Sir, – I watched Gerry Adams declare on RTÉ that those who sought to get Martin McGuinness to come clean about his IRA past were “elitist” and “reactionary”. If insisting that someone who was a primary architect of a 30-year terror campaign that led to over a thousand deaths should at least be honest about his past before standing for the highest office in the land makes me an elitist reactionary, then I stand shoulder to shoulder with the overwhelming majority of my countrymen who, if the election results are any indicator, are also elitist reactionaries. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – At last, we have the pitter- patter of little feet in the Áras. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Alumni of NUIG will now occupy the positions of President (Michael D Higgins); Taoiseach (Enda Kenny); Tanaiste (Eamonn Gilmore): and Attorney General (Maire Whelan).Is this a record?
– Yours, etc,
Sir, – Michael D. The smallest giant in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – I was never going to vote for Sean Gallagher, and I suspect that he will not acknowledge what — in my view — was really wrong with his campaign. But to me, there are two things worth celebrating in this election — Sean Gallagher and his nemesis Glenna Lynch. How many times have the chattering classes bemoaned the apathy of the electorate and the gulf between it and the political classes? Mr Gallagher, whatever you make of his political involvement and its significance, was not a professional politician and yet he was willing to brave to the worst opprobrium that we all could throw at him. And Ms Lynch, an ordinary member of the public and yet took the trouble to inform herself and act on that information. This wasn’t a case of politicians versus and an alienated public — this was the people struggling with themselves. When commentators laugh at our craven conduct before the Troika, let them remember Sean and Glenna (and the other independents), remember that we live in a real republic.
And if Sean wants to know what I think about his campaign I would be more than happy to take a call from him. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – noted with great satisfaction, along with much of the Irish diaspora of New Zealand, the election of Michael D Higgins as President of the Irish Republic. I feel however, that some credit must be given to Sean Gallagher for raising the topic of entrepreneurial spirit into the national discussion. Perhaps it was with this in mind that the electorate chose not to invest their voting power in his campaign given the potential return of some five future decades of a presidential pension his nomination would have brought? Is mise,
Sir, – I read with interest your coverage of the presidential election (October 29th). On further reading, my interest turned to astonishment: no mention at all at how the pre-election polls got the result so spectacularly wrong! No recognition either, of the fact that anyone with an interest, of the non-anarak variety, in politics in Ireland, might have predicted the final order of the candidates after the votes had been counted. – Yours,etc,
Sir, – If Martin McGuinness is, as he claims, the man who brought peace to Ireland after centuries of conflict, then why did he only get 13.7 per cent of the vote? It seems the emperor has no clothes. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is evident that the voting in the presidential election was hugely influenced by opinion polls. Many people swung behind Michael D Higgins in order to keep Sean Gallagher out. Do we really want opinion polls to affect elections in this way? Is it not a hazard to democracy? I suggest that conscientious citizens should refuse to be polled, and advise others to do the same. If enough people followed this policy, it would undermine the credibility of the polls, since they could not claim to be based on a representative cross-section. Consequently, people would take them less seriously, and be less inclined to be swayed by them. Democracy should be about what the people really want, not what they think they can hope to get. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – So, the gunman has taken the envelope out of Irish politics. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Now that the elections over, I would like to offer thanks to President Mary McAleese and he husband Martin, for 14 years of extraordinary dignified productive, compassionate, warm and good-humoured representation.
Everywhere they went, entertained, or attended, it made me personally proud to be Irish. I sincerely hope they will have a peaceful happy and successful life in whatever path they decide to follow. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Ciaran Mac Aodha-O Cinneide (October 26th) says that the ambiguous use of the terms “Nation” and “State” in the Constitution creates uncertainty as to whether the “The President” presides over the Republic of Ireland alone, or some wider jurisdiction. He supports this view by saying that he can find “no overt reference to either the Republic or Northern Ireland, only to an Ireland generically”.
While he is correct to point out that the terms “Nation”, “State”, and “Ireland” are not always used in a consistent fashion in the Constitution, it is clear that the Constitution, when read as a whole, lays down clear boundaries to the geographical area and legal jurisdictions over which the president presides.
The president is referred to in Article 12 as the “President of Ireland”, with “Ireland” being defined in Article 4 as referring to the “State”, rather than the “Nation”. The “State” is further defined in Article 3.1, by reference to the physical extent of its predecessor, the Irish Free State, which had the same physical boundaries as what we now call the Republic of Ireland.
Therefore, for the time being at least, the “President of Ireland” is the president of the Republic of Ireland and nothing else.
The nature of the physical boundaries of the "State" were examined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases in the 1970s, particularly in The State (Gilsenan) v McMorrow. – Yours, etc,