Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Charminator (see all)

Charminator has commented 346 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on Martin McGuinness plans to take a new broom to ‘pacific’ Aras tradition…
   on 28 September 2011 at 6:55 pm

   Thanks Alias.

   I think it would be naïve to think that an obdurate President could simply just be impeached (a two-thirds majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas is no easy threshold!).

   What I’m suggesting McGuinness – or any like-minded individual might well do – is press their political agenda at every single turn. That can be done. It can be done by refusing to attend functions. By stalling the Government’s legislative agenda by throwing the Bill into the long grass of the Supreme Court. In fact, there is some precedent for such behaviour. MacNeill and Dev had a very terse relationship indeed: Dev won out. But just because we’ve never seen such a testy relationship between the two institutions in the past does not mean there isn’t (unfortunately) sufficient ambiguity in the Constitution to permit of such play between the joints.

   I think McGuinness’ experience in the peace process, where constructive ambiguity abounded may provide a certain insight into how the Presidency could be used. The precise limits of this office are somewhat clear but NOT precisely so, primarily because they have never been tested to the limits by a political (with a capital P) individual. Most have been content to retire or to further agendas which are broadly positive and so far removed from the rough and tumble of everyday politics, that the Government isn’t terribly bothered.

   However, bank bailouts, the North, the State’s relationship with the EU ARE issues which will engage any Government and perhaps most especially, this one.

   Impeachment sounds good, but even a bare glance at the Dáil should show that, save in a truly exceptional case of all-party support, the numbers would not be there either to issue or investigate a charge of impeachment.

   My own instinct is that the courts may be engaged if a constitutional crisis did occur and that presents considerable problems too, particularly given the Keane/Murray Court’s determination to remove itself from the political stage.

   Rory Carr:

   “The question that citizens must ask themselves is which of these presidents would it be preferable to have as a bulwark for the public good.”

   You miss the point. Our Constitution provides that the Dáil retains this function – Money Bills are a good example where even the other house of the Oireachtas may not intervene. We have a TD for every 30,000 people: if such representatives cannot collectively determine the “public good”, then a President certainly cannot. There can be no shortcut to obtaining a majority in a general election (or building one subsequent to it). I am all for a President who may wish to help us connect with our Diaspora or build bridges in the North. But if we seek determinations of the public good, we should look to our Parliament, for it is they our Constitution charges with performing this function.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on Martin McGuinness plans to take a new broom to ‘pacific’ Aras tradition…
   on 27 September 2011 at 7:36 pm

   Dodrade:

   He’s not a prisoner, as you say – a President retains some important functions which can exert influence on political decision-making.

   For example, if a President sent five bills in a row to the Supreme Court to attest their constitutionality, would that obstruct the Government’s legislative agenda? Yes. Would it present a significant headache. Yes. If the President declined an invitation to lead certain National commemorations, such as the 1916 centenary due to a concern about the historical narrative the Government wished to present, would that prove highly embarrassing and challenging for a Government? Yes.

   The reality, as I state above, is that whilst we’re aware of the obvious limitations of the Presidency, we cannot be certain where exactly the contours lie because the Presidency has never been tested to the limit. It has never actually been occupied by a person with a vision to using it as an engine for serious political influence. Where a McGuinness Presidency would lead us, in this respect, we can only speculate…. for what it’s worth, I think we would have constitutional crisis, sooner or later, if McGuinness tries to use the Presidency as a counterpoint to the Government.

   Also, your point regarding the President’s democratic legitimacy as opposed to that of the Government based on Dáil Éireann misses the point. Dáil Éireann represents every 30,000 – a remarkably democratic organ giving voice to the State in all its diversity. The Taoiseach and the Government’s authority rests entirely on the confidence of Dáil Éireann which, as I say, is drawn from multiple votes across multiple constituencies. The President’s authority is not at all so closely attuned to local democratic accountability, but rather based on one State-wide poll, not the endorsement of local communities the length and breadth of Ireland, as any Taoiseach needs. Essentially it is the essence of a parliamentary, as opposed to presidential model of accountability.

   On an historical point: the 1949 date is wrong from the perspective of the Irish State. The Irish State did not recognise the King as having any continuing role in Ireland after Bunreacht na hÉireann was enacted.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on #Aras11: Two Fine Gael Chairs use ‘casting votes’ to block Norris
   on 27 September 2011 at 7:20 pm

   I must say I’m particular taken aback by Derek Mooney’s number crunching. Where did he get these numbers from?? Seems like utter idle speculation regarding the impact Norris and Dana on the other candidates. I note he uses the word “could” rather than anything else, but I must say it still strikes me as random gossip, lacking any substance to support the analysis.

