President of Ireland really necessary?

gormdubhgorm

Should the office of the President of Ireland be removed?
As it is really only there in the first place as a work around because of a past history with a near neighbour.
If not why not?

Also if the Presidency is not required would the removal of the office of President is Ireland cause great upheaval legally - or can it be done with little fuss?


From a legal standpoint I know the President of Ireland has 'Presidential Powers'.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/functions_of_the_president.html#lfe8bc

But to me most of what the President does is largely irrelevant.


Representing the people of Ireland = wishy washy - in reality anyone can do that if given the responsibility.
Sybbolic head of the Defence Forces, Council of state - not really needed.
Disolving the Dail seems like a dressed up power - invariability elections happen in any case.


But from a legislative standpoint I can see a few things that could cause problems with the separation of powers - signing bills into law, constitutionality of bills etc.


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/president_of_Ireland_and_legislation.html

Can the signing of a Bill just be done by a member of Government instead, and constitutionality can be challenged by other people or groups in future ? (edit - ie parties with sufficient interest to challenge the legislation in the high court)

Which would mean there would be no need for a President.

ohnonotgmail

constitutionality can be challenged by other people or groups in future

What other people or groups?

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What other people or groups?

Those individuals/groups who take a particular interest in a particular legislation and challenged the constitutionality of legislation.
Where they show they have sufficient interest in the High court etc.

papu

I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the office of the presidency of Ireland. I also don't t see it happening.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Those individuals/groups who take a particular interest in a particular legislation and challenged the constitutionality of legislation.
Where they show they have sufficient interest in the High court etc.

so after the legislation has been passed into law? and you know only people or groups who have standing could do that? Not forgetting the expense of going to the high court and the supreme court.

hullaballoo

OP, do you mean that the powers under article 26 to refer legislation prior to enactment to the Supreme Court would be given to some kind of interest group or groups?

gormdubhgorm

hullaballoo wrote: »

OP, do you mean that the powers under article 26 to refer legislation prior to enactment to the Supreme Court would be given to some kind of interest group or groups?

Sorry I did not explain myself very well.
I meant do away with Article 26 as interest group who demonstrates sufficient interest can already challenge legislation.
There then should not be any need for Article 26 as there is no President.
It removes another layer.

RayCun

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also if the Presidency is not required would the removal of the office of President is Ireland cause great upheaval legally - or can it be done with little fuss?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sorry I did not explain myself very well.
I meant do away with Article 26 as interest group who demonstrates sufficient interest can already challenge legislation.

If your question is "can an article of the constitution be removed with little fuss?"

the answer is No.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sorry I did not explain myself very well.
I meant do away with Article 26 as interest group who demonstrates sufficient interest can already challenge legislation.
There then should not be any need for Article 26 as there is no President.
It removes another layer.

So they can only act AFTER legislation has been signed into law and the act remains law until the case has made it's way through the courts. Not forgetting the expense that entails for both sides. There is also the possibility that NOBODY has standing at the time the bill is enacted. So the bill is presumed constitutional until such time as somebody does have standing. That person then has to bring a case themselves. I'm really not seeing the benefits to the country of doing this.

Claw Hammer

Who is going to receive ambassadors and make foreign head of state visits?

hullaballoo

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sorry I did not explain myself very well.
I meant do away with Article 26 as interest group who demonstrates sufficient interest can already challenge legislation.
There then should not be any need for Article 26 as there is no President.
It removes another layer.

It removes another layer of protection of the People with a capital P. Whatever about the ceremonial stuff, which I could take or leave but see no difficulty with generally, the democratic function of the art 26 powers is vital to our democracy.

I find it quite ironic that the current populist agenda appears to be hell bent on stripping away democratic processes and protections at a time when we are witnessing worrying power grabbing trends both at home and abroad.

gormdubhgorm

RayCun wrote: »

If your question is "can an article of the constitution be removed with little fuss?"

the answer is No.

Well i meant the office of the President - would it make much difference if the powers (some rarely used if ever) were transferred elsewhere.

gormdubhgorm

hullaballoo wrote: »

It removes another layer of protection of the People with a capital P. Whatever about the ceremonial stuff, which I could take or leave but see no difficulty with generally, the democratic function of the art 26 powers is vital to our democracy.

