Is our Presidency a copycat of the UK monarchy?

Zynks

Am I the only one who thinks that the president role is designed to copy the Queen's role? Getting a sense of deja vu looking at these articles

Irish Times 1 Feb2011

BBC 6 April 2010

Key words: palaces, no real power, expensive, pointless

Having said that, it could become quite interesting if we get Michael D Higgins or David Norris on the role.

DrumSteve

Zynks wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that the president role is designed to copy the Queen's role? Getting a sense of deja vu looking at these articles

Irish Times 1 Feb2011

BBC 6 April 2010

Key words: palaces, no real power, expensive, pointless

Having said that, it could become quite interesting if we get Michael D Higgins or David Norris on the role.

The Queen joke is too easy.

Zynks

DrumSteve wrote: »

The Queen joke is too easy.

You mean he is gay???? Oh....
well, I guess we will have to get over it, won't we? :rolleyes:

DrumSteve

Zynks wrote: »

You mean he is gay???? Oh....
well, I guess we will have to get over it, won't we? :rolleyes:

Ah I suppose :pac:

But tbf I think Norris would be a good president for us. Unfortunately some countries won't be having him but that'd more their own issue as opposed to anything else.

Iwasfrozen

DrumSteve wrote: »

Ah I suppose :pac:

But tbf I think Norris would be a good president for us. Unfortunately some counties won't be having him but that'd more their own issue as opposed to anything else.

fyp.

Manach

Watching the President's motoracade pass by me, whilst I was standing at the bus stop, the most important difference is with the Queen it would be a drawn carriage (by serfs I'd image).

Jeboa Safari

The roles are similiar because the office of President was created to replace the monarchy, we get to elect ours though.
And I really hope Norris doesn't get in, we hear enough of him already without him spouting more hyper nonsense as President

alejandro1977

Zynks wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that the president role is designed to copy the Queen's role? Getting a sense of deja vu looking at these articles

Irish Times 1 Feb2011

BBC 6 April 2010

Key words: palaces, no real power, expensive, pointless

Having said that, it could become quite interesting if we get Michael D Higgins or David Norris on the role.

that's a lazy comparison. Other Parliamentary democracies follow similar procedures

imme

Our President is acting in accordance with our constitution. The UK doesn't have a written constitution.
The role of our President is different from that of a monarch.

Presidents are not born, they're made.

Zynks

alejandro1977 wrote: »

that's a lazy comparison. Other Parliamentary democracies follow similar procedures

Other parliamentary democracies would have active presidents. I am not aware of any others where the request for dissolution is purely ceremonial - to me the UK 'royal' case is closer in that perspective - but I am open to corrections.

I wish we had a system where the president and the Taoiseach had a relationship closer to what a CEO and a chairman in a company have, where there is a strong focus on accountability and governance in the relationship.

Zynks

imme wrote: »

Presidents are not born, they're made.

So are dictators and football players.

The point is: what is in it for us, the tax payers and voters?

number10a

alejandro1977 wrote: »

that's a lazy comparison. Other Parliamentary democracies follow similar procedures

+1

A very lazy comparison. Why do some people never compare Ireland with any country other than the UK? And you don't even have to look very far. Germany's president's role (just one example of many around Europe) is largely a ceremonial position too. Lives in a palace, does very little, we don't even know his/her name but we know Merkel because she's the one with the power. It's very similar to Ireland's president.

imme

Zynks wrote: »

So are dictators and football players.

The point is: what is in it for us, the tax payers and voters?

the role of president is restricted and prescribed by our constitution. We're not the USA or Argentina or Indonesia or any other country. We're Ireland. The role of our president is different from other presidents around the world.

There were a few threads in the vein of 'where is our president', 'why doesn't our president speak up' etc etc a few months ago.

hotmail.com

The Irish President is elected, the British monarchy is a hereditary institution. Ours is democratic.

