Latest news with #BunreachtnahÉireann
Sunday World
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Sunday World
Conor McGregor's pitch to be backed by councillors is denied as Dublin says ‘no'
Dublin Chamber refuses to hear fighter's plea for nomination The Sunday World asked Dublin's councils if they would support the disgraced MMA fighter and all failed to give him their backing, with one deputy mayor saying he would only 'spew hate' and waste their time. McGregor, who a civil jury found had sexually assaulted Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel, wants to run for president but has yet to seek the required nominations from members of the Oireachtas or councils to get his name on the ballot. This week, McGregor, who also has more than 20 criminal convictions, launched a petition saying he should be allowed to run for the office without going through the normal procedures. Those seeking to get their name on the ballot can only do so by either securing nominations from at least 20 members of the Oireachtas or at least four local authorities. McGregor does not appear to have yet approached any local authorities to put forward his case but if he does, one that is unlikely to give him a hearing is Dun Laoghaire Rathdown (DLR) County Council, which is proposing preventing anyone seeking their nomination. Conor McGregor won't get his case heard by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council News in 90 seconds - 11th August 2025 A council spokesperson said: 'The following motion was included on the agenda for the Council meeting held on 7th July – 'That this Council resolves, under Article 12.4.2 (ii) of Bunreacht na hÉireann, not to exercise its power to nominate a candidate for election to the Presidency'. 'However, due to a busy agenda, the motion wasn't reached, and it will now be included on the agenda for the next council meeting on 8th September. If this motion is passed, no prospective candidates will be invited to address DLR Councillors. If the motion fails, an alternative method of dealing with requests for nominations will be agreed at the September 8th meeting.' Deputy Mayor Pierce Dargan (FG) said the motion has widespread support amongst councillors and could even pass unanimously. Deputy Mayor Pierce Dargan 'To listen to someone like Conor McGregor for an hour rather than focus on getting things done for constituents, I actually think people would be upset and asking why are you allowing this person to spew hate instead of looking at housing.' He said it would be a waste of time as McGregor would not get the backing of the council even if they allowed him to speak so they would only be giving him a platform. 'I have a feeling what he would say would be riddled with hate-fuelled rhetoric. My constituents would be upset if we allowed that. 'I know that if we gave him time rather than doing what we're elected to do I would get hounded.' He said McGregor hasn't even applied to the council to be heard. 'He has not done even the minimalist effort to try and speak to councils. I can already foresee the attack the council will get from someone like him – but he doesn't have the support. 'If he hasn't bothered to write an email to ask to come and speak to the council why is he launching his petition?' Mayor Jim Gildea (FG) said the motion wasn't directed at McGregor specifically but councillors didn't want to waste people's time as party affiliations meant there wasn't enough votes available for a majority to back any outside candidate. He said even if the council were to hear from candidates, McGregor wouldn't get his vote. 'What really rankles with me is that President Trump met [McGregor] on St Patrick's Day and didn't meet the Taoiseach on St Patrick's Day. That is a real, real insult to Ireland and deliberately so. It's a real slap in the face.' Read more Councillor Fiona Murphy (FF), who said she supports the motion, also wouldn't have backed McGregor if there was a vote before the council. 'No, just from watching him and the way he behaves I wouldn't be a fan. He would be meeting heads of state and I don't want them thinking that he is the person we're all like. 'He isn't the person who should be representing Ireland. You wouldn't know what he could do on that stage.' McGregor will be allowed to address the other councils in his native Dublin if he applies, but he has yet to contact any of them. South Dublin County Council Mayor Pamela Kearns was on annual leave, but former mayor Cllr Alan Finn said he was not aware of McGregor approaching the council to put his case forward. 