Is it really vital to our democracy or is that just hyperbole?
I mean article 26 has only been used 15 times since the foundation of the State.
People/Individuals will be still able to challenge legislation without Article 26.

I mean the power now will lay in the hands of an individual elected on the basis of a popularity contest, and the candidates will get more dumbed down in future.
I am not sure I am comfortable with that.
Or is it just a case of the devil you know is better then the devil you don't?

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So they can only act AFTER legislation has been signed into law and the act remains law until the case has made it's way through the courts. Not forgetting the expense that entails for both sides. There is also the possibility that NOBODY has standing at the time the bill is enacted. So the bill is presumed constitutional until such time as somebody does have standing. That person then has to bring a case themselves. I'm really not seeing the benefits to the country of doing this.

Well if that seems like too much trouble - give this fabled group of elders in the Council of State something to do.
Former Judiciary sit on that anyway, plus the great and good.
There should not be any need for a person to be elected as President just so they can live in a big house, that is only there because of an historical work-around job.

Victor

There is already a lot of power invested in the office of Taoiseach. Are you suggesting that office should receive more power? Or that someone beholden to a Taoiseach, e.g. the Ceann Comhairle should receive more power?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I mean article 26 has only been used 15 times since the foundation of the State.

It must be doing its work then, acting as a control on the legislature.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

People/Individuals will be still able to challenge legislation without Article 26.

Only if it affects them adversely and personally.

gormdubhgorm

Victor wrote: »

There is already a lot of power invested in the office of Taoiseach. Are you suggesting that office should receive more power? Or that someone beholden to a Taoiseach, e.g. the Ceann Comhairle should receive more power?

It must be doing its work then, acting as a control on the legislature.

Only if it affects them adversely and personally.

More power for the Taoiseach would seem the most cost effective to me.
The fact that a largely ceremonial elected President has these powers (that few laymen know) is just a strange quirk of Irish politics.

A Ceann Comhairle getting the job would be a good idea as they are supposed to be 'above' party political politics.

The nightmare scenario is if in seven years time - a publicity hungry businessman/woman becomes President with little knowledge of politics and legislature.
That is why I think Michael D. should be the last President of the country, it's time has passed in my view.

Peregrinus

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Well i meant the office of the President - would it make much difference if the powers (some rarely used if ever) were transferred elsewhere.

What advantage would that confer? Surely the person to whom the powers were transferred would then be, um, the President?

gormdubhgorm

Peregrinus wrote: »

What advantage would that confer? Surely the person to whom the powers were transferred would then be, um, the President?

Eh no there would be no President no need for the office.
People cannot seem to get thier heads around an Ireland without a President.
Maybe the idea is more ingrained in Irish culture then I realised?

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Eh no there would be no President no need for the office.
People cannot seem to get thier heads around an Ireland without a President.
Maybe the idea is more ingrained in Irish culture then I realised?

You haven't actually presented any alternatives that have been thought through

donegal_man

Do you suggest subsuming the office of President into that of Taoiseach? The Taoiseach then becomes both head of state and government.

The nightmare scenario is if in seven years time - a publicity hungry businessman/woman becomes President with little knowledge of politics and legislature.

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You haven't actually presented any alternatives that have been thought through

I know I haven't except transferring them to the Taoiseach.
Personally I would not have a problem with that.

On the other side of the argument to keep the office of President of Ireland it is basically because 'sure that's the way it's always been done'.

So in order for me to move away from that mindset I have to write a quasi-research paper on the alternatives to the office of President?

I still do not think the office of President is as vital as it is been portrayed.
It is only there to fill the void after Domhnall Ua Buachalla.

It was a work around to get rid of the office of Governor General.
It is a wonder how that office was got rid of since 'sure that was the way it was always done" and the Governor General was vitally important...

gormdubhgorm

donegal_man wrote: »

Do you suggest subsuming the office of President into that of Taoiseach? The Taoiseach then becomes both head of state and government.

I would have no problem with both offices being merged.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know I haven't except transferring them to the Taoiseach.
Personally I would not have a problem with that.

On the other side of the argument to keep the office of President of Ireland it is basically because 'sure that's the way it's always been done'.