However, some of the Irish presidents have been agreed upon and there's been no election, so it's a bit of a farce.

alejandro1977

Zynks wrote: »

Other parliamentary democracies would have active presidents. I am not aware of any others where the request for dissolution is purely ceremonial - to me the UK 'royal' case is closer in that perspective - but I am open to corrections.

off the top of my head:

Italy, Germany, Spain [Monarchy], Portugal...

sarumite

Zynks wrote: »

Other parliamentary democracies would have active presidents. I am not aware of any others where the request for dissolution is purely ceremonial - to me the UK 'royal' case is closer in that perspective - but I am open to corrections.

I wish we had a system where the president and the Taoiseach had a relationship closer to what a CEO and a chairman in a company have, where there is a strong focus on accountability and governance in the relationship.

Taken from Wikipedia

"Another system is the Parliamentary republic, where the Presidency is largely ceremonial. Countries using this system include the Ireland, Malta, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Iceland, India, Pakistan, Germany and Greece."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President#Parliamentary_systems

And that was after a less than 30 second google.....

FreudianSlippers

President acts in accordance with separation of powers and holds a vital role in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution.

What do they teach in schools these days?

Zynks

I acknowledge the corrections, thanks to all. I was brought up in a different political system.

In summary, I take that most posters are happy with having (and funding) a 'largely ceremonial' presidential role either because the constitution says so or as a genuine preference.

Thanks again, that was a bit of an eye opener for me.

FreudianSlippers

Zynks wrote: »

I acknowledge the corrections, thanks to all. I was brought up in a different political system.

In summary, I take that most posters are happy with having (and funding) a 'largely ceremonial' presidential role either because the constitution says so or as a genuine preference.

Thanks again, that was a bit of an eye opener for me.

The President is most decidedly not a ceremonial position.

Essentially the President is the "guardian" of the Constitution and has the ability to refer any legislation to the Supreme Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
Arguably, the most important role in the government.

The President is an important leg in the separation of powers triangle.

bonkey

Zynks wrote: »

In summary, I take that most posters are happy with having (and funding) a 'largely ceremonial' presidential role either because the constitution says so or as a genuine preference.

I've read through the thread, and I can't actually find a post which either asked the question of "happiness", or commented on it....including your good self.

Consequently, I guess you'd have to agree that we can conclude that you are quite happy with the notion as well...and were commenting that its an eye-opener that so many people agree with your sentiments.

Zynks

bonkey wrote: »

I've read through the thread, and I can't actually find a post which either asked the question of "happiness", or commented on it....including your good self.

Although I am not a native speaker, I do believe that the expression "I would be happy to..." does not reflect happiness in a literary manner, but agreement and willingness. I can point to some sites that describe this expression in detail, if required. :rolleyes:

bonkey wrote: »

Consequently, I guess you'd have to agree that we can conclude that you are quite happy with the notion as well...and were commenting that its an eye-opener that so many people agree with your sentiments.

omen80

This is a pretty dumb post. Obviously they are not the same.

Zynks

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Essentially the President is the "guardian" of the Constitution and has the ability to refer any legislation to the Supreme Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
Arguably, the most important role in the government.

The President is an important leg in the separation of powers triangle.

OK, good point. But, can't any citizen do the same taking a case to the supreme court if they feel that the constitution is being disrespected?

Example: Shouldn't the president have gone to the courts when the government failed to call the three by-elections. Where was she then?

Zynks

omen80 wrote: »

This is a pretty dumb post. Obviously they are not the same.

Hard to comment on that one.

Zynks

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The President is most decidedly not a ceremonial position.

Essentially the President is the "guardian" of the Constitution and has the ability to refer any legislation to the Supreme Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
Arguably, the most important role in the government.

The President is an important leg in the separation of powers triangle.

Sorry, I just noticed you said that the president can refer legislation... I wasn't aware of that. Is there a precedent of this occurring (sorry if there is a well known precedent, I never heard of one and I am genuinely interested)

Wildlife Actor

There have been 4 or 5 referrals of legislation to teh Supreme Court in the current presidency (Nursing Homes, Planning and Refugee Acts spring to mind). There have been council of state meetings, not amounting to a full referral on a few other occasions (most recently in relation to the IMF deal wasn't it?).

