Sabina Higgins Letter to Irish Times calling for ceasefire on Ukraine

growleaves

Will St. Zelensky now add Sabina Higgins or the Preseident to one of his official Ukran. gov lists of furriners who are aiding the Russian foe? 😧

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407507#Comment_119407507

The constitution isn't based on custom & practice. How previous presidents operated is irrelevant. There is no breach here. The boundaries that some experts express are only opinions.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407523#Comment_119407523

Not everything is a purely legal question though.

If he hasn't technically breached the consitution great there's no constitutional crisis phew, but does that mean that he should be putting out statements that run counter to the Government's? I don't think he should and I hope the next President reverses this and embraces political silence.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405725#Comment_119405725

1000%… That this appeared on the presidential website, Jesus. Absolutely two fingers at the citizens of this country, it’s elected representatives and the democratic values underpinning the state…

if an unelected chancer like Sabina can hijack official state communication platforms to make political statements on behalf of the country …. Why can’t the person who cleans the windows of the Aras ? …or whomever polishes the good china ?

are any of our politicians speaking out ? Can’t see it…

this one has form for this back in 2016 re: her comments on foetal abnormalities..

her name didn’t appear on any ballot paper… by coincidence she was and is married to someone whose name did… and was elected. She has no mandate, nobody voted for her or ‘them’….people voted for Michael. His name was the sole Higgins on the ballot paper.

that no other politicians are speaking out.. ? indicative of how little value the politicians hold our democracy. Just glad to be on the gravy train…. And not rocking the boat.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407545#Comment_119407545

He was 110% spot on when he spoke about the housing disaster. There was no constitution breach technically or otherwise. He had every right to say what he said. What is the point of the presidency if he/she is told what to say by the government? The vast majority of Irish citizens agreed with him on housing and it wasn't the first time she spoke about it.

If you want to gag our president or set opinion boundaries for him, then change the constitution.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

I agreed with him too, I just don't see it as a political pulpit role.

The point of the Presidency is the constitutional duties associated with it. Playing politics may weaken this posting imo.

growleaves

@Cluedo Monopoly 'If you want to gag our president or set opinion boundaries for him, then change the constitution.'

Er I don't want to 'gag' him. I just hope the next President doesn't imitate him. Having a major branch of Government now involved in politics that wasn't previously is not a good development imo.

I've said why: it undercuts the Government. It undercuts the 'neutral' constitutional role of the President (which can be needed in a crisis).

Also a future President might say things you don't like or agree with. But hey that's fine with you, right?

[Deleted User]

The letter's been removed from the President's website. I presume there was a negotiated settlement then. She's a disgrace.

And just to portray herself as an extra aloof and out of touch BoBo - add poetry into the insult.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

The boundaries of the President's ability to opine publicly on policy, national or international are already lain out very plainly in the constitution.

The President is constitutionally bound to pass any such message or address he wishes to deliver past the Govt and can only deliver such a message with their approval.

This is crystal clear in the Constitution. Had Sabina's letter just been published in the IT, embarrassing but certainly explainable as she is her own woman. However, publication of that same message on the official website of the President? That changes the nature of this letter drastically. It gives what amounts to Presidential sanction to a message the President is constitutionally prohibited from giving without seeking Govt authorisation.

Articles 13.7 and 13.9 lay out and define the scope of the President and in particular what independent policy function he has(just to be clear. It is none, he cannot pronounce an opinion without clearing it with Govt).

Even a generous reading of articles 12-14 would leave any reader in no doubt that publication of the letter on the president's website is problematic at the very least.

jmcc

The Indo has now picked up the story and contacted the Aras for a comment.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sabina-higgins-letter-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-removed-from-president-of-irelands-website-41878855.html

Regards...jmcc

cheese sandwich

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

That comment was a blatantly political intervention that was done to distract attention from the criticism he was receiving for spuriously linking a church massacre in Nigeria to climate change. The man is becoming a liability

[Deleted User]

For full disclosure, the Irish Times and the President of IRL office should produce the original letter, and how it was transmitted.

In the meantime, "Arranged interview with Yuri Fullovit by the Irish Times provides covering fire for BoBo luvvie...."

Broadsheet.ie couldn't have picked a worse time to close, eh SOQ?

Brucie Bonus

It is a somewhat naive call for peace talks based on wanting to see the killing stopped. That's all.

If mick himself had penned it I wouldn't care either. All the outrage is based entirely on interpretation not the letter contents.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

Spot on about the housing disaster ? Yet he’s been one of the biggest cheerleaders of multiculturalism and inward immigration… seeing our population spike and resources strength to breaking point.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407716#Comment_119407716

Please quote the lines that prohibit the president expressing his opinion on a situation. He was at a homeless shelter expressing his opinion on housing and homelessness. It was not a policy recommendation.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407938#Comment_119407938

Article 13.7

1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

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.

To be read in conjunction with article 13.9

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.

There is no constitutional provision for the President to offer opinion, advice or pronouncement upon Govt policy or any aspect of International relations save under specific advice from Government.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407970#Comment_119407970

Constitutional law experts say it is just precedent not to comment on issues and not a strict rule.

David Kenny, associate professor of law at Trinity College Dublin, said while there is no strict constitutional rule that prohibits the president from commenting on issues, there was a long precedent whereby there would be a line between what a president would or would not say.

“What comes through that is a convention, because of the unique role the president has, and the role the president tries to occupy really above the politics of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it’s generally considered that the president wouldn’t weigh in on matters of active political controversy or be seen to criticise government policy and performance,” he said.