So in order for me to move away from that mindset I have to write a quasi-research paper on the alternatives to the office of President?

I still do not think the office of President is as vital as it is been portrayed.
It is only there to fill the void after Domhnall Ua Buachalla.

It was a work around to get rid of the office of Governor General.
It is a wonder how that office was got rid of since 'sure that was the way it was always done" and the Governor General was vitally important...

So you cant see any issue with the taoiseach being the person responsible for sending legislation to the supreme court to check it's constitutionality?

antoinolachtnai

Where the Taoiseach has lost the support of the Dail you think the Taoiseach should be able to dissolve the Dail without reference to anybody else?

When a new Oireachtas is elected and fails to elect a Taoiseach? Who decides whether to call a new election? The previous Taoiseach?

These things happen relatively rarely but you need a strong political figure with some sort of mandate there to deal with them when they do.

The current carry on in the US in relation to citizenship rights illustrates why 26 might be appropriate or needed.

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you cant see any issue with the taoiseach being the person responsible for sending legislation to the supreme court to check it's constitutionality?

In reality if the power is being abused the Taoiseach would not last long.

gormdubhgorm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Where the Taoiseach has lost the support of the Dail you think the Taoiseach should be able to dissolve the Dail without reference to anybody else?

When a new Oireachtas is elected and fails to elect a Taoiseach? Who decides whether to call a new election? The previous Taoiseach?

These things happen relatively rarely but you need a strong political figure with some sort of mandate there to deal with them when they do.

The current carry on in the US in relation to citizenship rights illustrates why 26 might be appropriate or needed.

So your telling me that as responsible adults and politicians the Oireachteas could not come to some sort of arrangement without a referee of sorts?
Negotiation is supposed to be thier forte.

Victor

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So your telling me that as responsible adults and politicians the Oireachteas could not come to some sort of arrangement without a referee of sorts?
Negotiation is supposed to be thier forte.

Look at how long it took to form the current government.

antoinolachtnai

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So your telling me that as responsible adults and politicians the Oireachteas could not come to some sort of arrangement without a referee of sorts?
Negotiation is supposed to be thier forte.

It’s not a negotiation. It’s a decision. The very nature of a hung Dail is that it can’t come to an arrangement or make a decision.

donegal_man

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I would have no problem with both offices being merged.

I think you missed the point of my quotation from your earlier post.

The nightmare scenario is if in seven years time - a publicity hungry businessman/woman becomes President with little knowledge of politics and legislature.

Replace the word President with Taoiseach and it becomes clearer. The "nightmare scenario" arises of a Taoiseach who has lost the support of the Dail refusing a dissolution and attempting to govern alone until removed by either impeachment or arrest.

gormdubhgorm

OK.... since there are numerous (well put) arguments as to why the Taoiseach should not be given the powers of the President.
I had forgotten I mentioned before that the Council of State should be given more to do.
I suppose some people will have problems with an unelected body making decisions when it comes to the crunch?
However,it already had the power to act like the President in the scenario where he cannot make a decision, under the constitution.

I suppose the next question is who chooses them?
There would be no President to pick them.

I think the Oireachteas could vote to pick candidates who put themselves forward or are encouraged to go on the Council of State list.

Under His Eye

However,it already had the power to act like the President in the scenario where he cannot make a decision, under the constitution.

Eh no. That's the presidential commission you are thinking of.

Carawaystick

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In reality if the power is being abused the Taoiseach would not last long.

I get the feeling you might not have been paying attention to Haughey when he was Taoiseach....
and when he wasn't


What would you do in a situation where you had the taoiseach as HoS and they lost their seat in an election?

There's no way a Taoiseach could refer any bill passed by the govt parties to the supremes in an Art26 scenario, Cabinet collective responsibility would imply the Taoiseach had lost confidence in themselves.



Many European republics have non-exec Presidents, Austria, Czech, Italy, Germany

gormdubhgorm

Under His Eye wrote: »

Eh no. That's the presidential commission you are thinking of.

In that case merge the powers of the Presidential Commission and the Council of State into the one group.
Change Article 31 etc.
Job done.

Peregrinus

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In that case merge the powers of the Presidential Commission and the Council of State into the one group.
Change Article 31 etc.
Job done.

