Presidential Election 2025

I don't think Connolly is as anti-EU as she's made out to be in the media. Some would have you believe if she's voted in as our next president that it's our first step towards an Irexit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the EU has issues, no doubt, but we are the EU and we have the power to change it.

I remember when the water charges issue was at the fore a few years back and FG were towing the line "the EU are making us introduce these charges" where in reality the EU didn't give a f**k what we did. That was effectively FG building criticism of the EU and now they have to put up with anti-EU rhetoric, what were they expecting?

Beaker is a good journo. Alison O'Connor is a commentator. What has been significant about this election is the way that the legacy media has been, based on the opinion polls, ignored by the electorate. Social Media seems to have completely replaced print legacy media in this election. In getting the Gavin story and Gavin's withdrawal from the race, the Indo may have accidentally torpedoed the Humphreys campaign as well because the transfers from Gavin on which Humphreys depended may not happen because FF voters may not vote.

I'd be more worried if she did give yes/no answers to questions as complex as the ones she was asked. She's not a 3 or 4 buzz word candidate like Boris Johnson or Donald Trump, she's an intellectual and describes her answers such that you can understand where she is coming from with her answers. If she was more anti-EU you'd know about it

That's RTE again, they want to paint the picture of CC being anti-EU. They know that if she was pressed to speak of what she considers 'good' about the EU that she'd have given a very good answer and really blown HH out of the water

Correct, we are pro-EU as a nation and the president, whoever she is, will respect that. Connolly went so far as to say she would meet with Donald Trump if required to which I felt was very dignified knowing how she feels about him

It will be quite interesting just to see what turnout we get, 2011 was 56.1% and 2018 was 43.9%. Now with just 2 candidates I expect the turnout to be lower. I know there are many within FF and camp Maria Steen who won't be voting

Coincidentally I know some FF members who will be voting for CC simply because she's not the FG candidate, interesting that those lines still exist I think

The word is "humanely" not "humanly".

And the idea that because animals are not human they should not be treated humanely is absurd.

Ironically many animals wouldn't hunt for sport but only for necessity - fox hunting is anything but. It is cruelty dressed up as tradition (British tradition BTW), an exercise in cruelty that serves no purpose other than to entertain people who like seeing foxes pulled limb from limb.

Its no different from hare coursing - if your galway cousins aren't rich and they fox hunt then maybe they're of the same culture who think hare coursing is great craic boss.

Yea i would agree with you on this. We have a limited amount of attention, and Fox Hunting policy is not going to be a consideration for me in this election, or any election if i am being honest. If you handed me a vote on it, I would probably vote to ban or limit it. But i will not refuse to vote for a candidate in a General or Local/European election, based on their position for fox hunting. Personally i dont like it, but i frequently get into arguments with people over my coarse fishing hobby, and love of horse racing. Depending on who you ask, these hobbys and interests are either 'traditional' or 'cruel and unusual'.

Again I wouldnt disagree with you. But its not an issue i would campaign for or against. If you hand me a vote on it, i would reduce, or be open to a ban. But i do wonder what will be next going down this line - fishing? Horse racing? Greyhound Racing? All of these sports have been attacked by various groups for decades.

Yes im mostly on the same page here. Its a difficult choice for me because, although agreeing with you on the reasons to oppose Connolly, the alternative is a very poor candidate. Perhaps a safer pair of hands, i would agree with you there too.

But the smear on Connolly RE her time as a barrister, and whether or not she represented the banks in repossession cases. This has soured my already tepid opinion of HH. You seem to take this as a real consideration in how you view CC. Where as for me, I think it was an unwarranted smear. Barristers take the cases they are given, unless there is a serious conflict of interest. Iv argued for weeks that the Eirigi story, or coverage on her syria trip, do not represent smears. They are stories which I believe should be covered.

But the Barrister/Repo Story, is actually a smear in my opinion. And it stains HH in my view. I was already struggling to accept that, even though im a lefty, i would have to vote for FG on this occasion. Now, im giving serious consideration to spoiling my vote, or just voting Gavin. I cant vote for CC for all of the reasons you have outlined, but I struggle to support HH after this smear.

I don't fully agree that the barrister angle is a smear.

I fully agree that CC was obliged by the code of practice for barristers to take those cases. That isn't my issue with it. My issue is her having done so and then speaking out in Galway CC and in the Dáil vehemently opposing the repossessions of homes by the banks. She was running with the hare and chasing with the hounds if you'll pardon the rather apt pun. That's where she should have been challenged, on the hypocrisy of her stance on home repossessions in her role as a public representative given her employment history. Not the fact that she took the cases in the first place.

I thought it was hilarious to watch the 'barrister' issue fizzle out in front of our eyes last night. Humphreys just doesn't have the heft or debating skills for an argument like that, faced with the detail she collapsed.

Its different for me. Assuming its true that she represented banks in Repo cases, while simultaneously attacked repossessions in GCC and the Dail - this is a positive mark in my book.

• She is able to compartmentalize her personal feelings, with a job she must do. Which is a good quality to have, especially as President
• It makes her condemnation of repossessions all the more valid. She was, as a barrister, obliged to be part of a process she abhors

More than the above though, I genuinely dont view this story as a valid move on the part of HH or FG. I posted my reasoning yesterday, and il include it below

The rules for barristers are in place, in order to ensure that anyone and everyone, will receive legal representation. The exceptions are only meant for obviously extenuating circumstances, and conflicts of interest.

If a barrister receives a case to deal with, and that case concerns a violent thief, they must take the case. An exception could be warranted if, for example, they were related to one of the victims of said thief. Then there would be grounds for the barrister to seek permission to hand off the client to someone else.

If it were possible for barristers to pick and choose clients based on personal taste, or sincerely held beliefs, the system falls apart. You can easily imagine a horrendous criminal, who has committed gross acts, publically, leaving little doubt as to their guilt. You cannot allow a situation where barristers can refuse to handle the case. If it were simple for barristers to pick and choose cases, then who ever does inevitably take on this client will be smeared by association. Which could then lead to more situations where barristers would have to weigh whether or not to accept clients, based on public perception. It creates a huge conflict of interest.

I stand by my opinion on this story, and for me, it is a serious smear. It drags our legal system into a presidential election. It represents no hypocrisy on the part of anyone, other than FG and HH. It reeks of desperation.

And another thing - When a practicing barrister stands in a future election in this counrty - are we now entitled to enquire as to who they represented in the past? Should we be presented with this list, for our consideration? Should the media take note of which criminal/group is represented by whom, so that in future elections, we can relitigate cases in public?

What the hell does this have to do with a persons candidacy?

This is/was a desperate move on the part of Harris and HH, and FG more broadly. Rather then end a lousy campaign with some dignity, they have launched this pointless attack on CC. Its shameful in my opinion.

Another Poll due tonight.

While polls have historically been fairly accurate in the past I am personally reluctant to trust them… Especially if there's a significant gap shown tonight the Connolly support base might decide that the effort of voting isn't required. College students especially would make up a significant portion of her voter base and Fridays are their "going home" days or "part-time-work-nights" for many

The other side then is that a swing for Humphries could gain momentum

I agree that there should be client-barrister confidentiality. But I don't think barristers should be obliged to take on clients they fundamentally disagree with on an issue like repossessions.

Also I do think that the issue is not so much that, as the contrast with her denunciations of the banks in the Dáil.

Also there are a few exceptions to the Cab Rank rule.