'Were he to do so, I've no doubt he would be listened to and questioned by democratically elected councillors with courtesy. 'But I don't get a sense that he's interested in or informed about democratic structures and so I don't anticipate such an approach being made. I have no doubt councillors, myself included, would question him about the verdict in the civil rape case and his apparent total ignorance about the State and how it operates, as well as his links to the far-right in the US.' Mayor of Fingal Tom O'Leary said while McGregor could apply to Fingal County Council to seek their backing, he would vote against him if he did apply. 'My franchise and the franchise of all councillors is to vote for or against and I would be exercising my franchise to vote against Conor McGregor if he did appear. 'I don't support him as a candidate. I support the Fine Gael candidate Mairead McGuinness.' Mayor O'Leary said he was happy with the current requirements for any prospective candidate to get on the presidential ballot. 'I do think the system is fair. It has been carefully been considered. Over the years they have all looked at it very carefully and there are a few avenues there to get nominations. 'He has to apply by the same rules as everyone else. There is nothing special about himself or anyone else. 'Because the president is a such a high office representing Ireland, the job interview is carefully considered by having this system. 'I'm happy enough to leave it as it is. If someone wants to try and change it, you go into the Dáil and get party support and non-party support and you try and change it from there and most likely a referendum would have to be held.' Procedures differ in councils across the country but in Fingal, once a prospective candidate gets the backing of four councillors to appear they will be allowed put forward their case and be given fifteen minutes to make a speech before councillors ask them questions. If a majority of councillors approve them they will have the nomination of the council. Over in Dublin City Council, Lord Mayor Ray McAdam said they will allow anyone to appear before the council to make their case provided they meet the eligibility requirements. 'What we will be doing in the city is on foot of the minister signing the orders for setting the date for the election. We will set a date for a special council meeting whereby anybody who writes to myself and members of the council seeking the nomination – then we will afford them the opportunity to make a presentation. 'They'll each have five minutes to speak and there will be opportunity to put a number of questions and councillors will make a determination on whether a nomination is made for any of those candidates. I think it's a fair way.' He said there would be no filtering out of prospective candidates. 'Anybody who seeks we will afford them the opportunity., I fully expect there will be a number of candidates who will seek a nomination from us. I don't want to prejudice the process but I anticipate we will have a special meeting in September to afford any potential nominees to seek a formal nominations for Dublin city Council.' He said he felt the current system for getting on the ballot paper for the presidential election was fair. 'I think the rules that have been in place governing the process for selection of presidential candidates since Bunreacht na hÉireann was enacted has worked and I don't see what justification or need there is to change that. 'I haven't been convinced by any arguments put forward to change it. We live in a representative democracy, we don't live in a direct democracy and as part of a representative democracy we buy in and accept the articles involved as part of our Constitution; part of that involves how our head of state is selected and the selection process for candidates to get onto the election paper.' He said Fine Gael have so far not issued any edict to councillors to not vote for McGregor but the party has been seeking views of councillors on the matter. 'We will make a decision as a Fine Gael city council group as to what our decision will be in terms of whether to facilitate a nomination or not. We will wait and see what candidates come forward at that stage.'
