President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

[Leo]

And right up front it states:

Yes, the 1948 act provides a description, just like a description for me could well be Bill's son, or the grumpy moderator from AAM, but descriptions do not change names.

My understanding is that legislation cannot change the Constitution without a referendum, so the official name of the country remains "Ireland".

Correct, a referendum must proceed any change in the official name of the state. Were such a referendum to be passed, then an Act would be required to be passed by the Oireachtas to affect the change.

Getting to the nub of the issue as @PMU has argued, does the use by the CSO of RoI neutralise any criticisms of Donaldson for doing so? We all are in agreement that Donaldson was wrong and there seems to be agreement that he was knowingly wrong. So the argument boils down to were the CSO wrong to use RoI in their context? For absolute clarity should the CSO have described their survey as concerning "trips taken in Ireland and Northern Ireland"? What is your view on these latter points?

I've no issue with the CSO or anyone else using the informal description in most circumstances.

Much as I love a bit of pedantry, I just can't get upset about someone trying to insult us by using ROI.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yes, the 1948 act provides a description, just like a description for me could well be Bill's son, or the grumpy moderator from AAM, but descriptions do not change names.

Leo, as I said in an earlier post, if you search "Republic of Ireland" in irishstatutebook.ie you will get numerous hits. Nobody is arguing that descriptions change names or that the official name of Michael D is not the President of Ireland. But clearly from all those references in the statute book the "description" as set out in the 1948 Act can be used as a noun and formally so at that.

I've no issue with the CSO or anyone else using the informal description in most circumstances.

Sorry but it can't get much more formal than this:

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

@Purple has given us examples of some informal names/descriptions and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.

Much as I love a bit of pedantry, I just can't get upset about someone trying to insult us by using ROI.

@PMU has rightly identified that there are many who, unlike you but like me and like our president, do object to Donaldson's typically provocative terminology. Whilst it might be difficult to put yourself in our shoes do you think the CSO example should detract us from those objections? I most certainly don't.

 

[Purple]

@Purple has given us examples of some informal names/descriptions and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.

I'd happily change the name to 'LGBTQ+ Central, Pink Unicorns and Atheism' if it kept the God-botherer's out.

 

[Leo]

But clearly from all those references in the statute book the "description" as set out in the 1948 Act can be used as a noun.

repeated use of a description does not mean it becomes a noun, let alone a formal title. Call me what you like for as long as you like, my name is still Leo.

Sorry but it can't get much more formal than this:

No, I mean informally use a description in place of a more formal use of the proper name

@Purple has given us examples of some informal names/description and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.

I'd agree, 'down here' is a poor descriptor in the absence of further clarification. Republic of Ireland needs no such clarification.

@PMU has rightly identified that there are many who, unlike you but like me and like our president, do object to Donaldson's typically provocative terminology. Whilst it might be difficult to put yourself in our shoes do you think the CSO example detracts from those objections?

I think those getting upset by this just add fuel to the fire and give him exactly what he's looking for. It seems to be a common political strategy now, distract from the substantive issues, sow discontent and have your opponents bickering over the inconsequential.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

repeated use of a description does not mean it becomes a noun, let alone a formal title. Call me what you like for as long as you like, my name is still Leo.


No, I mean informally use a description in place of a more formal use of the proper name


I'd agree, 'down here' is a poor descriptor in the absence of further clarification. Republic of Ireland needs no such clarification.


I think those getting upset by this just add fuel to the fire and give him exactly what he's looking for. It seems to be a common political strategy now, distract from the substantive issues, sow discontent and have your opponents bickering over the inconsequential.

Jayz, I am tearing what little is left of my hair out
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE NAME IS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

What I am saying is that Donaldson made a deliberately provocative and INCORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland". It is not just me that has made that assessment. Our President took particular hump at it.
The CSO made a CORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland" in the same way that it is used umpteen times in our legislation. The logic of some posters seems to be that the President should be issuing a formal rebuke to the CSO to be consistent.

