Presidential Election 2025

It works by ceasing hostilities and negotiating a settlement, we should know well in this country how that goes even if not everyone is happy with it.

The reality is Crimea was annexed over a decade ago and the international community did nothing about it and the Donbas has been controlled by separatists ever since so it's not a simple solution.

How many times has Putin refused to even meet Zelensky y? Putin is not interested in peace. And an unjust peace never lasts. A state that wants peace doesn't send it's own children to he trained in the use of firearms, indoctrinated into nationalist youth movements etc. it's the actions of a government that plans to invade more countries.

You don't understand the Russian ideology of Imperialism and colonialism that has been going on for centuries. And that is still going on. Look at a map of European empires and look at the only one that's left. It's also an attack on western democracy, which Putin were Ukraine as an outpost of.

TBH the original post you cited was my attempt to come up with a possible way of Ireland moving from its 100% neutrality stance. On this issue, i think support and opposition would move past traditional Left Right divides.

My outlined hypothetical, was attempting to deal with each of the main clash points over the issue of Irelands Neutrality. And as i said in that original post, it would be a defensive pact/alliance with other European Actors, as opposed to a NATO style American led initiative.

Conscription:

Obviously there will be strong feeling on this topic, with a large majority in opposition to any form of forced conscription. The way to 'disarm' this talking point would be to ammend the constitution to prohibit conscription under any circumstance. If we maintained our volunteer army, but also incentivised manning this army, with a good salary structure and long term benefits. We could negate any need to even consider conscription. While I can see an argument against this, we would only be talking about the most dire of circumstances. In theory, a clause could be included to account for this.

'in situations where the territorial integrity of the state is in jeapardy, the government is authorized to take what ever actions it deems neccessary to ensure the adequate defence of the nation' - etc

So by making it clear that there is a prohibition on conscription, unless and until Ireland is actually being militarily invaded, we are still maintaining a NO CONSCRIPTION stance over all.

Mutual Defensive Reasons:

The idea of this point, was to make it clear that the pact would be entirely defensive in nature. Akin to NATO article 50 perhaps. The key exclusion of Pre-emption would be important. Our membership and involvement could be tied specifically to the member states, reinforcing each other during a military attack from a third power. And that we would not be obliged to join any pre-emptive attack on a third power, which was deemed to be threatening a member state.

I should state too, that which countries could join this Alliance, and who would be excluded, would be very important. It could be argued that only states with no pre-existing conflicts would be permitted to join. This would negate the possibility of Ireland, and the alliance more generally, being dragged into anyones 'old emnity' with a neighboring state.

Supremacy of the United Nations

This would be another point of contention that could be managed. In a case of Mission Creep, where this hypothetical Alliance felt itself obliged to engage in foreign peacekeeping duties, the UN rubber stamp would be necessary for Irelands involvement. This one may seem less important, and the UN has certainly been played in past by bad actors. But it would still be worth considering this possibility, as a safeguard measure.

Look when i typed the original post, it was really just highlighting that the world has changed. Every topic must be debated in the public square, and nothing should be left undiscussed and off the table. There are those who argued that Irelands Abortion issue was settled with the 8th ammendment in 1983, and didnt need to be 'reopened' - of course that was nonsense, and after a long time, we had our referendum, and the 8th was repealled. A discussion on neutrality, and possible referendums on the topic could take place. In all likelyhood, the issue of Irish Neutralily will come up again and again. And the above is just my take on how a compromised solution could be reached.

Interested to hear peoples views, but i repeat again; I dont think this is a left right issue, nor do i wish to be shouted down for 'war mongering' - im just putting my opinion forward, by all means disagree, but please do so in a sane way.

Why do you want her to pretend to be something she is not? I generally vote left (Greens and Soc Dems recently) however I think she is a disaster of a candidate and I won't be voting for her.

I think its better that she is exposed now rather that managing to keep quite and win before being herself as president.

The decision by the left wing parties to all back her shows very poor judgement imo. I don't blame CC, none of what she is saying is unexpected from her. She is what she is.

The electorate are more open to voting left in a presidential election, we have a popular left president, the government aren't overly popular and the other candidates are relatively poor. This should have been an easy win for a left candidate. Will be interesting to see what percentage of first preference votes she gets. It could put an end to any idea of a united left.

Same as any other candidate really if they lose. I wouldn't gauge her winning as a sign that we are in for a left alliance govt either.

Whatever of having a left party in govt as a coalition party, there's too many centrist voters, workers who would realise that a left govt would cost them a lot.

Also SF are about as left as my belly button.

"I would not like CCs result to dictate the future course of a left wing alliance in this country, i think it would be a shame. If SF, Socdem, Lab, et al - can put aside their differences at the next GE, we could finally have a non-FFG government. Grading this possible alliance on how well, or more likely how poorly CC polls, would be a horrendous decision."

The result will have some impact, a win and momentum could be considered to be building, a heavy defeat and questions would be asked. Lets face it though she isn't really a united left candidate that the "left" sat down and chose. They were either backed into a corner and supported her as a get out (SF).

To be honest I don't really buy the need for a united left pre election due to out voting system. There are only so many left votes and they will move between parties on the left, especially when they have been in government like the Greens.

I suspect there a some left voters who would actually be less likely to vote for the likes of the SD if they state their sole goal is to support SF in govenernment.

Great poem. It and Owen’s Dulce et Decorum est should be at the heart of the British Remembrance Day ceremonies instead of the vainglorious nonsense about poppies. Still, I wouldn’t want to see conscription ruled out. I’m afraid we may need it if Russia stays on its current course.

Tight budget? FF/FG have multiple's of CC at the moment.

Another poster suggested it first not me. But Presidential elections are different than DE. If the first was Hyde from the Protestant tradition. Why not Humphreys from the Presbyterian tradition?

SF are just too parochial to do that though. As for the largest party trope. SF didn’t have the numbers as voted for by the electorate to take power. The majority of the ROI electorate simply does not trust SF to take power in ROI.

If SF backed Humphreys it would send out a great signal, to the electorate. Inclusion cooperation maturity.

Nice summary here what the three candidates are doing - latest

https://archive.is/tXEs0

Gavin - reclaiming the tricolour from extremes both left and right

HH - fielding the worst of questions on a hit and run driver who was on release.

CC - Fundraising in the Roisin Dubh, sold out concert featuring Mary Coughlan

Good description of Gavin. Disagree on HH v CC, Humphreys clearly the better “politician” thus far in my view.

Unless CC makes a big impression in the live debates. Dialling back the extreme left international world view for example. Which another poster already laid out in detail.

Or ifHumphreys makes a hames of it in a live debate. Which seems doubtful. Only then could Connolly could come into contention for me.
However, it seems all three candidates have set out their positions/views. And we have a fair idea what they offer already. It is really the undecided voter they have to convince now.