Extra.ie
10-08-2025
- Business
- Extra.ie
Young multi-millionaire seeks Irish presidential nomination
Gareth Sheridan, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and pharmaceutical CEO, has announced that he is seeking a nomination to run for President. Posting on his social media pages, Gareth shared his hopes to be the nation's youngest-ever candidate in a Presidential election and he believes that a younger voice is exactly what Ireland needs right now. The Dublin-born businessman revealed that he has stepped aside as CEO of his US-based pharmaceutical company, Nutriband, to fully focus on the election. Gareth with his wife Heidi and daughter Roe. Pic: Instagram @gareth_sheridan He said: 'I believe there's never been a time in our country's history when this has been more important or relevant today, particularly when the average age of an Irish person stands at just under 40. 'Over the weekend, I spoke with all major stakeholders (in Nutriband) and I informed them of my decision to step aside as CEO, so I may focus solely and fully on the upcoming election. 'However, it has been suggested recently that some parties may be looking to block local authority nominations as a means to control and obstruct who may run for President and make sure the only candidates we can consider would come from within party ranks. 'I don't believe this to be in the spirit of our constitution and I expect all parties to respect Article 12.2.2 of our constitution and to allow our duly elected councillors fulfil their obligations under Bunreacht na hÉireann.' Gareth further stated that the Irish people should be the ones electing the President and not 'the people of Leinster House'. The 35-year-old asked for his goals not to be brushed off as 'youthful arrogance' and he has a clear plan and vision for the nation. The Dublin-born businessman revealed that he has stepped aside as CEO of his US-based pharmaceutical company, Nutriband, to fully focus on the election. Pic: Nutriband He added that the values and visions he holds have already been supported by numerous councillors and claimed that they will propose and second his nomination. Gareth continued: 'As a group, we are very confident that we have at least the necessary four local authorities to contest the upcoming election as stipulated in Article 12.2.2 of our constitution. 'Now, hoping to be our youngest-ever candidate, I am fully aware of the issues facing our younger generations. Gareth further stated that the Irish people should be the ones electing the President and not 'the people of Leinster House'. Pic: Nutriband 'They're dispirited, disinherited and disenfranchised. 'Despite being in gainful employment, they're the first generation in modern Ireland to have little or no hope of owning a home, condemned to a life of exorbitant rents or even emigration. 'This is something that I want to highlight, fight for and champion over the course of my campaign.' Gareth is married to a US model called Heidi, and the couple have a two-year-old adopted daughter named Roe. His entrepreneurial journey began in Dublin, where he was named the Bank of Ireland Young Entrepreneur of the Year in 2014 after launching Nutriband Ltd. Nutriband also earned the title of Best New Product that same year. Since then, he has been celebrated as South Dublin's Best Startup and Best Young Entrepreneur, and has served as a Nissan Generation Next Ambassador, identified as one of Ireland's future generational leaders. He is the author of 'From No to NASDAQ', a business memoir charting his path from startup founder to public company CEO. Gareth added: 'It's time that we become an Ireland that gives everyone a fair chance. 'Those for who Ireland is home, those who have made Ireland their home and importantly those who would like to return home, who are often forgotten in this conversation. 'So this time around, I want to offer something different. 'A forward-looking candidate. A candidate that's on your side and focused on the future of Ireland. 'To create an Ireland that we will be proud to hand down to the next generation and they'll be proud to inherit.'
Irish Independent
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
New Irish Constitution would be required for a United Ireland, professor says
Speaking today at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Donegal, at an event focused on the Constitution, Ruadhan Mac Cormaic, editor of the Irish Times questioned a panel if a United Ireland would require 'tearing the thing up and starting again'. Professor David Kenny, Professor in Law and Fellow and Head of the Law School at Trinity, said former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar previously suggested that unification would require a new Constitution. The Professor said he could not see 'a way around that'. 'I wrote a paper hypothesising that you could radically change the constitution in so many ways, you would keep some structure of the current one and swap out of the planks; but I think even that would have so much baggage about it being the Constitution of this state that would be continuing,' he said. 'I think the continuity there would present symbolic issues. 'I think the idea of a new start and a new state in the event of unification would be crucial.' He added from a practical perspective, there are so many 'unanswered questions' about what the structure of that state might be or what kind of political system it would have. 'Is it federal, con-federal, unitary, what level of delegation down to provincial level would you see in various powers?,' he asked. 'There is very little in the Constitution 1937 that provides for that and the idea of unification that is in that document that the preamble aspires to the unity of the country was quite naïve. 'It was the idea that at some point Northern Ireland would just join in this state and things would continue. 'Really, the Constitution does not provide for a great deal beyond the fact that the territory of the state could encompass the whole island at some stage. 'It does not really think about unification like that, certainly not in any serious way. 'So, I think yes it would require a new constitution.' Professor Kenny said the challenge of this would be if there is a blank page with nothing agreed, then 'every single issue' in the Constitution becomes a possible point of disagreement. 