Debate contribution: Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 4929963
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I doubt that I will need 10 minutes. I thank all Members for what was a lively, informative and worthwhile debate. We tabled the motion to try to progress rights, equality and inclusion. That is the thrust of the motion's objective. I am an Irish woman who lives in Ireland. As others have stated, that right was formalised in the Good Friday Agreement. Twenty-seven years later, we can still see that Irish citizens in the North do not have the same rights as other people who live just across the border. That is something that we would like to correct. While I am correcting things, I will say that although, like the Member to my right, I am not particularly bothered about whose idea it was, it is important to note that Sinn Féin brought legislation to the Oireachtas regarding the extension of voting rights to citizens in the North before Aontú had even been established as a political party. So, it is something that we have long felt was important. It is something that I would like to see all parties supporting, because rights are not exclusive, and increasing rights for one group does not mean that anybody else has less access to rights. Even if it is something that you do not feel that you are going to have any interest in and you do not feel that you will ever want to vote in an Irish presidential election, allowing others to do so does not affect you negatively. You never know: at some point, you might see a candidate that changes your mind, gives you an interest and makes you want to get involved. As has been outlined by others, the present head of state gives a voice to the Irish nation on an international stage. As others have said, we have clearly seen the importance of that in the context of the genocide in Gaza and the bravery and courage of our Irish president in putting words to the feelings of so many of us. He articulated very clearly the views of the vast majority of Irish people in completely condemning the actions of the Israeli state and the murder of innocent civilians and children and stating how we stand with the Palestinian people and send our solidarity to them. We see our own struggle reflected in what is currently happening to those living in the Gaza Strip. We rely on our heads of state to do that for us. As has been said, the Irish head of state is democratically elected. Others have a head of state who is not democratically elected, and that is totally fine. As has been said, the Good Friday Agreement set a very clear formalised arrangement whereby, in the North of Ireland, you can be Irish, British, both or neither. All those options are open to all of us and they are all totally acceptable. I am Irish, and I would like to be able to elect my Irish president.
I will take a point.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely accept that the Good Friday Agreement sets it out clearly that it is down to the will of the people whether there should be constitutional change. The motion is not about constitutional change, and the King is not my head of state. I urge Members to support the motion and remind them that it is not about the constitutional question; it is about extending the right to vote for the Irish president to Irish people who live in the North.
I will indeed.
Absolutely. The Member has articulated clearly the point that I was trying to make about the view of the motion and what the Chamber endorsing it would say. It is about an extension of rights, which we should all support.
644 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: 0.33 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.33 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.90 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| 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.