The job should not be too "executive" and I think it's largely an acceptable balance as it is. If it involved too much executive function you would be reposing alot in a single person. We have a cabinet for a reason so why duplicate? Likewise, with a president to take up the slack on a lot of the ceremonial jobs out there (state visits etc), the time of the taoiseach/minister for foreign affairs would be spared for the job they do (or ar supposed to do).

aDeener

Zynks wrote: »

Sorry, I just noticed you said that the president can refer legislation... I wasn't aware of that. Is there a precedent of this occurring (sorry if there is a well known precedent, I never heard of one and I am genuinely interested)

thundering disgrace Cearbhaill Ó Dálaigh springs to mind

sarumite

Zynks wrote: »

Although I am not a native speaker, I do believe that the expression "I would be happy to..." does not reflect happiness in a literary manner, but agreement and willingness. I can point to some sites that describe this expression in detail, if required. :rolleyes:

I didn't see a consensus opinion on whether people agreed to it and willed it to exist.

I think your comment on "happy to...." etc was misplaced within the confines of this thread.

FreudianSlippers

Zynks wrote: »

OK, good point. But, can't any citizen do the same taking a case to the supreme court if they feel that the constitution is being disrespected?

Example: Shouldn't the president have gone to the courts when the government failed to call the three by-elections. Where was she then?

If they have the locus standi.

Zynks wrote: »

Sorry, I just noticed you said that the president can refer legislation... I wasn't aware of that. Is there a precedent of this occurring (sorry if there is a well known precedent, I never heard of one and I am genuinely interested)

Yes, the power stems from Article 26 of the Constitution and has been done 6 (IIRC) times.

paul71

Zynks wrote: »

Other parliamentary democracies would have active presidents. I am not aware of any others where the request for dissolution is purely ceremonial - to me the UK 'royal' case is closer in that perspective - but I am open to corrections.

I wish we had a system where the president and the Taoiseach had a relationship closer to what a CEO and a chairman in a company have, where there is a strong focus on accountability and governance in the relationship.

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugual, Greece, Iceland, Poland, actually the list is so long that going on is pointless.

The same system exists in almost every European country which does not have a monarcy, however I do take the point that the president should take a greater role, posibly being more active in referring legislation to the council of state as the Icelandic president did in his decision to take the parliaments legislation on their banking crisis to referendum.

Zynks

sarumite wrote: »

I didn't see a consensus opinion on whether people agreed to it and willed it to exist.

I think your comment on "happy to...." etc was misplaced within the confines of this thread.

Noted.

I don't think I ever suggested that there was a consensus when I said "I take it that most..." - .

The phrase also included "I take" as in I assume, based in my interpretation of perceived implicit comments - your comment did not indicate a position in either way, so it had no influence on my 'analysis'.

Of course, my assumption is open to debate and correction, but it would be more productive to argument over the points rather than semantics.

Zynks

paul71 wrote: »

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugual, Greece, Iceland, Poland, actually the list is so long that going on is pointless.

The same system exists in almost every European country which does not have a monarcy, however I do take the point that the president should take a greater role, posibly being more active in referring legislation to the council of state as the Icelandic president did in his decision to take the parliaments legislation on their banking crisis to referendum.

Fully agree. The Icelandic case was a great example of how an active presidency could look like.

As for monarchs, I don't have any strong feelings against them. For instance I like the Spanish and Swedish royal families and think both play a very active role in the economy and development of their countries - The king of Spain saved the Spanish democracy through his intervention during a failed coup d'état and the Swedish royal family are intensively active in promoting Swedish businesses abroad.

As for our president, I am now becoming a bit more aware of the duties involved, though I remain to be convinced that the current setup is the best option for the country.

Son Of A Vidic

A copycat? No. At least the British monarchy generates some income/revenues for the UK through tourism ect. They just love all that pomp and ceremony bullsh1t, the Irish presidency generates nothing on a comparable scale.

Eliot Rosewater

I disagree with the dismissal of Zynks' point. The Irish system of government is modelled after the British one, after all: a powerful lower house who elect a head of government and who then appoints a cabinet, a very weak upper house drawn from an elite, and a ceremonial head of state with very little power.