Mr Kenny said the functions of the president requires a “very significant degree of political independence in their exercise”, and they have generally refrained from that kind of comment.

President Higgins 'overstepped the mark' with housing disaster comments (irishexaminer.com)

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408008#Comment_119408008

I have great time for David Kenny and I'd actually agree with his comment when the matter is framed as an "issue" rather than as a policy intervention or indeed a critique of Govt of the days policy or performance.

The issue at hand in Sabina's letter however? Is far different than merely an opinion. If it had been just the letter published in the IT? As I said in a previous post, embarrassing but manageable. The publishing of that "opinion" on the president's website however? Places an entirely different frame on the letter itself. It frames it as at the very least being published by the Aras, and as such frames it as carrying the weight of Presidential pronouncement and an international relations disaster that Miggeldy and Mrs could have avoided by adhering to the constitutional norms lain out in Articles 12-14.

mazdamiatamx5

She’s clearly as stupid as her husband. Birds of a feather etc.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407970#Comment_119407970

Ok let's parse it.

1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

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.

Message to the Nation? It was a speech at a homeless shelter with a very small number of people. He does these speeches every other week and does not require government approval or consultation with the council of state. Are you suggesting he should only have discussed the nice weather?

He referenced housing in speeches in 2017 (Christmas message) and 2018 (Galway) and there was no "constitutional crisis". In 2017 he said it was "another festive season overshadowed by homelessness and “those deprived of a secure and permanent shelter”. "In Galway he called for "a wider debate about “all the constituent parts of our housing system” in that speech. Higgins has made plenty of speeches and comments around climate change. Is that allowed?

Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson often made scathing speeches on aspects of Irish society.

Dont take my word for it.

President Higgins 'overstepped the mark' with housing disaster comments (irishexaminer.com)

David Kenny, associate professor of law at Trinity College Dublin, said while there is no strict constitutional rule that prohibits the president from commenting on issues, there was a long precedent whereby there would be a line between what a president would or would not say.

Overstepped an invisible mark?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408123#Comment_119408123

You might want to check the thread title. This is a thread about Mrs Higgins and an ill-informed and Ill timed letter to the Irish times that the President saw fit to publish on his official website.

You seem to think that Miggeldy's opinion on housing is at discussion? It isn't. In fact if memory serves? There's a thread for that and if there isn't? Feel free to start one.

As for parsing out? Feel free to that with the substantive issue at hand rather than a strawman

rdwight

Podge_irl identifies the core issues when posting:

"I never said she wasn't entitled to it, just that it is deeply misguided and naive.

Publishing it via the Office of the President was, however, grossly incorrect"

She was legally entitled to express an opinion but doing so was very misjudged. Her letter basically consists of saying "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" and dressing it up with pompous faux-philosophical guff about making moral choices. Something she conspicuously fails to do by not identifying Russia as the aggressor. It was entirely predictable to anyone but the ridiculously naive that her letter would give more encouragement to the Russians than th Ukrainians.

The sloppiness of her approach was hilariously exposed by another letter writer to the Irish Times who pointed out that Gustav Holst who she referred to as "the great German composer" was in fact a born and bred Englishman (she referred to Holst collaborating with an English lyricist to compose a peace poem, implying they joined hands across the lines in time of war to do so). She quoted the Holst-Bax poem in full in the letter and has previously posted a youtube clip of herself reciting it. You would think if she liked the piece so much she would have been curious enough to learn about the people who wrote it.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408148#Comment_119408148

I see. My response was pretty clear. I'll just assume you agree.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408184#Comment_119408184

You see? What, exactly? That your strawman is unrelated to the topic at discussion? If so? Then yes, we are in agreement on that.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408008#Comment_119408008

Thanks Francie. You beat me to it.

Boggles

The mess needs to be cleaned up and a filter placed on her going forward.

On a side note approaching 10 years in the big house, it's far too long and it needs to be changed.

Strumms

If you had a Taoiseach with any stones you’d have a communication sent to the Aras…. “ please request that your family members do not use state resources or communication tools and platforms or media to provide their views of highly sensitive and fluidly changing events unfolding around the world… elected representatives in their directly mandated capacity to represent the country on the international stage may be individually compromised and the work they are doing also if this continues.” MM

a polite way of suggesting that .. she needs to stfu, which she does.

pjcb

Sabrina Higgins letter seems to be linked to the Smashing Times Poetry for Peace initiative https://smashingtimes.ie/anti-war-poetry-collection/

Can the President support fund-raising/charity campaigns?

While the President is supportive and encouraging of all philanthropic endeavours  it is a long established practise of the Office that the President cannot become directly involved with fund-raising and/or charity campaigns no matter how worthy the cause. https://president.ie/en/about/your-questions-answered

touts

Sabina Higgins is a private individual. Now she is happy to have all the perks and privileges of the presidency for the last decade which could be seen as in effect making her a public individual but let's give her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

However posting the statement on the Aras website made it a presidential statement. It was therefore a disgraceful abuse of the office. Higgins has taken a clearly pro-Putin position by calling for a ceasefire and negotiations only after Russia has achieved most of their territorial objectives. This is the point where Ukraine has the most to lose in Negotiations. Higgins is a smart guy and knows that. So allowing that statement up on the website means he has taken a pro-Putin position.

That is unacceptable. Resignation has to be a serious option if he does not come out and publically distance the presidency from this pro-Putin misstep and apologise to the people of Ukraine.

pjcb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408324#Comment_119408324

it doesn't make it a presidential statement, it does diminish the arguement that its just her own personal opinion unrelated to her husband's job :/

should she resign as his official wife?