It doesn't matter that I think there's a lot in what he says or that someone needs to be saying what he's saying. Nor does it matter (although it's important) that he does seem a little out of his depth on some issues. I mean, how does one reform the European Central Bank; what has he got in mind?
It's the fact that he's stepping away beyond the boundaries of his constitutional role. Did the government give the okay for him to say what he said in the Financial Times issue? I seriously doubt it. Why would they let him hold forth at length with ideas that are far removed from government policy?
Michael D, if you wanted to keep up the left-wing firebrand role, you shouldn't have become President.
Irish president warns of social upheaval - FT.com