The primary reason I necessarily favour the Presidency over the Monarchy is that Monarchies are dreadfully expensive things to run. The issue of democracy, in an office so powerless, does not mean much to me.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

President acts in accordance with separation of powers and holds a vital role in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution.

I don't think I would use the word "separation of powers" in a discussion about the President. In most ways the President is simply at the Taoiseach's behest. For example:

"The President shall not leave the State during his term of office save with the consent of the Government."
"The President shall, on the advice of the Taoiseach, accept the resignation or terminate the appointment of any member of the Government."
"Dáil Éireann shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach."
"Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government."

The lack of separation is all one way, in that there is little or no room for the President to hold the Taoiseach or Parliament to account. Given that the real power lies in the latter two, such accountability would be of infinitely more benefit than the Taoiseach's oversight of the President.

Eliot Rosewater

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Essentially the President is the "guardian" of the Constitution and has the ability to refer any legislation to the Supreme Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
Arguably, the most important role in the government.

I think there are a few things worth noting.

Firstly, Presidents have not really exercised this power. It has been used only 15 times altogether (as of June 2009) (8 times the Supreme Court found the bill constitutional; 7 times it found the bill or a part of it unconstitutional). Given that presidential candidates are drawn out of a small close political gene-pool, by members of the Oireactas or by councillors, it is highly unlikely a "maverick" who would use the power more effectively would ever make the Presidency.

Secondly, even if they did, they can't object to legislation for no reason at all. It has to be unconstitutional. This raises a number of points:

1. The Supreme Court can overrule the President and (s)he is then obliged to sign it.
2. The President's referral isn't, of course, the only way an unconstitutional piece of legislation can be struck down.

Which means that the President's power here isn't really the President's power at all: it's the Constitution's power.

In the book Politics in the Republic of Ireland Micheal Gallagher gives two reasons why the referral power is bad (in its current form):

1. The judgement is extremely final. If a piece of legislation is deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court it can never be challenged again, even if the opinion of the Court changes over time (as the opinion of society changes over time), and even if "operation of the act reveals aspects that no one had detected when the bill was argued about in abstract form".
2. The bill may be deemed unconstitutional by reason of a hypothetical supposition that might never arise in practise.

Politicians agree with the first one: an All-Party Oireachtas committee recommended (in 1999) that the relevant article (34.3.3) be deleted.

goose2005

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

President acts in accordance with separation of powers and holds a vital role in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution.

What do they teach in schools these days?

Separation of powers? In Ireland? You must be joking. Dev wanted a rubber-stamp parliament entirely controlled by the executive, and that's what he got.

Terrontress

One big difference between the Irish Presidency and the monarchy that I can see is the lack of hangers on to the Presidency. Aside from Mary McAleese, the only person I can see attached to it is her husband Martin who, by all accounts, has done excellent work in promoting community relations and peace in Northern Ireland.

In the UK, millions are spent in housing, feeding, chauffeuring and guarding the likes of Edward and Sophie, Beatrice and Eugenie and the Michaels of Kent!

alejandro1977

Terrontress wrote: »

One big difference between the Irish Presidency and the monarchy that I can see is the lack of hangers on to the Presidency. Aside from Mary McAleese, the only person I can see attached to it is her husband Martin who, by all accounts, has done excellent work in promoting community relations and peace in Northern Ireland.

In the UK, millions are spent in housing, feeding, chauffeuring and guarding the likes of Edward and Sophie, Beatrice and Eugenie and the Michaels of Kent!

Martin McAleese should go back to fixing teeth and keep his nose out of politics;

Lack of hangers on...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hitching-a-ride-on-taxpayers-back-127630.html

Emma McAleese is barely recognisable to most, despite her television appearances in the run-up to her mother's re-election, and it is difficult to imagine what possible security threat she could be under. Yet the young engineering graduate regularly turns up to work in a Toyota Camry driven by a garda employed to protect President McAleese

sarumite

Zynks wrote: »

Noted.

I don't think I ever suggested that there was a consensus when I said "I take it that most..." - .

The phrase also included "I take" as in I assume, based in my interpretation of perceived implicit comments - your comment did not indicate a position in either way, so it had no influence on my 'analysis'.

