Has President Higgins overstepped the mark?

We don't differ on much. I agree that there is no easy way to resolve this conflict but the Taoiseach and Tánaiste should not abase themselves by conniving in his lies and deflections. They should have nipped his misbehaviour in the bud e.g. his letter the Raul Castro should have been the last that did not go through the Taoiseach's Department and our Embassies.

They should have stood up for the Constitutional order and said e.g. "I didn't see the President's letter before it was published by the Cuban Embassy. It does not represent Irish policy towards Cuba. The Government have now advised the President in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution that all his future correspondence with foreign leaders should be approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and transmitted via our Embassy."

If Michael D. defied that edict e.g. sent that letter to the Iranians, he would be on very thin ice constitutionally and politically. I never met anyone serious who thinks the President should direct Irish foreign policy but many of his supporters seem to think he should be unaccountable and above all restraints.

But now, Michael D. has a trump card. He has less than a year to go and I don't think he has a dog in the fight at the next election. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste have decided to take their beatings with the aim of getting someone biddable back in the Aras next year. The problem is that no candidate next year will admit to wanting a more restricted role i.e. in line with the constitution.

Impeachment is the formal process for dealing with a President who is guilty of "stated misbehaviour" (which could include acting outside the Constitution) but that is a non-runner for many reasons (or one simple reason - our politicians!) The Government could put the squeeze on the President in various other ways e.g. block all the President's foreign travel but it is too late with Michael D.

I admit that there are grey areas here but the President has definitely overstepped any and every mark (to answer the question in this thread). Sooner or later there will be a blow-up between the Government and the Áras.

Paddy Hillery cleaned up after O'Dalaigh v. Donegan by taking a vow of silence which was excessively restrictive. Remember when Haughey blocked Mary Robinson from speaking on the BBC Dimbleby Lectures? That was a pyrrhic victory for the Taoiseach and he backed off afterwards. Or her handshake with Gerry Adams? Robinson was right to assert herself against Haughey's strictures but, as a lawyer, she also respected the Constitutional limits and worked at building good relations with four Taoisigh. Pity Michael D. hasn't more respect for the law.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/robinson-says-her-most-difficult-encounters-as-president-were-with-charles-haughey-1.229570

His letter to the Sinosa cartel will be Ableeding1!

You had nothing in your first post and even less now.
Arrogance is no substitute for substantive arguments

Looking on the positive side, I have no doubt that a committed Gaelgeoir like Stumpy Dee will write his bestselling memoirs only in our native tongue.

A true patriot like him wouldn't be interested in making (more) money, he'd be far more interested in being remembered in Irish History as the heroic Minister for Miscellaneous Gobshitery who fearlessly abolished Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act so we could all hear what Gerry Adams really sounds like on the RTE News.

Mary McAleese was an excellent President.

Everyone felt proud of her because she stayed above the political fray and sought to unify, not divide.

She and her husband were outstanding on the peace process which required tremendous instincts in a girl from Ardoyne. Culminating in the visit of Queen Elizabeth.

Like Mary Robinson she had a lawyer’s respect for the Constitution. As we see from her subsequent battles with the Catholic Hierarchy, she never lacked conviction, she just understood the Office to which the Irish people had elected her and she didn’t attempt to self-aggrandise (the ultimate fault in our current President)

Where will we find someone of that calibre now? Will we have a repeat for 2011 - false prophets like Norris and Gallagher fall away and the prize goes to the last candidate standing?

Lot of anger here lately..

The Aras should be worried by these poll results (which the Sindo buried at the bottom of their long report).

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/poll-nation-wants-a-general-election-now-despite-government-vow-to-go-full-term-to-next-year/a1808610656.html

People are evenly split on the first question although it is skewed in favour of the President. The key issue is not whether the President should write to his Iranian counterpart but whether he should have written in such fawning, uncritical terms.

Let's have a poll on this question - "Was the President's right not to mention human rights in his letter congratulating the President of Iran?".

The results on the second question is even more worrying for the Aras. The narrowest majority (51%) of respondents supported his right to participate in current political debates. Again, the question is skewed in his favour.

