Presidential Election 2025

What does Humphreys know about nitty gritty EU issues, treaties, law, definite benefits to Ireland etc. She is just not equipped to effectively land anything regarding the EU re Connolly as a result.

The only other things HH has left is Rural Ireland and NI. Connolly has herself literally in the republican colours literature, dresses down unkempt- suits the left vibe, and on Rural Ireland all Connolly has to say is “fox hunting”.

Humphreys is really boxed in, I can’t think of anything left that would land her a few Rory Beggan equivalents of 2 pointers in the polls.

Had Steen run I'd be forced to give Humphries my 3rd vote behind Connolly and Gavin. This way I can just leave the box beside her name blank so there's upsides and downsides

The 2 horse race (technically still a 3 horse race) would have been expanded on if another candidate had secured 20 of the 234 Oireachtas members or 4 of the 31 local authorities. Somebody who couldn't get 8.5% of the Oireachtas or 13% of the local authorities to back her has no business in running for the highest office in the land

That’s a very good point. The only one I can think of where HH alluded to her work in government was her 25,000 emails. Where I thought that was a good line. But besides that nothing much else.

Jayus even her junior minister (McHugh) when she was in the Gaeltacht brief out shone her learning/improving his Irish. Connolly doesn’t even need to throw that at her.

Every politician evades topics, i wouldnt doubt that for a second.

But the Anti-EU line is out there, and she has failed to address it in one way or another. Continuing to evade the topic, and refusing to give credible answers; to me it reads as a tacit confirmation that she is, at the very least, softly eurosceptic.

All she has to do is answer the questions plainly, without pivoting to Israel/Palestine, or Militarization - just come out and say whether she is FOR or AGAINST continued membership of the EU. Come out FOR or AGAINST, both the Pro EU, and the Anti-EU left wing groups in the European Parliament.

Otherwise her record, and her statements during the campaign, allow her to be viewed as Anti-EU.

Again Liam, she has addressed it, just not giving the answer you clearly want.

Not the same thing.

Genuine question:

Can you provide links or evidence where Connolly can be clearly seen as having played an active part, in something that is unequivocally Pro European Union

Honestly I am as engaged as you are in this election cycle - if such evidence exists, i have not seen it.

All i have seen from Connolly RE the European Union is

• Its embracing Militarism
• UvdL stood with War Criminals
• Her record of being against EU Referenda
• Her tacit satisfaction in the Brexit vote, as seeing people 'stand up to EU Bullies'
• Various soft statements of being a 'proud european'

Connolly is pro and anti everything.. most evasive obfuscating politician out there. Constantly waffles and spoofs and sits on both sides the fence.

She has not, because it isn't within the scope of her limited time spoken often on other things EU.

She is for EU directives on Climate Change and has criticised the government for not implementing them.

She is for the Schuman Directive on Integration

She supports EU sanctions on Russia


She has criticised the EU across a narrow spectrum of what the EU does, namely militarisation and support it gives.

I’m going over old ground here I know, I don’t expect agreement and if you were one of the anti CC zealots here, I wouldn’t bother but you position yourself on the soft/centre left, yet you’re voting for the most right-wing candidate in this election and that is hugely problematic.

You present your argument as a factual and dispassionate “analysis,” however the tone and structure of it reveal underlying assumptions and rhetorical strategies that have been present in your posts from the start of this campaign.

Framing and Assumptions on Europe

You begin with an assertion of Connolly’s “animosity” toward the EU, grounding this claim in her history of opposing European treaties and her criticisms of militarisation. However, the characterisation of “animosity” is itself interpretive rather than factual. Opposition to EU treaties, particularly on grounds of militarisation or neutrality, can also be framed as a consistent political philosophy rather than hostility. You collapse principled dissent into “Euroscepticism” without distinguishing between critique and rejection — a significant conceptual leap that oversimplifies Connolly’s (and others) position – in my view.

Furthermore, the argument that Connolly’s associations with some other political figures imply an intent to “dismantle” the EU but relies on guilt by association, not to mention their ‘intent to dismantle is far from being established but it’s useful you to highlight.

This rhetorical move substitutes inference for evidence, suggesting a political motivation that may not be explicitly shared. You claim to reject the label of “smear,” yet your framing relies heavily on conflating criticism with intent — precisely the kind of framing that often produces the perception of a smear campaign!

Just a note on Von Der Leyen – she has stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel and like Trump, Macron, Starmer and Merz completely legitimised Netanyahu’s slaughter of Gazan’s and illegal assaults on five other territories – they are facts.

The Éirigí Appointment

In discussing the so-called “Éirigí Fiasco,” you claim the issue is a matter of legitimate scrutiny rather than partisan attack. While it is indeed reasonable to question the judgment of any public appointment, the argument again hinges on an assumption of moral incompatibility rather than a balanced evaluation of rehabilitation and civic participation. The notion that someone formerly associated with a non-mainstream political group should be barred from serving in Leinster House is debatable — and raises broader questions about inclusivity in democratic institutions.

You concede the importance of rehabilitation but undermine this principle by suggesting that certain political associations permanently disqualify an individual from public service. This stance risks reinforcing exclusionary norms, where past dissent or radicalism becomes grounds for permanent suspicion. The contradiction between acknowledging rehabilitation and denying its practical application weakens the coherence of your argument, in my view.

Media and “Framing”

You continually reject claims of media bias or ‘smearing’ (there’s far more of the former than the latter, but both present) insisting that the coverage has been legitimate and proportionate. Yet your description of how Connolly has been portrayed — as “anti-European,” “anti-German,” and “associated with extremists” — itself reflects the selective framing you accuse others of misidentifying.

You assume that the media’s historical tendency to “do a number” on candidates is natural and inevitable, rather than interrogating why certain narratives dominate political discourse while others are marginalised – this campaign has been graphically illustrative of this process.

This acceptance of media behaviour as an unchangeable fact effectively normalises structural bias. It treats political framing as an unavoidable reality rather than a process worthy of critical examination — precisely the opposite of what a robust democratic conversation should do.

Lastly…

Ultimately, your post is less an impartial analysis than a defence of conventional political legitimacy. You follow the media’s narrative that dissent from dominant EU, NATO, or state-aligned positions is inherently suspect, and that the media’s role in scrutinising such dissent is inherently justified. A more balanced critique would recognise that Connolly’s views, while controversial to some, reflect a consistent thread within Irish political life — one grounded in neutrality, scepticism of military integration, and advocacy for sovereignty – one can disagree but that does not delegitimise them - which has been the central tenet of the media framing from day 1 in this campaign.

Critical journalism should scrutinise, but it should also question its own assumptions — particularly when power and ideology intersect as visibly as they do in discussions of the EU and Irish neutrality for example.

Are you considering not voting or voting for Connolly? Your post suggests that your confidence in Humphreys is fading.

Can anyone say they support the EU in everything it does and fails to do?
Is there no room for disagreements and differing views?
I fear we are falling into the black and white no dissent, only one way to think, speak and act world of the USA.
And the ‘gotcha’ seeking media debate presenters are contributing to this group speak - campaign after campaign.

No still voting for HH out of default

I was Just referencing how poor HH has been in this campaign in getting the undecided vote, or broader spectrum in the electorate. Nothing savvy in the campaign.

It is Connolly’s consistently strong anti-EU stance, and potentially strong rhetoric that wouldn’t be apolitical in office, which means I am still voting HH

I did think about it if Mary Lou ran as President, would I have voted for her? Maybe.