Of course, my assumption is open to debate and correction, but it would be more productive to argument over the points rather than semantics.

Let me rephrase then....I don't think the phrase "I take it that most" was applicable within the confines of this thread as most poster in this thread merely noted that the OP was false in its assertions.

Zynks

sarumite wrote: »

Let me rephrase then....I don't think the phrase "I take it that most" was applicable within the confines of this thread as most poster in this thread merely noted that the OP was false in its assertions.

Fair enough. I concede that the conclusions may have been precipitated.

As a matter of curiosity, would you be willing to share where do you stand on the subject?

aDeener

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Martin McAleese should go back to fixing teeth and keep his nose out of politics;

Lack of hangers on...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hitching-a-ride-on-taxpayers-back-127630.html

how in god's name could you have an issue with martin mcaleese?

RGDATA!

Zynks wrote: »

I acknowledge the corrections, thanks to all. I was brought up in a different political system.

In summary, I take that most posters are happy with having (and funding) a 'largely ceremonial' presidential role either because the constitution says so or as a genuine preference.

Thanks again, that was a bit of an eye opener for me.

If you were brought up elsewhere, you might also have been unaware of Mary Robinson's terms in office, which redefined the perception of the office somewhat. I don't think McAleese has been as progressive in that regard, but I think the Robinson years, for many Irish people at least, did give them a sense that the Presidency was something worthwhile. So we're still in that era somewhat, and the fact that Michael D Higgins and David Norris are being talked about as serious candidates is a legacy of that.

Zynks

RGDATA! wrote: »

If you were brought up elsewhere, you might also have been unaware of Mary Robinson's terms in office, which redefined the perception of the office somewhat. I don't think McAleese has been as progressive in that regard, but I think the Robinson years, for many Irish people at least, did give them a sense that the Presidency was something worthwhile. So we're still in that era somewhat, and the fact that Michael D Higgins and David Norris are being talked about as serious candidates is a legacy of that.

Yes, I am aware of Mary Robinson and I actually met her while she was the president in one of her trips. I agree that she was (and is) an outstanding person. However, imagine how much more she might have achieved if the restrictions of the presidency (as very well explained by Eliot Rosewater a few posts earlier) didn't exist.

The presidency is the only 'top' position for which we can vote directly, and then the elected person has to be subjected to the control of the non-directly elected Taoiseach. To me that makes no sense.

Rabble Rabble

The Irish President is basically - in terms of her power - the same as the UK Monarch.

The American President is basically - in terms of his power - the same as the UK Monarch in 1790.

American founders also democratised the House of Lords ( powerful then) with a similarly powerful, but elected, upper house. The Irish Senate copies - in terms of its power - the less powerful House Of Lords in the UK in the early 20th century.

Rabble Rabble

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I

1. The Supreme Court can overrule the President and (s)he is then obliged to sign it.
2. The President's referral isn't, of course, the only way an unconstitutional piece of legislation can be struck down.

Which means that the President's power here isn't really the President's power at all: it's the Constitution's power.

And obviously the President has to be generally advised as to the constitutionality of a law by advisors, as she may not be a constitutional lawyer herself. Therefore to work properly, neither that advisory post nor the president should be political or time serving.

It also is a bit awkward for supreme courts to rule on constitutionality of theoretical legislation, it's a lot easier to rule on the law as interpreted by lower courts. In effect the way courts use a law may be unconstitutional in itself. Not so much the law as written, but as read, in common law precedence is important.


That said, with proper safeguards I think this idea of a higher apolitical power protecting the constitution a good one.

Zynks

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

That said, with proper safeguards I think this idea of a higher apolitical power protecting the constitution a good one.

Good input there, thanks. Questions:

- I am interested in learning more about what safeguards you have in mind
- Am I correct in interpreting your points that the ceremonial and constitutional duties are, in your view, a sufficiently broad role for the president?

Rabble Rabble

Zynks wrote: »

Good input there, thanks. Questions:

- I am interested in learning more about what safeguards you have in mind
- Am I correct in interpreting your points that the ceremonial and constitutional duties are, in your view, a sufficiently broad role for the president?