How about a poll asking the fundamental, constitutional issue - "Should the President criticise Government policy in public?". Come to think of it, we will have a nationwide poll next year where this should be the central question (but we will pretend its about anything and everything else)

Respondents were almost evenly split on whether Michael D Higgins should have written a letter congratulating Iran’s new president earlier this year, with 39pc believing he was right and 40pc believing he was wrong to do so.

A growing number of people believe it is wrong for the President to participate in current political debates, with 41pc of that view, up from 28pc in August’s poll. A slim majority (51pc), however, supported Mr Higgins’s right to speak out, with 8pc having no opinion.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/poll-nation-wants-a-general-election-now-despite-government-vow-to-go-full-term-to-next-year/a1808610656.html

Yes, Higgins has overstepped the mark, and not for the first time either …

Said it before and I'll say it again, he needs to be reigned in. Was wondering why he was so quiet last week, so I did a bit of googling and found the below. Can we send him over to visit Charles and Camilla for a few weeks to keep him quiet?

https://president.ie/en/media-library/news-releases/a-state-visit-by-the-president-of-the-socialist-republic-of-vietnam-announced-by-aras-an-uachtarain

the IDF had told the UN to withdraw their personnel from the posts close to the blue line

That's a clear threat. The IDF were not asking.

Parking up beside the Polish and Irish is also threatening their safety and making them shields.

Mickey talks a load of bollíx at the best of times, but he spot on this one.

It is only a matter of time before a UN soldier is injured or killed.

The top of the UN unfortunately lack anything resembling a back bone or a conscience.

Israel has no right to be there in the first place

They're at war in fairness. Diplomatic niceties tend to go out the window.

Some mandate! Makes a mockery of UN peacekeeping and turns our troops into hostages. Hezbollah don't need to threaten UNIFIL. They just murdered an Irish soldier and that was enough to stop UNIFIL interfering with the rocket launchers which began raining missiles down on Israeli civilians as soon as their buddies in Hamas went on their murderous rampage one year ago (which the President never condemned, even when he met families of their hostages!).

In any case, this thread is not about Lebanon/Israel, this is about the President's constitutional role and the government's failure to assert its proper role. Once again, he has over-stepped the mark by getting into the most controversial and sensitive foreign policy area.

Take down your copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Read closely Article 13.9

The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercisable and performable by him only on the advice of the Government, save where it is provided by this Constitution that he shall act in his absolute discretion or after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State, or on the advice or nomination of, or on receipt of any other communication from, any other person or body.

Article 28.4.1 makes clear that foreign policy is a matter for the Government.

Therefore, the President can only act "on the advice of the Government" in dealing with foreign policy but he has staked out a role for himself in this field which is creating confusion about Ireland's foreign policy.

Why are the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste yielding to this power-grab?

There is no threat. Stop making things up. Andrea Tenenti, Unifil’s spokesman, has said that they have not been threatened. The IDF has asked them to move for their own safety. Hezbollah has killed Irish soldiers in the past, fyi.

That's a picture of a tank. UNIFIL have said there is no threat. I'll take their word for it.

i'm delighted our president is calling out the israely industrial rape and murder machine.
if israel want to land grab and slaughter left right and centre they have no complaint when they get called out.
president higgens has been a great president for our country over all as much as i didn't vote for him personally.
i hope he continues to speak the truth about israel and continues to call them out.

14 years baby. Enjoy those lemons.

he isn't.

the only ones putting lives in danger are the IDF.

they have murdered our soldiers before even though there were no comments made by anyone in authority in ireland.

I think the UK will beat us to the mark on becoming the 51st state.

it was nothing in defiance of our constitution, it was in keeping with our constitution.

and we weren't sucking up to them.

Condolences from the people of Ireland on the death of the former muppet.

Oh, and the embassy for next year. I wonder who will volunteer to work there.

Those UN forces are meant to protect both populations

No they aren't.

Anyway.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/israeli-troops-fire-at-three-positions-held-by-unifil-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-un-sources/a1947316180.html