What job? You still haven't told us what you trying to acheive by abolishing the presidency, or what the outcome is supposed to be.

Is there a problem here that needs fixing? What, exactly, is that problem?

gormdubhgorm

Peregrinus wrote: »

What job? You still haven't told us what you trying to acheive by abolishing the presidency, or what the outcome is supposed to be.

Is there a problem here that needs fixing? What, exactly, is that problem?

Does that really have to be explained?
I see it as an unnecessary use of property and expenses.
Also the office is largely ceremonial and it is not required.
Also as we have seen in the last Presidential Election it was clear people just used the election as career advancement / to gain notoriety.
This will only get worse in future as Jane and Joe Bloggs run for President.

If people went for a new group that had the powers of the Presidential Commission / Council of State, there would be less glamour attention attached to it.
They would not be living in a nice big house in the park and would not be representing Ireland.
It would attract people who would treat thier responsibilities seriously as it would involve legislation/law and they would not be able to use it just to be seen.

dudara

You need to separate the constitutional benefits of a presidency from the current news hype where a few clueless candidates ran for the job. Just because the candidates weren’t of the standard required doesn’t mean that the job has lost meaning.

The Irish presidency isn’t a very powerful role, but that final layer of separation between government and law is needed IMO.

gormdubhgorm

dudara wrote: »

You need to separate the constitutional benefits of a presidency from the current news hype where a few clueless candidates ran for the job. Just because the candidates weren’t of the standard required doesn’t mean that the job has lost meaning.

The Irish presidency isn’t a very powerful role, but that final layer of separation between government and law is needed IMO.

But this is precisely why I feel the Presidency should be abolished
Do people really want a future clueless candidate (who manages to get the popular vote) as that final layer of separation between government and law?
Past office holders in the State with the Powers of the Presidential Commission/Council of State would do a perfectly fine job on the rare occasion that they are called upon to meet.
The less earnest and diligent in society, would not be attracted to the role as there would be no glamour attached to it. Also it would be rarely, or at most infrequently required.

dudara

We are the electorate. If we elect a doofus to the position of President, then shame on us. As the electorate, we need to take a collective responsibility for entertaining weak candidates.

While I do understand your point about a committee, I could easily see that becoming another “jobs for the boys”. And to whom would these people be accountable? At least the president is accountable to the electorate, granted on a 7 year basis.

donegal_man

I don't see the merit in replacing one office holder with a committee. And if you do, then who decides when they should meet? If their primary or indeed only task would be to decide whether proposed legislation needs to be tested in the Supreme Clourt it's hard to imagine any Taoiseach who is trying to push through an unpopular/controversial decision summoning them. On the other hand if they can be called by the opposition then you could have a party that opposes everything summoning them to scrutinise every potential piece of legislation which would entail them having to be resident in Dublin, probably with a full staff, drivers etc. and bang goes any potential savings from abolishing the office of President.

gormdubhgorm

dudara wrote: »

We are the electorate. If we elect a doofus to the position of President, then shame on us. As the electorate, we need to take a collective responsibility for entertaining weak candidates.

While I do understand your point about a committee, I could easily see that becoming another “jobs for the boys”. And to whom would these people be accountable? At least the president is accountable to the electorate, granted on a 7 year basis.

I would rather have an unaccountable body who are good candidates for thier roles.
Rather then an accountable person who could be put there because of a protest/populist vote, but unsuited to the office.
In the last election we were lucky that Michael D. was the standout candidate, if you were to design a person to be President you would create him - Sport, Culture, Arts, Politics - good orator as well.
But I think it will be a farce by the time the next Presidential election comes around.
That seems to be the direction it is going in.
Years ago it used to just be a glorified retirement home for politicians who did not say much.
Now it is a tactical career move for everyone and anyone, it has gone full circle.
It seems to be far too easy to get nominated to run for election, for a start.

Victor

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This will only get worse in future as Jane and Joe Bloggs run for President.

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/February_2015_-_Constitution_of_Ireland_.pdf

BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

12 2° Every candidate for election, not a former or
retiring President, must be nominated either by:
i not less than twenty persons, each of whom is at the time a member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or
ii by the Councils of not less than four administrative Counties (including County Boroughs) as defined by law.
3° No person and no such Council shall be entitled to subscribe to the nomination of more than one candidate in respect of the same election.