'That is the benefit of trying to retain some document as a baseline so you don't have to put every single point on the structure of the state up for discussion in what will already be a very difficult process,' he said. 'I think the scale of the changes are so significant, that if you try to do an amended job on Bunreacht na hÉireann, you would be left with almost nothing left of that original document and you would wonder if there would be a great advantage to doing it that way.' Ivana Bacik TD, Leader of the Labour Party and Party Spokesperson on the Northern Ireland, said there is need for groundwork. She said a joint Oireachtas community on the Constitution established should be established now with the key part of its function to prepare the ground for what rewriting would be necessary. 'I think you would have to approach it on the basis of lets keep the framework and see where we need to change things to ensure unification could proceed as smoothly as possible,' she said. 'There is an interesting thing about the 1937 Constitution that it is still a transitional constitution. 'There is reference in it to Saorstát Éireann and the Irish Free State so it acknowledges that need for transitional and incremental change. 'I think it could build into a rewrite. 'A joint Oireachtas committee with careful groundwork, green paper, white paper, in advance of the holding of any referendum. 'I think that is essential if we are to avoid the mistake of Brexit to ensure the people go into it, both North and South, fully informed, fully engaged in the process.'
Irish Examiner
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
TD's super junior ministers challenge seeks 'unprecedented' intervention of judiciary, court told
A Kerry TD's High Court action challenging the constitutionality of super junior minister appointments seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch, the Attorney General has said. Rossa Fanning made the argument in presenting the State's defence to Pa Daly's case, which opened before a three-judge divisional court on Monday. Mr Fanning said the court should resist the Sinn Féin TD's attempt to have the judiciary involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Daly's case claims the appointment of super junior ministers is 'completely anti-democratic', and is a breach of various provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Mr Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty were present in court on Monday morning. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super junior ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote. Pa Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Pearse Doherty outside the Four Courts in Dublin this morning. Picture: Collins Courts Opening Mr Daly's case Feichín McDonagh SC said super junior ministers meet and act as a 'collective authority' with other senior government members, in breach of the constitution. Counsel opened to the court Article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Under the current scenario, there are 'extra individuals' – super junior ministers – who are present in the Cabinet room taking a full role in the formulation of Government policy, Mr McDonagh said. Every decision taken by the Government with these extra individuals in attendance has been formulated in breach of Article 28 of the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said. He said their case is not challenging a particular Government decision based on the legal points raised – but some other litigant could, which is a danger and possible problem, Mr McDonagh said. Their case is trying to ensure the Government complies with the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said. Counsel said the Attorney General attends Cabinet meetings to provide legal advice, and the secretary general takes meeting minutes, but they do not act collectively with the members of Government. Pa Daly. His case claims the appointment of super junior ministers is 'completely anti-democratic'. Photo: Leah Farrell/© Rossa Fanning, for the State respondents, said the court should resist Mr Daly's case, which attempts to have the judiciary involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Fanning said the case's key question was whether the Constitution forbids the regular attendance by ministers of state at Government meetings, whilst simultaneously allowing the attendance of the secretary general, attorney general, and limited attendance of other ministers. 'Plainly, the answer to that question is the Constitution does nothing of the kind,' he said. Mr Fanning said their case is because there is no Constitutional regulation of who attends Cabinet meetings, who attends is a matter exclusively for the Government itself. Mr Fanning submitted that even if the court disagrees with this, for Mr Daly's case to succeed, he must prove the Government's 'clear disregard' of the Constitution. Mr Fanning said the practice of ministers of state attending Cabinet meetings has been ratified and recognised multiple times by members of the Oireachtas. This arises from legislation passed, initially in 2001, providing for allowances to be paid to those ministers. Earlier, Mr McDonagh said this allowance 'is neither here nor there' when addressing the legal issues raised by their case. Mr Fanning submitted that Cabinet meetings are only one element of Government decision-making, and cannot be looked at artificially in isolation of the other parts of that process. He noted the role of Cabinet Committees in the process, and other people and organisations that can influence a decision. The idea that ministers of state must be hermetically sealed away from the formation of policy is completely unreal, he said. Mr Fanning said Mr McDonagh was advancing an 'unprecedented' argument, by positing that the attendance of additional people at a Cabinet meeting invalidates a consensus decision of the 15 senior government ministers. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's side were seeking to reverse engineer an interpretation of the Constitution to suit their case. The case continues, and is expected to run until Wednesday at the latest.
