Is Ireland Really A Republic?

constance tench · 09-04-2014 6:49pm #1

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?

... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

johnnyskeleton · 09-04-2014 7:01pm

Ireland, that is the 26 counties, is de facto and de jure a republic.

True, the constitution doesn't say that it is a republic, but the constitution doesn't say murder is illegal or that you have to pay taxes. Something not being in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Likewise, some nationalists believe that the Republic of Ireland is just a fictitious state and that they, as successors to the first and second dail, are really the true representatives of the people (even though they would probably command a minority of the popular vote if there was a referendum on it tomorrow).

Put another way, if we are not a republic, what are we?

truedoom · 09-04-2014 7:08pm

can we not just be ireland; the maddest, craic havingest bunch of lads/ladies in the world?

GaelMise · 09-04-2014 10:43pm

constance tench wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?

... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

Since when does a republic have to have the word republic in its official name?

oscarBravo · 09-04-2014 11:04pm

constance tench wrote: »

...In other words, the basis for the status of the Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.

The only aspect of that fact that's at all interesting is that - theoretically - the Oireachtas could decide that Ireland is no longer a republic without reference to the people. I think that's very much in the realm of theory, however: if we weren't a republic, what would we be?

Arthur Beesley · 09-04-2014 11:08pm

And people claim that politicians are out of touch...

Cookie_Monster · 10-04-2014 4:06am

the constitution doesn't mention the world 'banana' either...

55 Glorious Misteries · 10-04-2014 4:11am

How about The Democratic People's Republic of Ireland? It's got a nice ring to it, I think

catbear · 10-04-2014 4:58am

Whose definition of republic are we using because North Korea is called a Democratic People's Republic?

On a side note the westminister Ireland act 1949 states

even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes of British law.

comongethappy · 10-04-2014 10:09am

It doesn't feel or act much like a republic.

COYW · 10-04-2014 8:02pm

55 Glorious Misteries wrote: »

How about The Democratic People's Republic of Ireland? It's got a nice ring to it, I think

From my experience, any country with the word "Democratic" in its name tends to be very undemocratic.

Personally, I call the the RoI, Ireland, and the six counties in the UK, Northern Ireland. Like others, I don't get much of "republic" vibe from the country, even though it has been run by republicans for almost 100 years.

efb · 10-04-2014 8:03pm

Banana Republic

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 10-04-2014 8:04pm

Technically, yes it is. But emphasis on the word "technically".

Hotblack Desiato · 11-04-2014 8:06am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_head_of_state_from_1936_to_1949

The role of the King of Ireland was still a grey area in 1937. Ireland was still in the British Commonwealth and ambassadors were accredited by the king.

In those days, although we had a President, the king was still regarded as the head of state of commonwealth countries. Once the President was explicitly made head of state in 1948 and a republic declared, Ireland had to leave the commonwealth under the rules at that time (later changed to allow India to become a republic.)

A true republic would not have a theist constitution stating that power is derived from a god, a republic derives power exclusively from the people.

Davarus Walrus · 11-04-2014 9:38am

It is, and a rather successful one, considering the relatively young age of the State, and the challenges faced at its foundation. We managed to escape the tyranny of fascism and far-left socialism. Most reports show we have a very high standard of living. It's just the usual online commentators sitting at their keyboards giving out about something without being troubled with things like perspective and comparison.

catbear · 11-04-2014 9:54am

We escaped military fascism but still experienced social and intellectual repression, the nadar of which was the 50's when the exodus out of Ireland left us with a declined pop of 2.9m at a time of much higher birth rates.

Cool Mo D · 11-04-2014 10:30am

All a republic is is a country without a hereditary monarchy. By that standard, obviously Ireland is a republic. It's not a very high bar to clear.

on the river · 11-04-2014 10:34am

iRELAND AT Present is not a republic. we are controlled by europe in economic and foreign policy.

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

where is the republic in that ? where is equality ? In theory we are in practise we are captilists to the core .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-04-2014 12:18pm

on the river wrote: »

iRELAND AT Present is not a republic. we are controlled by europe in economic and foreign policy.

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

where is the republic in that ? where is equality ? In theory we are in practise we are captilists to the core .

That's why I used the word "technically". What you are saying doesn't actually contradict the meaning of a Republic, even though it's pretty accurate (although exaggerated).

