: »
    Well because it's an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic, codified in the primary document of our state. 35 is an arbitrary age to choose as a cut-off without any justification.

    One could argue that 18, too is arbitrary, but there is at least some level of justification in that a line must be drawn somewhere between childhood and adulthood.

    Is it an ageist policy devoid of reason or logic? The role of the President is to be the head of state exercising important political functions but without significant input into the political process or representative democracy. There are limits such as the way in which presidential candidates must be nominated which arguably are more restrictive than the age. But again it is the nature of the role of president that it be somewhat restricted.

    As regards age, people will not be below 34* forever and that is an important point. If it excluded certain races or genders that would be a serious problem but it doesn't. Moreover, age discrimination is wrong where it is disproportionate. But there is a long line of polticial thought going back to Plato's republic that the elder persons in the State should rule.

    Don't forget as well that while you have to be in your 35th year to run for president, you can vote for president from the age of 18.

    I am not aware that there have been any candidates under the age of 34 that are interested in running for president. Moreover, it is a role more suitable to the end of a political career when you've already made your bones as a long standing TD, human rights lawyer or have some other noteworthy life experience to bring to the table.

    In terms of the real seat of power, Dail Eireann, people can run for that at the age of 21. Arguably, just arguably, it might be more important to change that age to 18 rather than the presidential age being reduced from 35 to 21, but again there are reasonable limits to these things.

    Ultimately, if there was a viable young presidential hopeful who cant qualify to run for president I would consider it seriously. But instead we are looking at the issue based on hypotheticals. As you say, why 21? Why not 18? Why not 5? 18 is the age of majority for most things, but there is nothing wrong with having different milestones for different aspects of life.

    Anyone under 34 is probably too young in my opinion to run for president. Although you may think it is devoid of logic I think we ought to respect the constitution even if we don't agree with it and be cautious about changing it. I haven't seen any substantial reason for the change.
    As the constitution endeavours (though fails, continually) to consider all citizens "be held equal before the law", it seems somewhat contradictory to then decide that persons under 35 are not fit to run for President, without any reasoning.

    Again, the reason is because it is a role for someone who is mature. In the same way that people argue that reducing the age shows respect for our young people by saying that they can be president now if they wish, I think by keeping the age high shows that the role of president is a serious role for serious people and yes, at the risk of being glib about it, it is not for Jedwards and Donal Skehans. I don't think that people under 34 consider themselves to be second class citizens or anything of the kind because of this restriction.

    On the equality issue, this seems to me like a kind of equality gone mad argument. We must ensure that we don't even give the perception of inequality at all costs, and that means making the role of President slightly more accessable to young people (because in reality I still don't see any mid-20s Presidents being nominated or elected).
    Rejecting an amendment because you disagree with the government is somewhat cutting your nose off to spite your face. Even if one honestly rejects the amendment because you don't approve of it, you've at least exercised your right to decide on the future of the constitution.
    Rejecting it in protest is devaluing your own right in an attempt to annoy someone unaffected by it.

    No and again you are missing the point. I am not saying that I disagree with the government in general. I disagree with the manner in which they are running this referendum.

    There will have been 39 referenda on amending the constitution in the 77 year history of the State. 8 of those took place during the tenure of the current government's 4 years in power. Of the rest, 10 were mandated as part of the State's ratification of international treaties. 5 were on abortion. Have we seen dramatic root and branch Constitutional reform during this period? Has this zeal for amendment dealt with the most necessary and important changes or the difficult issues of the day? Or, have they been 8 relatively soft issues which were poorly debated and, where lost, disowned by the Government parties.

    So it is not the government that I am criticial of. It's the manner in which they have held a disproportionately high number of referenda but, save the Marriage Equality referendum, they have all been on the less important issues. If their mandate for having so many referenda is the constitutional convention, then I would've thought that some of the other topics might have made for a better referendum than this.

    Then we have the way in which they are sitting back a bit and not getting involved. Labour have refused to take a position on it. They voted the Act through the Oireachtas but when it comes to the popular vote they act as if they don't know where it came from.

    *[/nerd]


  • Options
    #30
    mister gullible
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭mister gullible


    Allow 21 year old candidates and a phone in vote I say.. and don't forget Dustin is 24 now.. he's nearly too old.
    About time the government got a grip and tackled some of the real issues like presidential age.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »


    Again, the reason is because it is a role for someone who is mature. In the same way that people argue that reducing the age shows respect for our young people by saying that they can be president now if they wish, I think by keeping the age high shows that the role of president is a serious role for serious people and yes, at the risk of being glib about it, it is not for Jedwards and Donal Skehans.


    Jedwards are popstars and Donal Skehans is a tv presenter I dont know what they have to do with this topic.
    There will have been 39 referenda on amending the constitution in the 77 year history of the State. 8 of those took place during the tenure of the current government's 4 years in power. Of the rest, 10 were mandated as part of the State's ratification of international treaties. 5 were on abortion. Have we seen dramatic root and branch Constitutional reform during this period? Has this zeal for amendment dealt with the most necessary and important changes or the difficult issues of the day? Or, have they been 8 relatively soft issues which were poorly debated and, where lost, disowned by the Government parties.

    So it is not the government that I am criticial of. It's the manner in which they have held a disproportionately high number of referenda but, save the Marriage Equality referendum, they have all been on the less important issues. If their mandate for having so many referenda is the constitutional convention, then I would've thought that some of the other topics might have made for a better referendum than this.

    court of appeal wasn't important? childrens referendum wasn't important? fiscal treaty wasn't imporantant?

    some sort constitutional convention and multiple referedums were in the 4 major party manifestos and in the programme for government,


Advertisement