President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

[Dave Vanian]

Michael D Higgins has said “I was also referred to as the President of the Republic of Ireland. I am the President of Ireland.”

Jeffrey Donaldson said “But it is evident from what he said that in fact that this is much more than that. He uses language that I think is unfortunately retrograde, he talks about being President of Ireland, not the President of the Republic of Ireland, despite the fact people voted to remove the territorial claim over Northern Ireland and there was recognition in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland of the existence of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

“I think the language used by the President is not forward-looking. It does not recognise the reality that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

“It is back to the old days when the President believes that he is President of the whole island, which we all know he is not.”

I would assume that one of them is simply wrong. I'm not looking to start up a debate about the rights and wrongs of partition etc. I'm just curious to see if there is a definitive answer to what Michael D Higgins' correct title is. I would have thought that he would know his own correct title.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The president of Ireland (Irish: Uachtarán na hÉireann) is the head of state of the Republic of Ireland and the supreme commander of the Irish Defence Forces.

I think that is fairly clear. Technically he appears 100% correct.
Was he right to make an issue of it?
Well this was not a slip of the pen from a lowly scribe. This was almost certainly used, knowing it to be officially incorrect, so as not to offend the Donaldsons of this world. So yes I think he was right to draw attention to it.
I would even guess that this has long roots. During the negotiation of the GFA when it came to discussing RoI dropping its claim to NI the unionists must surely have asked for the President's official title to be changed and the nationalists clearly refused.
Micky claims this was a solo run. Really hard to believe. I would like to see his text messages with MM.

 

[WolfeTone]

The Constitution Article 12 declares that the name of the State is Ireland.
The President is the President of Ireland.

There is the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which declares that the State is called The Republic of Ireland. And that the President can exercise executive power in the State.

Is the Republic of Ireland Act unconstitutional?

 

[Baby boomer]

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. A lot more complicated.


The 1948 Act doesn't say the State is called the Republic of Ireland. It says the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. The name of the State is Ireland as per the Constitution - no ambiguity, end of story.

The 1948 Act, as well as taking us out of the Commonwealth, was a constitutional tidying-up exercise. The 1937 Constitution was (curiously) silent on the question of who was the Irish Head of State. (It still is, by the way.) It studiously avoids assigning that role to the President. Prior to the enacting of the 1937 Constitution, the King of England was the Head of State, as in, for example, Canada today. Dev's strategy was to ignore that by creating an office that had all the trappings of Head of State without actually declaring it to be so. Presumably, he didn't want to offend British sensibilities, what with the Treaty Ports discussion to come, war clouds on the horizon in Europe and our cross-channel trade dependence. When challenged, Dev could, and did, claim that his constitution did actually make us a Republic. But, in fact, by virtue of the still existing External Relations Act of 1936, the King retained a residual formal role in Ireland's international affairs. FG in opposition (presumably to annoy Dev and score political points) argued that that meant we didn't possess an essential component of being a Republic. The 1948 Act was presented as them fixing what Dev had failed to do properly.

But, back to the name. In the 1948 Act, the purpose of the description of the State as a Republic was not to change the name of the State, but to definitively remove the King as an organ of the Irish Government. It also took us out of the Commonwealth as a Republic couldn't then be a member - a provision soon to be changed to facilitate post-independence India. It didn't actually declare the President as the Head of State but gave him the international duties formerly assigned to the King, thus de facto making him Head of State.

But the preferred name of the State stayed the same - Ireland. This was set in stone the next year when Britain passed the Ireland Act, 1949, which explicitly stated that the State formerly known as Eire (fada deliberately omitted) or Southern Ireland, would henceforth be known as the Republic of Ireland. So there you have it. If the Brits were going to call it the Republic of Ireland, then, by God, we were going to insist on Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is merely a soccer team. Michael D Higgins is President of Ireland and Jeffrey Donaldson needs to learn some history.