 

[Purple]

Jayz, I am tearing what little is left of my hair out
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE NAME IS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

What I am saying is that Donaldson made a deliberately provocative and INCORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland". It is not just me that has made that assessment. Our President took particular hump at it.

Agreed, though Micky D is particularly good at taking the hump.
Maybe it's the burden of being the greatest living Irishman.

The CSO made a CORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland" in the same way that it is used umpteen times in our legislation.

Kind of, they should really refer to this country by its name but it's no big deal.

The logic of some posters seems to be that the President should be issuing a formal rebuke to the CSO to be consistent.

I don't see that.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.

Agreed, though Micky D is particularly good at taking the hump.
Maybe it's the burden of being the greatest living Irishman.

Agreed. Not a great fan of Mickey D.

Kind of, they should really refer to this country by its name but it's no big deal.

Have to agree to disagree. Clearly it is legitimate to refer to the state by its official "description" and often it is preferable to using its official "name" as we see numerous times in our legislation. The context of a survey of trips within the two states on this island would indicate for me that the description is the much more appropriate for disambiguation alone.

I don't see that.

I am not too proud to admit that I got that one wrong. Donaldson was attacking Michael D's office and deserved a response from Him. The CSO instance is not in the same space.

 

[Purple]

The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.

I'm sure you'll struggle through it

 

[Firefly]

The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.

I'll see your "South of France" and raise you to the "People's Republic of Cork"

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'll see your "South of France" and raise you to the "People's Republic of Cork"

View attachment 5858

That's just a description. the official name is The Rebel County.

 

[WolfeTone]

Interestingly Mary Lou won't use the name of this country. When she's runnin' things will she change the name to 'The 26 Counties', 'This Jurisdiction' or 'Doyn Soyth'? It's appalling that she want's to run a country that she won't even use the name of.

I thought the name of the country was Ireland? Im pretty sure she uses that name? Maybe I'm wrong?

 

[WolfeTone]

The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.

 

[Purple]

I thought the name of the country was Ireland? Im pretty sure she uses that name? Maybe I'm wrong?

No, not when she's talking about this country. She uses it when talking about the island of Ireland.

 

[Baby boomer]

The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.

True, but (along with others!) you're spectacularly missing the point. The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but to declare that we were a Republic. This was done by repealing the the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 which granted the King certain powers in terms of accreditation of diplomatic representatives, signing of international treaties and so on. As the defining characteristic of a Republic was thought to be the absence of a monarch, this was the reason the State was officially, by law, described as a Republic at the same time as the last vestige of a constitutional role for the King was removed from the Irish legal order. The Act goes on to allow the powers formally exercised by the King to be exercised by the President on the advice of the Government.

It's significant that the repeal of the 1936 Act is in Section 1 of the 1948 Act as well as being the first thing mentioned in the preamble to the Act.

"AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, AND TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THE EXECUTIVE POWER OR ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ITS EXTERNAL RELATIONS."

And of course, the more petty political reason that motivated the Inter-Party government of the day, was to embarrass Dev, who had often declared that he would make us a Republic, and even claimed de facto to have done so, but never quite pulled the trigger (as it were) to make it happen.

It's really got sweet FA to do with defining the actual name of the State, which was, ever since the 1937 Constitution was adopted, and remains, Ireland.

 

[Purple]

The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.

Correct; it is the official description of the country of Ireland.
When referring to something it is normal to use its name rather than its description.

 

[Purple]

well said @Baby boomer

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

True, but (along with others!) you're spectacularly missing the point. The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but to declare that we were a Republic. This was done by repealing the the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 which granted the King certain powers in terms of accreditation of diplomatic representatives, signing of international treaties and so on. As the defining characteristic of a Republic was thought to be the absence of a monarch, this was the reason the State was officially, by law, described as a Republic at the same time as the last vestige of a constitutional role for the King was removed from the Irish legal order. The Act goes on to allow the powers formally exercised by the King to be exercised by the President on the advice of the Government.

