nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

President Connolly

dulpit

With the campaign over and President Connolly having been inaugurated yesterday, thought it would be no harm to keep track on how she's getting on as president. A number of people in the campaign thread think she will be a dangerous president, a lot of people think she will be speaking far more openly than previous presidents, let's see.

On her first full morning I heard she is going to a Gaelscoil and they had a bit on Morning Ireland about it - it really does feel like she is putting a focus on the Irish language which is no bad thing.

I wonder though will the limitations of the office start to constrain her a little? Watching a small bit of the inauguration yesterday and there was a whole lot of pomp and ceremony, but it also meant a whole lot of being told where to go, where to stand, when to speak, stuff like that.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124411581#Comment_124411581

So now you're suggesting our president shouldn't bother with the Council of State and/or the Supreme Court because there is a rush on by the EU? Honestly you're trying too hard.

Say Fond O'Lyin 3 times fast.

JohnDoe2025

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124411605#Comment_124411605

No, I am not saying that at all, I am just pointing out the consequences. It won't be the first time and probably not the last time that we or other countries will be slow to implement an agreement/directive.

The key question, which I don't know the answer to, is whether we hold up the whole pact for everyone, or just hold it up for Ireland.

I still don't get the Fond O'Lyin thing.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124406889#Comment_124406889

Remember the thread I started on NATO re. Michael D,? And then there was Sabine calling for World Peace in an open letter in a newspaper.

Connolly has been much smarter than Higgins on that score. Bit of subtlety decorum.
Although I like Higgins the man a character etc (and the recent RTE show on him was well done) he went way overboard a lot. Basically didn’t give a damn about the convention of the office. Thankfully Connolly has shown much more cop on.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124411647#Comment_124411647

Ursula von der Leyen.

Donald Trump has an awful lot to answer for, but one of the worst things he has done is encourage this annoying thing where people refer to others by awful nicknames all the time.

For Petes Sake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124412470#Comment_124412470

Honestly one of my pet peeves around here, this.

Worst part of it is that none of them are particularly very clever nor are they funny.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124412530#Comment_124412530

It's an infestation from X and Facebook.

Not clever, not funny and should be banned here.

Cyclingtourist

Getting back to the subject in question from what I read CC has till Wednesday evening to make up her mind.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124411783#Comment_124411783

Higgins annoyed 'some' people. So what, they're still annoyed and the source of that annoyance is that the President is not one of the chosen or annointed.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124412990#Comment_124412990

MDH was as 'chosen and annointed' as any President. He was the Labour candidate in his first election and while he could and did nominate himself second time round his candidacy was supported by every party with the exception of SF.

Cyclingtourist

Breaking news CC signs on the dotted line.

So all the speculation about the SC was just that.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414082#Comment_124414082

It was and it wasn't.

According to the various Pol Corrs, she has the same concerns about the Bill that she had before the Council met, but has decided not to refer it to the SC in order to not close off the avenue of legal challenge for members of the public and civil society groups, NGOs etc.

It seems very much to me that she's playing politics with this in a way that she certainly should not be.

And before all the Connolly fanboys accuse me of exaggerating it, the fact is that she should have just signed it or not. Letting it be known publicly that she is giving a signal to lefties and do-gooders to have at it, is the very definition of playing politics, ultra vires, and the government ought to be furious about it.

JohnDoe2025

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414082#Comment_124414082

Yes, she got herself in the news, plenty of virtue signalling going on in her statement.

For Petes Sake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414526#Comment_124414526

"It seems very much to me that she's playing politics with this in a way that she certainly shouldn't be."

…have you ever heard of the Office of the President before the 2025 election?

The straw-clutching is off the scale. I was making the very point just the other day that she could do this.

It's certainly not unusual for a President to convene the CoS and sign a bill into law without referral to the Supreme Court. In fact, more than half of bills that have led to conventions of the CoS were signed without referral.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414526#Comment_124414526

Complete nonsense. You're just bitter.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414526#Comment_124414526

Pol Corrs, Lol.

