Presidential Election 2025

Googled that for ya!

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/president-is-not-bound-to-silence/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It is a rather unsatisfactory piece, giving with one hand what it took away with the other. And, as always with McDowell, don't forget who he believes should by birthright and natural ability be the President. I'm sure Maria Steen knows by now😛

On the one hand he says

The President must, however, receive the prior approval of the Government for any formal address or message to the Houses of the Oireachtas on any matter of national or public importance or to address a message to the nation on any such matter.

It follows that the President should not attempt to communicate messages to the nation on matters of national or public importance without the express or implied approval of the Government. He has solemnly undertaken not to do so.

But then it goes on to argue that the President does have a certain level of freedom of speech.

Does that mean that he is sworn to silence on all matters of public interest unless he has Government approval for the expression of his personal opinion or belief? I don’t think so.

Indeed, I welcome the major contribution made by the President to the recent centenary celebrations and commemorations of the 1916 Rising, the Great War and the establishment of Dáil Éireann.  

I look forward to his similarly thoughtful expression of his own take on the War of Independence, the Treaty negotiations and the Civil War in due course.  

He was elected by the people partly, if not mainly, on the basis of his personal talents to play a leading role in the national discussion of such issues and events.  

To take an example, it would be very strange indeed if a speech by President Higgins on the Civil War depended for its content on whether it reflected the views of a government led by Fine Gael or Fianna Fail in 2022.  Frankly, there would be plenty of opportunity for the Taoiseach and the leader of the opposition in two years time to express their own views on matters such as, say, the Civil War.  

While I am sure that the President would take pains to speak on issues with care and consideration, I would be disappointed if I felt that every word he spoke on the subject had been handed to him from government for recitation to the people. 

No one believes the President should be a mouthpiece for the Government. But it would be absurd to think that the Constitution has a special provision (Art. 13.7) for the President to make a formal address to the Oireachtas or the Nation but has destroyed its value to the President by making this the sole case where Government approval is required.

Imagine we had a grown-up debate on the Presidential election. Not the kind of nonsense we have just witnessed. A debate where candidates were asked whether they would respect the Constitutional limits and what limits did they believe applied to Presidential speech. I would have some questions for the candidates:

• Can the President criticise the Government publicly?
• Will you ever make an address to the Oireachtas or Nation on a matter of national importance under Article 14.7?
• If so, will you submit your address for Government approval?
• Will you communicate with foreign Heads of State without Government approval?
• Would the President be a hypocrite to criticise the government but always doing its bidding?

Instead we had endless boring debates where journalists couldn't even pin down an anti-EU, anti-American, pro-Brexiteer who hired a convicted gangster as her Parliamentary assistant and who went as a guest of the Assad regime while it was massacring its own people.