General Irish politics discussion thread

Sam Russell

I think Michael D was talking on policy formation and expressing a strong personal view.

The joining NATO or positive neutrality is the question. It is not current Gov policy to change current policy. The Gov are merely trying to get opinions.

Well now they have Michael D.'s opinion, whether they like it or not.

Good loser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732099#Comment_120732099

Yes the usual, specious rubbish. Daft as ever.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120730021#Comment_120730021

Nevertheless, this is not the President's business. Constitutionally, the executive power of the state in relation to foreign affairs is to be exercised by or on the authority of the Government (Bunreacht, Art 29). The President has no role, except as authorised by the Government. While it isn't unlawful for the President to express his personal opinion about this, it's inappropriate.

(I say this as someone who might be in agreement with what he actually said. He shouldn't have said it.)

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732593#Comment_120732593

I disagree. He/she is the only arbiter of what is appropriate. You might as well officially muzzle the holder of the office if anyone else was the arbiter.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732898#Comment_120732898

I disagree with your disagreement. The Constitution determines the respective roles of the President and the Government; neither of them is free to "arbitrate" a different role for themselves.

Back at the time, Charlies Haughey (then Taoiseach) was wrong to try to speak to Patrick Hillery (then President) to tell him how to exercise his powers with respect to the grant of a dissolution when Haughey's government lost a vote of confidence. And O'Higgins is now wrong to talk about how the Government's foreign affairs power should be exercised.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732956#Comment_120732956

The proof of your opinion would be a reprimand for the President.

There won't be one because there is no rule on what he can say.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732976#Comment_120732976

There's also no rule that stops him from stripping naked and urinating on the symbols of his office. The question here is not "is it legally prohibited for him to do this?" but "is it proper for him to do this?"

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733057#Comment_120733057

Yes, but who is the arbiter of that Peregrinus. My view is 'nobody', but the office holder.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733069#Comment_120733069

That's just the equivalent of saying there is nothing improper he can ever do. A line of thinking that doesn't tend to extend to, for example, the Taoiseach.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733106#Comment_120733106

Giving his/her opinion on an issue is not improper. That is why there will be and has not been any sanction.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733136#Comment_120733136

It's improper for him to speak publicly about matters which, constitutionally, are the province of the Government, unless the government has authorised him to. Generally, the expectation is that in discussing matters within the province of the Government the President will avoid controversy, and will avoid criticising the government. It's partly for this reason that the President's formal speeches are submitted in advance to the Dept of the Taoiseach or (if they are to be delivered abroad, or to a foreign audience) to the Dept of Foreign Affairs.

(The recent remarks about neutrality were mad in an interview, not in a speech.)

blanch152

Higgins overstepped the mark. Like many others on the left, he continues to hold a diminished candle for Russia.

Done his credibility a lot of harm.

rock22

The Tanaiste, presumably as minister for Foreign Affairs, convened this forum to "start a discussion on Ireland’s foreign and security policy" and has invited everyone to become involved.

@Peregrinus wrote "And O'Higgins is now wrong to talk about how the Government's foreign affairs power should be exercised.

 While it isn't unlawful for the President to express his personal opinion about this, it's inappropriate.

The question here is not "is it legally prohibited for him to do this?" but "is it proper for him to do this?"

Inviting new NATO members while at the same time not inviting those other European countries who remain neutral, can only be seen as as deliberate decision and one that will influence the general direction of discussion.

I would reject the idea that this is the President talking 'about how the governments foreign affairs should be exercised' . But rather about our recognised position as non-aligned and the possibility of us abandoning that position. Not only can the President speak on Irelands place in the world but surely he is mandated to do so, as head of state

If it is not illegal, then why do you think it is inappropriate? For all we know, the view of Varadkar's government is fully aligned with the President's view. And even if not, surely the view of the President should be part of that open discussion.

The Government of Leo Varadkar has decided to initiate this 'open discussion', surely you are not suggesting that the Government should silence the president because he might have aa different view?

As an aside, the role of the President has been expanded, gradually, since Mary Robinson took office, with each incumbent moving away from the original more ceremonial role. But I think we are very far away from any attempt by the President to assume an executive role. In this case, he is exercising his prerogative to speak openly on a matter on which the government itself has invited opinions.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733262#Comment_120733262

If it was improper he could be censured. He won't be because it simply isn't.

Undoubtedly, then, there are significant restrictions on what the President can do. At the same time, and contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution places very few restrictions on what the President might say. It is a common feature of the Irish political scene for Presidents to be criticised for allegedly stepping outside their constitutional domain almost every time they express an opinion that touches on some aspect of economic or social policy. However, the only formal restrictions are in Article 13.7; namely, where the President makes a formal address to either the Oireachtas or the Nation on a matter of national importance, the address must first be approved by the Government.

Just what can the President of Ireland actually say and do? (rte.ie)

Peregrinus

No, Ireland's place in the world is very much within the province of the Government, not the President. Bunreacht is explicit about this. A President is mandated by the people to do the President's job, not to second-guess the Government's job.