   Now, that said, I can understand how as a basic observation the entry of additional candidates may obviously diminish the support base of existing candidates. But Norris and Dana lopping a fifth of McGuinness’ numbers? The numbers haven’t even settled yet for a start. My sense is that it’s far far too premature to draw any such markers. Let’s wait for a poll once campaigning begins and then, I think, we’ll get a much more healthy sense of the state of play.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on Martin McGuinness plans to take a new broom to ‘pacific’ Aras tradition…
   on 27 September 2011 at 7:12 pm

   Good point Mick – and, as you’ll see, precisely the limitations I referred to above.

   I don’t quite agree that it’s quite as simple as a prisoner / freeman dichotomy, largely because we’ve never found ourselves sailing so close to friction between the Government and the President. But theoretically a President could, for example, REFUSE to attend a commemoration, such as 1916 centenary, if his/her views were not taken into account by the Government. This, in itself, represents considerable political leverage. He or she could similarly REFUSE to attend other significant events. He or she could become quite obstructionist with a Government’s legislative agenda too. The powers of the President – or at least those which can be inferred, as much as anything, by the refusal to exercise certain functions – have never been tested to the limit. Why? Because a certain consensus – and one which I, like others, consider consistent with the Constitution – has developed which has placed the Presidency beyond day-to-day politics and has resulted in Presidential deference to the will of the Government (due to the Government’s mandate in Dáil Éireann).

   The Presidency has never been occupied by a man who is driven by politics in quite the way that McGuinness surely is (or at least not at the height of their political prime, rather than as a retirement home, eg Dev). This is new territory. It’s not territory I would hope we find ourselves threading too deeply into because frankly I think it can only end in a constitutional crisis, but it would be especially unfortunate if any candidates concerned viewed the Presidency as a short-cut to influencing policy by avoiding the challenging task of obtaining a Dáil majority to pursue their particular political agenda.

   Go to comment

5. Comment on Martin McGuinness plans to take a new broom to ‘pacific’ Aras tradition…
   on 27 September 2011 at 2:55 pm

   These latest comments are, from a constitutional perspective, more than a little concerning. Bunreacht na hÉireann could hardly be much clearer in circumscribing even the President’s official functions. Article 13.9 and 13.11 are very clear in circumscribing the President’s functions: they are to be exercised, except in very specific scenarios, only on the advice of the Government.

   Whilst I am not overly concerned by the trawling of history as a reason to believe McGuinness is ill-suited to the Presidency, I am, on the other hand, quite concerned by the prospect of a constitutional crisis. I cannot help but wonder whether some strategists in SF are viewing the Presidency as something of a shortcut to influencing policy, rather than having to satisfy the far more onerous challenge of winning a majority in Dáil Éireann. When McGuinness speaks of the People, it is important to remember, first and foremost, that by far the most accurate democratic barometer of the People’s sense is Dáil Éireann. With one TD for approximately every 30,000 people (as constitutionally mandated), Dáil Éireann is rightly the true voice of the People. It is therefore extremely concerning if some feel that the constructive ambiguity which animated much of the peace process can similarly be extended to interpreting the appropriate functions and roles of institutions in the State.

   If some feel the Presidency is a tool or device for opposing democratically sanctioned policies or programmes of the Government of the day, then I think we’re in for some constitutionally challenging times ahead. It is not, and even under the most laboured construction of Article 13, it is difficult to accord any “policy influencing” role to the President, without doing serious violence to the fabric of Bunreacht na hÉireann’s constitutional scheme. The President’s powers are few. And they are few for good reason: the Constitution does not seek to diminish the democratic primacy of Dáil Éireann.

   Go to comment

6. Comment on Adams Proposes McGuinness to be Sinn Féin Candidate for Áras
   on 17 September 2011 at 2:30 am

   Limerick

   “He [Martin McGuinness] was a regualr and welcome visitor to those locations [White House] because the people ensconced therein were trying very hard to wean him away from his terrorist ways. It wasn’t because they found him to be great company, or because they admired his past.”

   I’m assuming that there’s a source somewhere to support the conclusion that “it wasn’t because they found him to be great company”. Given the warm relationship McGuiness developed with Paisley, his personal character or charm is something that’s usually recognised fairly broadly.

   I’m also a little taken aback by such broad, sweeping statements with seemingly no apparent basis for it. I dare say we cannot know what the presidents “ensconed” in the White House thought, much less authoritatively describe their perspective of McGuinness as nothing more than trying to “wean him away from his terrorist ways”.

