Has President Higgins overstepped the mark?

Switzerland (and Austria) are effectively land locked by NATO countries.

Why do you think Finland and Sweden changed their historic policy on neutrality?

The 'forum' being run is a farce - Higgins was right to speak out about it. It is arranged to come to a pre-determined conclusion, blatantly obvious by a glance at the talking heads in attendance.

The current government have been banging on the NATO drum for a while now, this forum/debate is designed to give them a target of further cooperation with NATO* so they can point at it and say "well we are just following the recommendations of the experts in this field".

*with a view to ultimately joining the alliance in a decade

What's the point of this then in the Constitution?

2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.

3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

Sweden doesn't share a border with Russia.

Ireland is strategically valuable.

Finland and Sweden were neutral all through the Cold War vis a vis USSR - Russia has changed the rules of the game.

How is an interview with a national newspaper, in his official capacity as President, not a "message to the Nation" ?

It certainly doesn't fall under the "free to respond" criteria, although now that he has put himself in the firing line, he should not be above criticism by anyone either.

We need clear definitive rules before the next chancer gets comfortable in the big house.

Bertie, Enda or Gerry?

Only after his PR team made sure journalists were given a heads up to turn on their cameras.

Dame is just an award she got for her work with disadvantaged kids and the COVID vaccine.

I'm not insecure enough to let it bother me.

You dont understand much about how a constitution works, do you? It doesn’t set out detailed rules like a statute or regulation does; it lays down broad principles that are supposed to guide the behaviour of organs of the State.

I never claimed that Higgins broke a ‘rule’; I said he was ignoring clear precedent that all previous presidents adhered to. You have completely ignored my main point that a future president will now be able to refer to Higgins’ behaviour to they to give an opinion on whatever they fancy

It's gas. Some people on here would piss and moan in an instant if Higgins made a comment on Brennan's Bread.

hE oVeRsTePped tHe mArK! hE sHoUld rEsIgN! 🤬

So suppose one of them comes out with racist or homophobic comments?

Like how they control all of our other policies

No previous president has ever come close to the amount of public criticism of a government that Higgins has done, stop trying to pretend otherwise

Nonsense.

Bojo and Orban have won elections to lead their state's executive.

Michael D has won an election for a ceremonial position.

There is a big difference there. Michael D has no influence on taxation policy for example, among a host of other things.

The only thing they all have in common is that they share a populist Euroskeptic vein.

Let's not forget that Michael D campaigned for a No vote when Ireland was asked to join the EEC.

He is your left-wing Farage

Cant wait for the time when we get another more right-wing populist in the house and he starts mouthing off on issues like migration and refugees.

Those clapping like seals will be the first ones to be outraged.

Maybe those people you describe as "clapping like seals" have the brainpower to judge an opinion on its merits rather than taking some kind of absolutist stance as suggested in your absurd scenario?

Why can someone not support Higgins' right to speak and also be against any hypothetical right wing anti gay spiel by a future president?

Once you support the right to speak you are free to agree or disagree with what is spoken.