It's significant that the repeal of the 1936 Act is in Section 1 of the 1948 Act as well as being the first thing mentioned in the preamble to the Act.

"AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, AND TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THE EXECUTIVE POWER OR ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ITS EXTERNAL RELATIONS."

And of course, the more petty political reason that motivated the Inter-Party government of the day, was to embarrass Dev, who had often declared that he would make us a Republic, and even claimed de facto to have done so, but never quite pulled the trigger (as it were) to make it happen.

It's really got sweet FA to do with defining the actual name of the State, which was, ever since the 1937 Constitution was adopted, and remains, Ireland.

No argument with that. But just to be clear it wasn't just a case of "we are a Republic, end of". Otherwise why bother introducing this contortion of a description. The fact is that the "description" has been very much part of our legislation ever since, appearing many, many times.
Of course you apprised us of this situation a long time ago (#4 18th September*) and I would be interested in your thoughts on the following question. (Note that we all agree that Donaldson was wrong and most of us suspect that he was being deliberately provocative. We also all agree that the name of the state is "Ireland".)
Q. Were the CSO similarly incorrect in using "trips in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" rather than "trips in Ireland and Northern Ireland" to describe their survey?
This is key to the central point, for if the CSO have been sloppily incorrect it does rather take the wind from the sails of any criticism of Donaldson even though his "mistake" most likely had more malice in it.

As a supplementary, if you think the CSO were incorrect, have you any views as to when it would be appropriate for a state body to use the 1948 description rather than the constitutional name? Or do you think that technically a state body should always use the constitutional name and not the legislated description?

* I re-read that very informative post again. Interestingly you assert, and are probably right, that the Brits called us the Republic of Ireland and therefore we dug in our heels and insisted on Ireland. I suspect that discussions along these lines occurred during the GFA negotiations (especially in the context of us retracting those Articles), of which I think I recall Donaldson was a leading Unionist participant. I think there can be little doubt that Donaldson's "mistake" had malice in it.

Wiki, and @Purple reminds me that this is only their opinion, have the following take.

The constitutional name Ireland is normally used. However, the official description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when disambiguation is desired between the state and the island of Ireland.

I think the CSO survey intro is a clear case where disambiguation is desired
Interestingly, we also have from Wiki:

"Republic of Ireland" was used on the state's version of the 2021 EU Digital COVID Certificate, which a Department of Health official said was an "oversight" that would be "corrected going forward".

So I do agree that the default should be Ireland but that Republic of Ireland can be correct in the right context. That context apparently occurs many times in our legislation and IMHO was present in the case of the CSO survey. Now the faux pas on the COVID certificate would let Donaldson off the hook if we thought his was a similar slip. I have already opined on that.

 

[WolfeTone]

The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but to declare that we were a Republic.

I'm not disputing that. I'm not disputing anything in fact. The question was put, was a State body like CSO wrong to use the term 'Republic of Ireland' in context of its objectives in gathering census information?
I do not believe that it was as the term 'Ireland' is both the name of the 26 county State and the name of the territorial space of the entire island as recognised by the Constitution.
So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.

I think that's what educated folk call "disambiguation". It wasn't quite a census but a survey on "trips in (...) and Northern Ireland".
Anyway, we keep being in danger of missing the main point which to me is that Donaldson was being provocative and the CSO instance does not in any way absolve him.

 

[Purple]

I'm not disputing that. I'm not disputing anything in fact. The question was put, was a State body like CSO wrong to use the term 'Republic of Ireland' in context of its objectives in gathering census information?
I do not believe that it was as the term 'Ireland' is both the name of the 26 county State and the name of the territorial space of the entire island as recognised by the Constitution.
So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.

But it is the Central Statistics Office of this country. You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think they were asking for date about a different country twice.