   Go to comment

7. Comment on “Utter fucking chaos” (Fianna Fáil)
   on 16 September 2011 at 2:41 pm

   Agree Henry94 – well deserved comedy indeed.

   I cannot at all understand why they didn’t run with Crowley, a very credible candidate in an election that the dogs and the cats on the street know FF could never win anyway.

   Ó Cuív, if he has sense, will heave. My big fear regarding Micheál Martin was that he was a Blair-Cameron style waffler with little real political principles, but a heavy dose of media-savvy pragmatism. Increasingly, I feel convinced this caricature is revealing itself to the public at precisely the time that the party needs a reassuring, sincere, and straight-talking leader. Ó Cuív is the obvious person – over time – to show a real face of FF, one of values (if any remain).

   For the good of his party, indeed even the future of his party, if he has sense and a set of liathróidi, he’ll push. We’re all about to find out just how deep the Führerprinzip runs through FF.

   Go to comment

8. Comment on Fees gap to be paid by GB students…?
   on 11 September 2011 at 1:41 am

   ayeYerMa:

   “It’s truly disgusting that in such a situation those from the Republic could benefit more from GB taxpayers than those in GB themselves.”

   A little unnecessary don’t you think? This has nothing to do with the Irish Govt and, in any case, the appropriate reference should be to other EU students, not just Irish. Irish students already have free fees in Scotland and Northern students have been treated the same as students from the 26 counties with respect to free fees in the South too.

   “Unfortunately the DUP aren’t really true Unionists so doubt they will.”

   It must be great, ayeYerMa, to be able to sit in boundless judgment defining who is and is not a true Unionist. Such a monopoly on “truth” is a rare thing indeed.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on Margaret Ritchie is to step down as SDLP’s leader
   on 9 September 2011 at 12:16 pm

   Thanks Mick.

   I wouldn’t characterise it as slactivistic at all. I think the difficulties of Northern MPs attending Westminster are probably fairly obvious to most Northern constituents – like northern Scottish etc, it’s not a uniquely Northern challenge, as Malcolm also hints. (Though given Ritchie lives in South Down, she has ample airports to choose from, so Malcolm’s 2.30pm meeting certainly shouldn’t be a problem for her.)

   What is perhaps less obvious to many Nationalists and Republicans (and not just in the North either) are the benefits of her attendance when she actually does attend. I – like many others – cringed as I listened to Ritchie’s attempts to embarrass Sinn Féin into attending Westminster (part of a broader effort when other aspects of Ritchie’s approach are considered). But, lo and behold, it turns out that she herself (for whatever reason, practical or otherwise) has a fairly lax attendance record. To me, it makes the “you have to be there, Gerry” mantra sound a little hollow. In fact, perhaps even a little slactivistic of Ritchie to praise the importance of attending Westminster, but yet rarely attend herself and, more importantly, singularly fail to communicate the substantive benefits of doing so on those rare occasions she does.

   I’ve have always thought that there is little, if anything, that any Nationalist or Republican MP can achieve in Westminster that cannot be similarly facilitated by a Nationalist/Republican DFM, the consultative intervention of the Irish Govt, or the combined efforts of Nationalist/Republican parties as a whole. There are many levers: Westminster is quite possibly the least effective of them and I felt during Ritchie’s Westminster campaign that “You have to be there, Gerry” doesn’t really add much substance to the debate.

   Go to comment

10. Comment on Margaret Ritchie is to step down as SDLP’s leader
    on 9 September 2011 at 11:34 am

    Neil, Mick:

    The idea that Ritchie’s attendance is just ahead of Cameron’s is atrocious, given he’s running a government and she’s…. well she’s… not exactly running anything much at all.

    Tend to be swayed by Neil’s take on this: if you make a big deal out of attending Westminster, if indeed such attendance and involvement is so important (as Ritchie and her SDLP friends made so clear during the last election), then at least she could live by her own professions. The efforts by the SDLP to try to somehow embarrass Sinn Féin on – what I can accept – a principled abstentionism was unsavoury to many Republicans. As was her poppy shenanigans, waffle about not being afraid to say “Northern Ireland” (far removed from Mallon, of course), and all the rest of it. She’s been a truly disastrous leader for the SDLP and an embarrassment to Nationalism/Republicanism: good riddance.

    I recognise joeCanuck’s empathy with respect to her knowing her limitations and moving on and not kicking a person when they’re down: but remember, these are tax-funded politicians. They intentionally place themselves in the public arena and, on their public recor, they are entirely fair game for criticism of the most trenchant nature. In Ritchie’s case, it’s most certainly well-deserved.

    Go to comment