You can be a heartless capitalist and still operate within the confines of a republic.

on the river · 11-04-2014 12:27pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's why I used the word "technically". What you are saying doesn't actually contradict the meaning of a Republic, even though it's pretty accurate (although exaggerated).

You can be a heartless capitalist and still operate within the confines of a republic.

The 1916 proclamation has not been inforced

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-04-2014 12:30pm

on the river wrote: »

The 1916 proclamation has not been inforced

Doesn't mean Ireland is not a republic, but it would depent on which clause you're referring to.

COYW · 11-04-2014 1:32pm

on the river wrote: »

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-04-2014 1:58pm

COYW wrote: »

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

Em... going off topic, here - but social welfare has been a cut a few times in the last few years?

ezra_pound · 11-04-2014 3:05pm

ninja900 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_head_of_state_from_1936_to_1949

The role of the King of Ireland was still a grey area in 1937. Ireland was still in the British Commonwealth and ambassadors were accredited by the king.

In those days, although we had a President, the king was still regarded as the head of state of commonwealth countries. Once the President was explicitly made head of state in 1948 and a republic declared, Ireland had to leave the commonwealth under the rules at that time (later changed to allow India to become a republic.)

A true republic would not have a theist constitution stating that power is derived from a god, a republic derives power exclusively from the people.

ARTICLE 6
1All powers of government, legislative, executive
and judicial, derive, under God, from the people,
whose right it is to designate the rulers of the
State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions
of national policy, according to the requirements
of the common good.
2These powers of government are exercisable only
by or on the authority of the organs of State
established by this Constitution.

Jackson Valley. · 11-04-2014 6:21pm

I don't think it is.

on the river · 11-04-2014 6:25pm

The irish people must stage a rebellion on are banks and win back are economic freedom.

then and only then a republic will be proclaimed.

For Reals · 11-04-2014 8:26pm

constance tench wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?

... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

Not really. In name only and here's two reasons off the top of my head.
Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her, not that their unwashed opinions count. She is a Senator, unelected in a Republic???
The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

For Reals · 11-04-2014 8:31pm

COYW wrote: »

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

In some countries people are put in death camps, what's your point? A race to the bottom? I think you'll find those well off are champs at tax avoidance. I'm okay with my taxes going to feed and clothe the poor. Housing tax, communications tax? Give me a starving families tax and I'll happily pay it. Maybe we should have bailed out the poor.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-04-2014 10:06pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

ARTICLE 6
1All powers of government, legislative, executive
and judicial, derive, under God, from the people,
whose right it is to designate the rulers of the
State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions
of national policy, according to the requirements
of the common good.
2These powers of government are exercisable only
by or on the authority of the organs of State
established by this Constitution.

note the bolded words

Also read the preamble.

Preamble to the Constitution of Ireland wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Also Article 44:

RELIGION

ARTICLE 44

1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

For Reals wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her

She's elected from the Trinity panel. Plenty of better examples you could have picked, like Fidelma 'I don't like paying for motor tax, train tickets or plumbing. Don't you know who I am' Healy-Eames.

The Corinthian · 14-04-2014 4:40pm

constance tench wrote: »

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

An interesting thing (for me anyway) is that many republics tend to define themselves on the basis of their people; république française, repubblica italiana, república portuguesa and so on.

Others go in the opposite direction, with Ireland being an example, defining the state not in terms of it's people, but on the basis of geography - hence the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, and the two official names (Ireland, Éire) that refer to the Island, rather than the people.

Why we do use this approach is almost certainly tied into irredentism and the north and this is probably underlined by the fact that probably the only country in the World that calls us the Irish Republic is Britain.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

But are we a republic? I would imagine we are to everyone other than legal pedants. Are we really debating this? I can see some barristers trying to leverage this into some sort of judicial gravy train, TBH.

For Reals wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her, not that their unwashed opinions count. She is a Senator, unelected in a Republic???

Now, now. She actually is elected, albeit by Trinity graduates, which is a noble mandate, no doubt.

The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

Why?

COYW · 14-04-2014 5:49pm

For Reals wrote: »

I think you'll find those well off are champs at tax avoidance.

Oh, everyone who isn't in debt up to their necks is a tax cheat, of course. :rolleyes: Ridiculous stuff altogether.

For Reals wrote: »

The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

Really, occupied by who?

Is Ireland Really A Republic?

Comments