Presidential Election 2025

Mobile phones were rare in 1990, and mainly confined to limousines because of their bulk and cost - Telecom Eireann saw no reason to undercut their landline business. Lenihan's whisperer probably had a car phone or may have got word via the Gardai who had their own system.

We were behind most of Europe at that stage and it took competition from Esat in the late 1990s to put mobile phones into the hands of Irish people. Naturally, we instituted a Star Chamber to get to the bottom of this suspiciously effective innovation and to punish with millions in legal fees the villains who "upset the appletart" for Eircom/Motorola. All the while, the people of Tipperary have made Michael Lowry one of the most (electorally) successful politicians since 1990.

But this is all post-hoc - at the time President Hillery did not say contact was inappropriate or that he felt pressurised.

I'll leave it there because it is clear no one here understands what happened back then or what it means for the President we will elect this year. Of course, the candidates should not lie - perish the thought! - but that was not the central issue about Lenihan's phone call and no one now knows what is or is not "appropriate or contrary to protocol", especially as Michael D. has re-written that rulebook.

So this year, let's not elect a wilting violet who can't endure the "pressure" of a phone call from the Leader of the Opposition.

Hillery (quite rightly) did not say this publicly in 1990 so it was not part of the controversy in that Presidential election. So you keep engaging in post hoc reasoning and my question remains - what was so wrong with the phone call that Lenihan was sacked by Haughey at the behest of the PDs and the Opposition?

Ah, a new idea.. you think it is "wrong to attempt to influence the President for party political gain". So when the politicians on the Council of State exercise their constitutional duty to advise the President e.g. on referring a Bill to the Supreme Court, does the President ever stick his fingers in his ears and shout "you're seeking political gain!"? No President would say that to the politicians that nominated them, even those lowly County Councillors who are always looking for (their own) political gain.

But fair dues, Francie, you are a trier - everyone else just thinks they know they answer to my question (pureza is still stuck on "He lied!"). Maybe Pat Kenny should ask the candidates in the great debate - more relevant than a bogus tweet.

OK, now we are getting to the point. A point which is not a matter of ancient history but a key constitutional perogative which the next President may have occasion to exercise but which no one seems to understand because of myths about what happened on the only occasion in our history a President could reasonably have exercised that power.

The Constitution provides that

 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.

In effect, the President must get instructions from the Government before exercising her/his powers and functions, except where the Constitution provides otherwise. The Constitution makes only four exceptions (referring a Bill to the Supreme Court, convening the Council of State, addressing the nation and refusing the dissolution of the Dáil to a Taoiseach who has lost his majority.)

President Hillery was the last President to have a realistic opportunity to exercise the option to refuse a dissolution of the Dail. Since 1990, on the few occasions when a Taoiseach lost his majority in the Dail (e.g. Leo in January 2020 and Brian Cowen in 2011), the Dail has been so close to the end of its term that refusing a dissolution would serve little purpose. In contrast, the 22nd. Dail voted down the Budget in January 1982 just seven months after it had been elected. President Hillery would have been entirely justified in refusing Garret's advice to dissolve the 22nd. Dail, provided the Dail could elect an alternative Taoiseach who could then nominate a new, effective government.

How would President Hillery know if those conditions existed on the the night of 27 January 1982? You say Haughey should have awaited a phone call but that raises the alternative question - why didn't the President pick up the phone to the only person who could answer the key question he faced that night? Haughey/FF were just three short of a majority and three Independents - Jim Kemmy, Sean DB Loftus and Joe Sherlock - had switched sides to defeat the budget so there was a (long-shot) possibility of forming a new government. Of course we know why no phone call came from the Aras - Hillery hated Haughey's guts and the feeling was mutual.

Was it improper for Lenihan (whose relations with Hillery were less fraught) to phone the Aras in these circumstances? There is no law against it and there is no accepted practice or protocol because the situation is so rare.

And remember this is not just constitutional niceties. The dissolution of the 22nd. Dail after it rejected its first Budget was the beginning of a catastrophic period in Irish history - a dire economy, mass unemployment and emigration, dismal politics. I can't say things would have been better had President Hillery refused to dissolve the 22nd. Dail but it could hardly have been worse and maybe the President's intervention would have forced politicians to work together.

Just to repeat for the umpteenth time - Lenihan's lies about the phone call were disastrous and created the impression that he had something to hide. And of course, it would be wrong to threaten an Army officer or to harass the President but these things were not alleged in 1990.

Your three possible explanations don't reflect well on Hillery.

On a night of political chaos, the only time a Budget has been defeated in the history of the State, you think Hillery believed he knew all he needed to know in order to dissolve the Dail. And you think that is true even if Hillery believed that Haughey was ready to form a government.

At the very least, Hillery could have reflected on the matter overnight before plunging the country into another election. Come to think of it, Hillery dissolved more Dáils than any other President - a very bad sign of our politics back then though on the other five occasions he had no choice.

You could trace the problems of the 1980s back as far as you like - the resignation of Sean Lemass perhaps 🤗 - but the fact remains that political instability, mass unemployment and emigration began in 1981/82 with the collapse of the 22nd. Dáil and the run of three general elections in 18 months, followed by an FG/Lab coalition that failed to restore the economy because its economic policy encompassed everyone from John Bruton (of the failed Budget) to Michael D. himself.

And you still haven't answered the key question - who is not allowed to phone the President? You can try a makey-up answer like Francie if you want.