President of Ireland really necessary?

gormdubhgorm · 02-11-2018 01:59PM #1

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 · 02-11-2018 02:25PM

constitutionality can be challenged by other people or groups in future

What other people or groups?

gormdubhgorm · 02-11-2018 02:32PM

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 · 02-11-2018 02:38PM

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 · 02-11-2018 02:44PM

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 · 02-11-2018 03:15PM

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 · 02-11-2018 04:55PM

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 · 02-11-2018 05:04PM

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 · 02-11-2018 05:06PM

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 · 02-11-2018 05:10PM

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

hullaballoo · 02-11-2018 05:32PM

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 · 02-11-2018 06:20PM

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 · 02-11-2018 06:27PM

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 · 02-11-2018 06:31PM

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 · 02-11-2018 11:36PM

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 · 03-11-2018 12:29AM

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 · 03-11-2018 02:48PM

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 · 03-11-2018 04:51PM

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 · 03-11-2018 04:55PM

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 · 03-11-2018 05:06PM

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 · 03-11-2018 05:07PM

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 · 03-11-2018 05:08PM

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 · 03-11-2018 05:11PM

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 · 03-11-2018 05:19PM

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 · 03-11-2018 06:16PM

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 · 03-11-2018 06:20PM

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 · 03-11-2018 06:26PM

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 · 03-11-2018 06:46PM

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 · 03-11-2018 07:05PM

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 · 03-11-2018 07:19PM

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 · 03-11-2018 07:38PM

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.

President of Ireland really necessary?

Should there be a President of Ireland? 75 votes

Comments