1) I think that the constitutional advisors to the President should be ex-Supreme court judges ( we can retire them early) and would, in fact, be the power behind the throne. If they suggest that the President should see an act as unconstitutional she should be expected to send it to the Supreme court.

2) Yeah, i dont really like political Presidential systems. Either the office is too powerful, or not powerful enough if your parliament(s) are from the opposition.

Jo King

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think there are a few things worth noting.

Firstly, Presidents have not really exercised this power. It has been used only 15 times altogether (as of June 2009) (8 times the Supreme Court found the bill constitutional; 7 times it found the bill or a part of it unconstitutional). Given that presidential candidates are drawn out of a small close political gene-pool, by members of the Oireactas or by councillors, it is highly unlikely a "maverick" who would use the power more effectively would ever make the Presidency.

Secondly, even if they did, they can't object to legislation for no reason at all. It has to be unconstitutional. This raises a number of points:

1. The Supreme Court can overrule the President and (s)he is then obliged to sign it.
2. The President's referral isn't, of course, the only way an unconstitutional piece of legislation can be struck down.

Which means that the President's power here isn't really the President's power at all: it's the Constitution's power.

In the book Politics in the Republic of Ireland Micheal Gallagher gives two reasons why the referral power is bad (in its current form):

1. The judgement is extremely final. If a piece of legislation is deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court it can never be challenged again, even if the opinion of the Court changes over time (as the opinion of society changes over time), and even if "operation of the act reveals aspects that no one had detected when the bill was argued about in abstract form".
2. The bill may be deemed unconstitutional by reason of a hypothetical supposition that might never arise in practise.

Politicians agree with the first one: an All-Party Oireachtas committee recommended (in 1999) that the relevant article (34.3.3) be deleted.

This is an important power. The fact that it has only been exercised rarely does not lessen it's significance. What is not known is how many Bills were never proceeded with at all lest the president halt the Bills in their tracks. A government cannot bring in a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation and benefit from it until someone makes a successful challenge.

The President does not deem legislation unconstitutional and ask the Supreme Court to agree. The President asks the Supreme Court for its view on the legislation. The request is made by the president after hearing the council of State which includes the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court.
The issue about the permanent nature of the decision can be dealt with by allowing a sub silentio type of challenge.
The power is one given by the constitution to the President. nothing like this can happen in the UK. In the UK the writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by law in recent years. This writ is the cornerstone of democracy and such a thing could not happen here.
The President has another significant power which is to refuse a dissolution of the dail to a Taoiseach who has lost the confidence of a majority of the Dail. This power has never been exercised but could potentially be very significant in the event of a hung Dail.

limklad

RGDATA! wrote: »

If you were brought up elsewhere, you might also have been unaware of Mary Robinson's terms in office, which redefined the perception of the office somewhat. I don't think McAleese has been as progressive in that regard, but I think the Robinson years, for many Irish people at least, did give them a sense that the Presidency was something worthwhile. So we're still in that era somewhat, and the fact that Michael D Higgins and David Norris are being talked about as serious candidates is a legacy of that.

I fully agree Mary Robinson change that office. It used to be a retirement house to reward certain TD's for 14 years at Taxpayers expense.

Mary Robinson use the office to bring it more closer to the people by opening up the office to the public more, engages with a lot more public engagements and use the office to highlight issues around the world and at home. McAleese continued that work but did not progress it further. Her foreign work was mainly the North and did good work there. There is very little she can do under the existing powers to expand the office.

Zynks

Apparently she didn't find it much easier in the UN. In that case the US were the 'existing powers'. Her willingness to stick her neck out for just causes is admirable. If Irish politicians aspired to be half as committed as her, this would be a different country.

Zynks

Are these two statements contradictory?

Jo King wrote: »

The President has another significant power which is to refuse a dissolution of the dail to a Taoiseach who has lost the confidence of a majority of the Dail

Dáil Éireann shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach.

Or is it the case that if the Taoiseach loses the vote of confidence, (s)he no longer is the Taoiseach (or?). In which case his request to the President would no longer be valid. Otherwise, I take it that the term "shall" denotes obligation and the President would then have to dissolve the Dail?