Debate contribution: Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- 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 4929955
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It should be uncontroversial to say that everyone living in Ireland should have the right to vote for the Irish president, but that is obviously not the case. Several hundred thousand Irish citizens in Belfast, Derry and across the North are being denied their basic democratic rights in elections on this island. That shows flagrant disregard for the will of Irish citizens, North and South. As we have heard, over 70% of members of the 2013 Convention on the Constitution believed that residents in the North should have the right to vote in presidential elections, and the suggestion that people in the South do not care about the North is, frankly, nonsense. People in the North watch and listen to presidential debates and programming on RTÉ and other channels, if they are not geoblocked, so it seems completely unfair and nonsensical that citizens are not allowed to put that information to practical use at the ballot box. People Before Profit recognises that the powers of the Irish president are limited and that the president holds limited discretionary powers that act as a check on the power of Parliament. In practice, those powers are rarely used. In effect, the president of Ireland is a ceremonial head of state, but being above politics allows the head of state more political freedom of expression, and, as has been said, the current president, Michael D Higgins, has been a key voice in Ireland throughout his tenure. He has been an outspoken critic of the neoliberal economic hegemony of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and he has rightly characterised the housing crisis as state failure and a disaster.
He vocally supports Irish neutrality, which is increasingly being eroded by those in power who want Ireland to abandon its anti-colonial history and align with NATO, which is an imperial military alliance that is responsible for the murder of millions of civilians. He also opposed a constitutional ban on abortion services decades before other politicians finally decided to get with the programme.
Whilst recognising the limitations of the office of president, we should appreciate that Ireland is not a monarchy. The Irish head of state is democratically elected and is, therefore, accountable to the electorate, unlike the British royal family. Michael D Higgins's popularity stands in stark contrast to the platform that is given to left-wing parties in the Dáil and in the media. That does not mean that people prefer their socialist politics to be in the form of abstract speeches delivered by a ceremonial head of state who has little power. The popularity of Michael D Higgins suggests that the people of Ireland have an appetite for left-wing and socialist ideas and politics that is not being satisfied by the political establishment, North and South. On the point about Conor McGregor, his politics are, to put it mildly, extremely dangerous, worrying and damaging. It is worth the Member for Lagan Valley noting that a poll from the 'Sunday Independent' — that radical newspaper — showed that just 7% of people would vote for him in the presidential elections, even if he were eligible to stand.
520 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: 0.23 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.14 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.70 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
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.