Despite the speculation about the future of the Government after the hammering which FF and the Green suffered at the recent elections, there is little understanding of the constitutional processes for a change of government without a general election.

Watching archive footage of Brian Lenihan (senior!) on Q&A denying any effort to contact the Aras on that fateful night in 1982 prompted some thoughts about the President's powers.

Is it democratic to change Government without dissolving the Dail?

Should the President and her successors assert their discretion when asked for a dissolution of the Dail by a Taoiseach who no longer has a majority?

These are fundamental constitutional issues and it will be too late to think about them when a government crisis is upon us.


I have written a detailed commentary on my blog.


http://http://lefournier.blogspot.com/

Noel Whelan should have read my blog before he got everything backwards in today's IT. He was caught rotten by Fergus Finlay during the final edition of Q&A this week so it's no surprise he's attempting a rebuttal. What a sorry effort it is.

Firstly he claims Come on, Noel. Can you really have forgotten that this was the "VAT on children's shoes" election? More importantly, this could not have been Haughey seeking to prevent a dissolution if he was Taoiseach. Think about it: does our Constitution permit the President to dissolve the Dail against the Taoiseach's wishes (even if the Taoiseach has lost the support of the Dail)?

Of course, as John Bowman knows well and as my blog explains, Haughey was trying to prevent a dissolution against the advice of the Taoiseach Garret Fitz.

In 1990, Alan Dukes gave the Dail an interesting account of that evening.
http://http://historical-debates.oir...010240232.html

Strangely, Noel Whelan says he has a "third perspective" on that night although he is too young to have played an direct role in those events. He writes today that he believesIf Whelan is saying that Lenihan did not attempt to contact the Aras on that fateful night but for some reason claimed otherwise to Jim Duffy, I would like to hear his evidence. Everything we know about that evening supports the idea that Lenihan made those calls but if he was telling Duffy some fairytale, then why did he backtrack in 1990?

Ultimately, Lenihan realised that it was not a matter of constitutional impropriety - the President can heed or ignore any advice in that situation - but the problem of independence: if he was willing to pursue his friend Paddy Hillery at Haughey's request, what chance would there be of President Lenihan acting against Haughey's wishes.

Noel Whelan also has a dig at the Irish Times because it held a press conference to highlight Duffy's tapes. To which I say: kudos to Madame Editor for allowing such insubordination and I hope the IT never forgets that a newspaper tries to sell papers!