 

[WolfeTone]

The 1948 Act doesn't say the State is called the Republic of Ireland. It says the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. The name of the State is Ireland as per the Constitution - no ambiguity, end of story.

When you put it like that there is nothing complicated about it all!
It's straight forward.
MD is The President of Ireland.
Sin é.

Jeffrey tried to pull a stroke.

These things are planned a long time in advance, years in advance sometimes. I'd imagine this service, with the Queen in attendance was so. Perhaps the invitation to the President of the 'Republic of' Ireland was recent enough. Pre- or post the sausagegate/invisible sea border protocol?

It would be interesting to know the timeline of preparation and invitation.

 

[joe sod]

It also took us out of the Commonwealth as a Republic couldn't then be a member - a provision soon to be changed to facilitate post-independence India. It didn't actually declare the President as the Head of State but gave him the international duties formerly assigned to the King

but the King was still head of state throughout these proceedings, all that happened was that the Republic came into existence and we declared our new head of state as our president taking the place of the last governor general but northern ireland also had its own governor general aswell therefore there was no question of the president accidently becoming head of state of the whole island even briefly because the king was head of state of both parts of the island up until 1948. It looks like that long forgotten figure Domhnall Ua Buachalla the last governor general might be getting some publicity now with all these new shenanigans

 

[WolfeTone]

because the king was head of state of both parts of the island up until 1948.

Interesting point. It goes a long way to explaining why we never celebrate our 'independence' from Britain.

A federal union, between Britain and Ireland, a President of the All Irish Parliament and British monarch as head of State of the Federal Union.

End of partition.
Independence through parliamentary democracy.

Worth the price of symbolic gestures, flags and anthems?

 

[mathepac]

Donaldson & Co are up to their usual stupid, divisive & potentially dangerous games.

Very disappointed with the Church heads who have somehow been hoodwinked into participating in a blatantly political event and astounded at Martin's (not Meehole, the other one) response to Michael D's carefully considered decision not to attend. Why won't these eminent people stick to their knitting in relation to spiritual matters and leave the temporal dealings to the politicians/temporal leaders?

Well done Michael D, you're a true patriot and a wise man.

 

[mathepac]

The Constitution Article 12 declares that the name of the State is Ireland.

I'm just curious to see if there is a definitive answer to what Michael D Higgins' correct title is.

To quote Bunracht na hÉireann, a more authoritative source than either Wikipedia or Donaldson:

"THE STATE

Article 4.

The name of the State is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland."

 

[WolfeTone]

To quote Bunracht na hÉireann

It's 'Bunreacht na hÉireann'... one of a handful of grammatical exceptions in the Irish language of a slender or broad vowel not following a slender/broad vowel, 'Gaeltacht' is another.

But hey, we are all prone to typo's every now and then. Article 4 it surely is. Article 12 is The President.

 

[mathepac]

But hey, we are all prone to typo's every now and then. Article 4 it surely is. Article 12 is The President.

Hey, what can I say, typos are a fact of life, innit, eh, eh!

 

[Baby boomer]

Hey, what can I say, typos are a fact of life, innit, eh, eh!

Ah, here now! Typos are facts of life, eh?

A typo is a fact of life. Making typos is a fact of life.

 

[joe sod]

The name of the State is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland."

but the Tories and unionists used to make a big point of referring to this country as "Eire" in their eyes that distinguished this country from the island of Ireland. During WW2 wasn't the words "Eire" written with big bold letters all along the west coast and in places like Bray to make sure that the german bombers did not mistake us for the North. In that case even De Valera accepted that Eire meant the 26 counties. De Valera showed great skill in keeping us out of WW2, I dont think anyone else could have done it. Its amazing the British did not annex us even temporarily using the justification that the King was still the head of state. It must have been because of the huge profile De Valera had in the US and the Brits did not want to do anything to jeapordise getting the US to join the war,
Another often forgotten fact is that because the British had the NI ports and NI was in the war it just about was enough for them, therefore the existence of Northern Ireland as a seperate entity paradoxically preserved this country's independence

 

[Baby boomer]

but the King was still head of state throughout these proceedings, all that happened was that the Republic came into existence and we declared our new head of state as our president taking the place of the last governor general....

