Debate contribution: Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929895
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. First, it is worth noting that the Belfast Agreement recognises that a person from Northern Ireland has the right to identify as British, Irish or both. That refers to national identity, but subsequent legal tests have affirmed that it also applies to citizenship. As such, a person from Northern Ireland may hold British citizenship, Irish citizenship or both. That is reflected in their ability to hold an Irish passport, a British passport or both. Secondly, it is worth noting that the Convention on the Constitution was very explicit that it was not choosing to extend voting rights in Irish presidential elections to Northern Ireland as an entity but, rather, to all Irish citizens. By definition, that includes any person from Northern Ireland who chooses to be so regarded. However, the proposal is specifically about the citizenry as whole. There is, therefore, no need for the final three words of the motion, and there would be no change to the constitutional or sovereign status of Northern Ireland. The proposal is simply for all Irish citizens to have a vote, full stop. That may seem technical, but it is important, because no one in Northern Ireland would be forced to participate. We should note that there is already a difference in voting rights between presidential elections and Dáil elections, in that the former are already restricted to Irish citizens whereas the latter are open to any resident of the state. That distinction would be maintained under the proposal in that the added requirement to be resident of the state to vote in presidential elections would be removed. What the motion does not cover is the potential for the move to strengthen the agreement and to advance reconciliation on the island. Reconciliation requires recognition and acknowledgement of others' identities without that necessarily weakening our own. To put it another way, reconciliation requires a generosity of spirit that is too often absent from debates such as this in the Chamber. It would be foolish to deny that there are not complications in the implementation of the convention's proposals. Realistically, we would be looking at the 2032 elections before any change were likely to come into effect. The details of how the inherent complexities would be ironed out need not be an issue for the Chamber. The principle is clear. Indeed, it is already the case that, in 11 of 14 EU member states where the head of state is directly elected, citizens who live externally have a vote. We would prioritise the potential for such a move to be a further step down the road to embedding peace and reconciliation; a welcome and clear recognition that the Irish identity is chosen by many citizens here and that it is acknowledged and valued without in any way diminishing the identity and, importantly, the constitutional preference of those who exercise their right not to choose that identity. Ultimately, we do not all have to choose the same national identity, but we should all wish to respect the rights of everyone in our society to maximise the benefits of all strands of the agreement. In particular, my party and I strongly encourage others to recognise the fact that respecting everyone's rights in the spirit of genuine and meaningful reconciliation makes Northern Ireland stronger and more stable. We should not miss that opportunity today.
560 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.84).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.09 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.15 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.88 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:27 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.