President: 1
Dáil: 7
Seanad: 3
Councils: 7

At this time, under the Constitution, there can be no more than 18 candidates per election (changing the number of seats in the Oireachtas or the number of Councils would change this). Jane and Joe Bloggs are unlikely to be able to go for election.

gormdubhgorm

Victor wrote: »

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/February_2015_-_Constitution_of_Ireland_.pdf

President: 1
Dáil: 7
Seanad: 3
Councils: 7

At this time, under the Constitution, there can be no more than 18 candidates per election (changing the number of seats in the Oireachtas or the number of Councils would change this). Jane and Joe Bloggs are unlikely to be able to go for election.

The Councils and Seanad are the ones with real potential to nominate (eejits) / people not suited to the position.
Then it turns into the circus like the last one.

Carawaystick

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Does that really have to be explained?
I see it as an unnecessary use of property and expenses.

What use would you do with Áras an Uachtarán?
What price would you put on not having a check unconstitutional legislation
What cost would there be in having the Taoiseach have to do all the protocol head of state stuff along with / instead of all the taoiseach stuff?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also the office is largely ceremonial and it is not required.

Not required is a very subjective statement, you could say the Appeal court is not required

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also as we have seen in the last Presidential Election it was clear people just used the election as career advancement / to gain notoriety.

People stand in every election to get noticed, from town councils up

4ensic15

Carawaystick wrote: »

People stand in every election to get noticed, from town councils up

There are no town councils!

4ensic15

The Senate will have already voted on it. Who would appoint the constitutional lawyer? The same government who passed the bill?

gormdubhgorm

Carawaystick wrote: »

What use would you do with Áras an Uachtarán?
What price would you put on not having a check unconstitutional legislation
What cost would there be in having the Taoiseach have to do all the protocol head of state stuff along with / instead of all the taoiseach stuff?

The Aras could become a public amenity/tourist attraction.
As I said in another post a new group with the powers of the Presidential Commission and the Council of State could do that job.
Another poster asked when this group meet I think a meeting of them every 6 months should cover it, given the fact that the President has only referred legislation 15 times under Article 26 since the foundation of the state.
That should be more then enough.

If you are worried about the Taoiseach getting tied up in Protocol head of State stuff:

1) The current Taoiseach does a lot of that type of thing anyway when he gets the chance - like visiting Trump in the USA.

2) If the Taoiseach does not have the time he can always send the Tainiste as his/her representative.

Victor

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

1) The current Taoiseach does a lot of that type of thing anyway when he gets the chance - like visiting Trump in the USA.

That's a state visit, which will happen a few times a year. There are perhaps 50 ambassadors to receive on a rotating basis.

2) If the Taoiseach does not have the time he can always send the Tainiste as his/her representative.

Protocol says that visiting heads of state should meet the local head of state.

gormdubhgorm

Victor wrote: »

That's a state visit, which will happen a few times a year. There are perhaps 50 ambassadors to receive on a rotating basis.

Protocol says that visiting heads of state should meet the local head of state.

Well then the Tainiste gets to sub in for the Taoiseach then, and the Taoiseach gets more free dinners.
I don't see it as a major issue as taking time away from the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach normally makes an appearance at those things for the photo op anyway.

gormdubhgorm

This is what amuses me.
I assume many of the people on this thread have a legal background, yet they cannot see beyond the status quo.
I mean the GAA has com-mit-tees if anything it would be more of an Irish tradition a sole fella doing the odd Article 26 reference or waving to the camera.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This is what amuses me.
I assume many of the people on this thread have a legal background, yet they cannot see beyond the status quo.
I mean the GAA has com-mit-tees if anything it would be more of an tradition a sole fella doing the odd Article 26 reference or waving to the camera.

What amuses me is you coming on here without an understanding of the importance and reason for article 26 referrals. Referral not reference.

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What amuses me is you coming on here without an understanding of the importance and reason for article 26 referrals. Referral not reference.

You see that's typical - hung on words and slow to change.
Or to be more precise a fear to change?

The way people are talking on this thread the days of people with legal training willing to change / get change like P.H Pearse or T.A Emmet must be long gone?