Irish Examiner
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Pa Daly: Why Sinn Féin is challenging the Government on super junior ministers
This week I will bring a constitutional challenge against the Government in the High Court regarding the appointment of super junior ministers. The case challenges what I believe is a deeply problematic and unconstitutional practice that has taken root in recent decades - the attendance and participation of so-called super junior ministers at meetings of the Government. This case is a constitutional challenge aimed at protecting the integrity of our system of government under Bunreacht na hÉireann with which Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose. The Constitution is clear. Article 28.1 states that 'the Government shall consist of not more than 15 members'. That is not a guideline, a suggestion, or an ideal. To me, this is a legal limit on the number who may be part of the Government. The practice of allowing super junior ministers to attend Cabinet meetings, contribute to discussions and access all Cabinet documentation, amounts, in effect, to treating them as full members of Cabinet. That is, in our view, in clear breach of the Constitution. While super junior ministers do not have a formal vote at Cabinet, that argument is largely academic. As former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar himself acknowledged earlier this year, votes at Cabinet happen rarely, if at all. What matters is that super junior ministers are regularly present, bring memos for decision, and are deeply involved in the executive decision-making process. They are treated, in all meaningful respects, as equals to Cabinet ministers, without being bound by the same legal framework and without the constitutional permission to operate in that role. This, we will argue, undermines the core principles of collective Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality. The Constitution guarantees that the Government speaks with one voice and that its internal workings are conducted within a protected, confidential framework. This is necessary to ensure stability, coherence, and accountability. When individuals who are not legally members of the Government are present, that principle is eroded. Cabinet confidentiality is diluted, and the chain of collective responsibility becomes blurred. Let's be clear, this is not a historical anomaly. The attendance of a Minister of State at Cabinet first occurred in 1994 under the Rainbow Coalition. Every government since has perpetuated this arrangement. But that doesn't make it right - nor does it make it legal, but we believe that it is time for the courts to adjudicate on the issue. We have reached a point now where four super junior ministers of State are incentivised, via public funds, to operate as Cabinet members in all but name. I believe that this is incompatible with the Constitution. It effectively uses taxpayer money to encourage a practice that breaches the constitutional limits placed on the composition and function of Government. That should concern every citizen, regardless of party or politics. We are told this is a matter of practicality or political expediency. We're told it helps the government run more smoothly or allows for more inclusive voices at the table. Who is running the Government? But when Michael Lowry TD - someone who brokered a deal between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and the Regional Independent Group - states publicly that super juniors 'will sit at the Cabinet table, have access to all Cabinet papers, contribute at Cabinet, and attend all leaders' meetings,' we must ask - who is really running the Government? This arrangement isn't about good governance. It's about maintaining power through political horse-trading. It is about doing deals behind closed doors and bending constitutional norms to fit political convenience. It is now time to get clarity from the courts on the constitutionality of the issue. The Constitution must mean what it says. If we allow these lines to be blurred, we invite further erosion of the democratic checks and balances that are essential to our system of government and to our democracy. This case is not about party politics. It is not about those who currently serve as super junior ministers. But the constitutionality of their role at Cabinet I believe must be clarified. A culture has developed where constitutional boundaries can be bent by political deal-making. The cost is the loss of public trust in politics and the weakening of our democratic institutions. This case is about reasserting the rule of law, reaffirming the authority of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and ensuring that the Government operates as the Constitution demands. Anything less would be a disservice to the people of Ireland.