One of the inbuilt dangers in the Irish constitution, at least in theory, is that we have a directly elected national official - the only one, in fact - who has very limited powers and functions. A fear was expressed at the time the Constitution was being framed and debated that a directly-elected President might claim that he had a superior to that of the indirectly-elected Taoiseach, and seek at some time of crisis or conflict to seize power whose exercise would, of course, not be subject to review or control by the Oireachtas, because the President isn't answerable to the Oireachtas.

In other words, people were concerned that the office of the Presidency might lend itself to a populist authoritarian seizure of power. In Europe in the 1930s, that wasn't a fringe concern, by any means.

As we know, Dev stuck to his guns on this. Because the Presidency was to replace the crown in the Irish constitution, the President needed political and democratic legitimacy and, if sovereignty resided in the people, then the people could best confer this. So he insisted on a popularly-elected president, relying instead on very explicit constitutional provisions to establish the narrow focus of the President's role. And those provisions have been supplemented over time by conventions and protocols designed to avoid any clash between the Government and the President over matters that are not the proper concern of the President.

So far, so good. And Michael D, whatever else you might think of him, is probably the last man to attempt to establish a populist authoritarian dictatorship (or the last man to carry it off, should he try). But if he erodes these principles and undermines these conventions, that's capable of doing harm that will outlast his term of office. We don't have to look too far afield to find recent examples of democracy being degraded by the erosion of principles, conventions and protocols designed to protect legitimacy and the rule of law against the attacks of populists and authoritarians.

If Michael D wants to take part in a debate about Irish neutrality, he needs to not accept the office of President.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733381#Comment_120733381

If Higgins has such a problem with the Convention, the only honorable course available to him is to resign and seek to take part.

Of course, that would mean giving up the trappings of office, the salary, the car, the big house, and fading into obscurity. No chance of him doing that.

Sam Russell

The problem for the Gov is that Michael D is significantly more popular than the whole of Gov combined, including much of the opposition.

They will just ignore his revealing of his well known views and hope not too many people notice.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733360#Comment_120733360

What kind of censure or sanctions are you expecting? It is obviously not impeachable. His comments have been clearly, if somewhat obliquely, rebuked by the Tanaiste.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733492#Comment_120733492

Which is his prerogative. That the Tanaiste responded is not evidence that the President did something wrong.

Podge_irl

Your contention appears to be that anything short of unconstitutional actions by the president are by definition right and correct. I suspect this would be a contention that would be put under serious pressure had, for example, Peter Casey been elected.

Would it be ok for the president to canvas for a political party in a general election?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733556#Comment_120733556

Not sure how that question is relevant.

If the people had elected Peter Casey, I would have no choice but to listen to his views.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733634#Comment_120733634

Its relevant because there are things that are not unconstitutional but are quite evidently inappropriate. The discussion then is on where that line is. Your contention seems to be that it doesn't actually exist.

As to having no choice but to listen - indeed and I am not suggesting we gag President Higgins. There is such a thing as acknowledging something is breaking an important precedent and convention even if it does not cross the line to illegality.

One can express concern and believe that he shouldn't do certain things without saying he legally can't.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733660#Comment_120733660

It is no longer 'precedent', this is not the first time a President has expressed an opinion contrary to the government's.

I never said there is 'no line' by the way. A President siding with or promoting one particular party in an election would be inappropriate IMO. Expressing his/her views on an important issue isn't.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733706#Comment_120733706

You said the only one who could decide if an act is proper is the president himself! That would be functionally the same thing.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733758#Comment_120733758

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't refer to an 'act' at any time. I am talking about a President expressing a view on an issue:

Giving his/her opinion on an issue is not improper. 

rock22

@Peregrinus "If Michael D wants to take part in a debate about Irish neutrality, he needs to not accept the office of President."

But the government invited views from all citizens ( and others). The President is not attempting to take over the role of the government. He is contributing to the open discussion initiated by the government.

Is everyone entitled to state their views, including, in the same paper , the representative of the UK government, but the president is expected to remain silent?

I acknowledge the danger of populist presidents . Perhaps Higgins had that in mind when he referred to Macron and asked for whom he was speaking when he decided the EU was a pillar of NATO. But presidents have ,since Mary Robinson, exercised the right to speak freely on matter of national concern. . Article 13.8 surely allows him that freedom.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733829#Comment_120733829

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732898#Comment_120732898

He/she is the only arbiter of what is appropriate

I am not putting words in your mouth, though perhaps you did not mean to be as broad as this implies.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733891#Comment_120733891

I made that comment in the context of him/her commenting on an issue.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120733912#Comment_120733912

Fair enough. "I think the current government are doing a great job on X,Y,Z" is also an opinion on an issue and I think an inappropriate one in our system. Opinions on political issues cross into opinions on political parties fairly readily after all.

Brussels Sprout

I'd be fascinated to conduct an experiment whereby a President of a different hue was making public pronouncements that were entirely different, for example espousing a pro-life position, railing against same-sex marriage, suggesting Ireland rejoined the Commonwealth or even stating a concern that continued inward migration was eroding traditional Irish values.

I wonder how many of the current "The President is free to state whatever they like" brigade would be rushing to defend them then.