And before all the Connolly fanboys accuse me of exaggerating it, the fact is that she should have just signed it or not.

She did sign it.

Obviously your objection is that she sought advice before signing as she's entitled to.

BTW I voted for her opponent so can't be accused of being a 'Connolly fanboy'.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414528#Comment_124414528

Care to quote the parts you consider 'virtue signalling'?

For Petes Sake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414626#Comment_124414626

The bit with the lemons is the virtue signalling.

Heaven forbid what would have been said if she actually referred the bill.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414626#Comment_124414626

You evidently didn't understand my post at all.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414852#Comment_124414852

I responded to what you posted.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414865#Comment_124414865

You didn't. You responded to your own interpretation of what I posted, which was incorrect.

When I said she should have just signed it, or not, I was following on from my point in my previous paragraph, inferring that she should have signed it or not WITHOUT COMMENT.

Describing and letting the pol corrs know that she had signed it, but that her original concerns remained and she didn't want to preclude any civil actions against the Bill (now Act), is nothing but performative political game playing, of the sort her office does not allow for.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124414945#Comment_124414945

I responded to what you posted in the post I quoted.

So your real objection is to her statement which has no relevance to the status of the act as now signed into law.

As regards her statement I only have what's reported in the IT to go on. Reading what they quote it seems to me merely a bare statement of the facts, It could have been written by a civil servant.

What parf of the statement is in anyway partisan or selfserving IYO?

elperello

This link gives the full text of today's statement.

Media Library | News Releases | President of Ireland https://share.google/2pA6V4Xi3vmm6Jk5K

The statement is clear and concise.

Bishop of hope

Well Lads looking at the whole thing, I think she balked, hadn't the courage to follow her convictions. A typical leftist loudmouth who when confronted to man up, passed the buck. I had grown to be quite fond of her after her start to her presidency, but today set me back to my original thoughts on her as outlined above.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415057#Comment_124415057

The only possible controversial bit is this sentence.

"The concerns that led to the President calling a meeting of the Council of State remain."

Then it continues "However.…."

She obviously has reservations about it and is making that clear. Some will see this as inappropriate but personally it doesn't bother me.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415082#Comment_124415082

Me neither.

The people who may challenge it are not likely to be influenced.

They'll make their own assessment and proceed accordingly.

FrancieBrady

You could look at this as the legislative equivalent of a huff ('you will not challenge us again') effectively allowing another dodgy piece of legislation through. That prohibitive clause serves nobody but autocrats.

Cluedo Monopoly

It's such a pity we don't have FF's Jim Gavin's expertise and experience in these situations. Or FG's Heather Humphreys who couldn't decide whether she liked fox hunting or not. Sorry..."rural pursuits" to be legally correct. People can't handle it when the status quo is not chosen.

Bishop of hope

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415388#Comment_124415388

Yeah it's great to have a deflection to harp on about. But Jim or Heather, stutter,stutter. But Catherine signed in something she has reservations about in spite of that. Not the courageous hero at all is she?

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415483#Comment_124415483

Aragh stop. Hero waffle? President Connolly had concerns and brought in the extremely experienced Council of State for advice. As is her prerogative. We have no idea what was discussed behind closed doors or how serious her doubts were or the doubts of the other members. She decided to sign it and I respect that decision. You lot are just looking for mistakes constantly. Just like with Higgins and the other upstarts. If she was male and FFG, there would be no activity in any respective thread. The bill probably would have just been signed without reading.

7 more years of getting agitated. Good luck with it. President Connolly has nothing to prove.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415483#Comment_124415483

Probably because she doesn't see the job as the petty political point scoring game you see it as. 'Hero'???? 🙄

Bishop of hope

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124415489#Comment_124415489

Shes a Barrister isn't she? If there were doubts about it's legality she should know it you'd imagine.

Looks to me like she had to sign a bill that went against her grain and made an issue of just to show she wasn't in favour of it, made a hulabaloo about it to make herself seem credible in her leftist views and finally bit the bullet and signed it, as is her job. A toys and pram scenario really.