Not quite. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, Ireland passed an Act to recognize the abdication and his successor (in opaque language which didn't actually name the new monarch - see a pattern here?) Dev seized the opportunity to push through another Act on the same day to abolish the position of Governor General.

Except the hastily drafted Act didn't quite do that and Dev was subsequently advised by the Attorney-General that it had only removed the GG from the Free State Constitution but the position remained in existence due to legislation, statutory instruments and other legal devices. Worse still, by the time this was noticed, new Judges had been appointed, including the Chief Justice, without being sworn in by the (still existing) Governor General! They were therefore invalidly appointed and their decisions were null and void. An appalling vista loomed. How embarrassing for poor Dev. But not to worry - a new Act was drafted to retrospectively abolish the GG and legitimate the appointments and other acts of government that were on shaky ground. To distract from his major blunder, he also included a provision to grant a pension to the outgoing GG. The opposition went for the bait and the row became all about the pension, cronyism, looking after a government friend, etc etc. Exactly as Dev knew it would. Nobody focussed an the actual abolition of a post that was supposed to be already abolished. A major government disaster was turned into a minor (but publicly entertaining) row about politicians jobs and pensions.

Plus ca change, eh?

 

[odyssey06]

Serious answer.... MD is no more the President of Ireland than I am, in legal reality no matter what is written on worthless paper (worthless in the 6 counties).

Non serious answer... MD can be President of Ireland and the Queen can be Queen of Ireland and you are free to choose between republican and monarchy.

 

[Leo]

Serious answer.... MD is no more the President of Ireland than I am, in legal reality no matter what is written on worthless paper (worthless in the 6 counties).

The officially recognised title of the 26 counties is Ireland though, so unless you're pulling a Trump, MD is the president of Ireland.

Anyway, MD has since corrected himself...much of the fuss here was of his own creation as he has now admitted the invite did in fact address him as: "The President of Ireland, Áras an Uachtaráin".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The officially recognised title of the 26 counties is Ireland though, so unless you're pulling a Trump, MD is the president of Ireland.

Anyway, MD has since corrected himself...much of the fuss here was of his own creation as he has now admitted the invite did in fact address him as: "The President of Ireland, Áras an Uachtaráin".

Well, there you go. It was the DUP who called him the President of ROI. MD let himself down reacting directly to what the DUP say.

 

[WolfeTone]

MD let himself down reacting directly to what the DUP say

Yes. I read the letter and I could not find fault with it. There was no reference to 'President of the Republic of Ireland' and the occasion was to 'mark' the coming into existence of NI.
It was also cognisant of and made reference to, the difficulties endured since the foundation of NI with the underlying aspiration of a peaceful future ahead.

In that light, I would like take this opportunity and mark this moment by reflecting on my agreement with the Duke on this occasion.
I won't go as far as aspiring to peaceful relations though , where is the fun in that?

 

[SGWidow]

This is all fine to a point, WolfeTone but please, please don't you boys become the chuckle brothers

 

[Purple]

Donaldson & Co are up to their usual stupid, divisive & potentially dangerous games.

Very disappointed with the Church heads who have somehow been hoodwinked into participating in a blatantly political event and astounded at Martin's (not Meehole, the other one) response to Michael D's carefully considered decision not to attend. Why won't these eminent people stick to their knitting in relation to spiritual matters and leave the temporal dealings to the politicians/temporal leaders?

I was going to like this post as I agree with that bit but then you said this bit;

Well done Michael D, you're a true patriot and a wise man.

Now Michael D is in full agreement with you, if anything he's consider that an under statement, but I find his narcissism a bit off putting.