Independent Galway West TD Catherine Connolly has officially announced her candidacy for the Presidency of Ireland following the acquisition of necessary nominations. Connolly, aged 68, confirmed her intention to run during an interview on July 16, 2024, via RTÉ’s Irish language radio channel, Raidió na Gaeltachta. To be eligible for the ballot, candidates in Ireland must be at least 35 years old and nominated either by at least 20 members of the Oireachtas, four local authorities, or by former or retiring Presidents.

Connolly has garnered the support of 20 Oireachtas members, including endorsements from the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, and several Independents. The Labour Party is also considering backing her candidacy.

“I am honoured to announce that I have secured the support of my colleagues to run for the office of Uachtarán na hÉireann, the Presidency of Ireland,” Connolly stated on social media. She highlighted the importance of the election as a platform for representing the people’s voice and promoting the common good. Connolly emphasized the need for a “people’s movement” to effectively communicate her vision of hope across all communities in Ireland.

Connolly has represented Galway West as a TD since 2016. After departing from the Labour Party in 2006, she has operated as an Independent. Her prior roles include serving on the Public Accounts Committee and chairing the Committee on the Irish Language, the Gaeltacht and the Islands. Notably, from 2020 to 2024, Connolly held the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, becoming the first woman to do so.

“It’s an important day for me, and I am finally confirming that I am standing for the Presidency of Ireland,” Connolly remarked to reporters outside Leinster House. “I stand here, not as a politician seeking office, but as a citizen, to serve as the President of Ireland with the help of the people and the votes of Ireland.” She expressed her commitment to serving with humility and hope, believing in the potential for collective action to elevate the country.

Connolly acknowledged the lengthy decision-making process leading to her candidacy. “It wasn’t something I did overnight,” she explained. “It was a tortuous decision for many reasons—my own personality included—and it has taken many months.” She reached her final decision the previous week and is now eager to empower citizens to find their voices and advocate for change.

During her announcement, Connolly addressed pressing issues such as climate change and homelessness, stating, “We must deal with climate change. We must be a voice for peace. We have to stop the normalization of war and violence.” She underscored that these challenges are not inevitable but rather the result of policy decisions, advocating for a different vision of Ireland and the world.

Connolly’s confirmation as a candidate follows closely after the nomination of Mairead McGuinness as the candidate for Fine Gael. McGuinness was the only name submitted for ratification, which will take place at a Fine Gael event in September, marking the start of their Presidential campaign.

The political landscape remains dynamic, with Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald not ruling herself out as a potential candidate. Similarly, Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s Vice President and First Minister of Northern Ireland, has also left the door open for candidacy.

Meanwhile, Fianna Fáil, currently the largest party in the Dáil, has yet to announce whether it will support a candidate. Jack Chambers, a TD for Fianna Fáil, indicated that a decision will be made in early autumn. Potential candidates mentioned include Micheál Martin, the current Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil, although Chambers noted that Martin may prefer to remain in his current role. Former TD Mary Hanafin has also expressed interest in the party’s nomination.

In a somewhat unconventional development, mixed martial artist Conor McGregor has renewed his call for supporters to vote for him in the Presidential election, though it remains unlikely that he will meet the nomination thresholds required to appear on the ballot.

As the election period unfolds, Connolly’s campaign will be closely watched as she seeks to mobilize support and present her vision for Ireland’s future.

The historical significance of Temple Hill, located in Blackrock, Dublin, has come under scrutiny as advocates call for acknowledgment of its true function as an adoption home for infants. While the Irish Government maintains that Temple Hill served solely as a hospital, many argue that the reality was far more complex. This debate highlights the need for recognition of the experiences of those who were born at Temple Hill, including individuals like Rachel Fehily, who assert that their stories have been overlooked.

Fehily spent her first three months in Temple Hill, officially known as the St Patrick’s Infant and Dietetic Hospital. According to Sinn Féin TD Claire Kerrane, this institution does not qualify for governmental supports or redress because it is classified as a hospital. Yet, she pointed out in a parliamentary question that children were adopted from Temple Hill through advertisements, with many being sent to America. “I have never heard of a hospital that does that,” Kerrane stated, underscoring the inconsistencies in the Government’s stance.

Despite the documented history of adoptions facilitated by the former adoption society St Patrick’s Guild, Temple Hill remains excluded from the Mother and Baby Institutions payment scheme. This exclusion stems from its classification, as it was not included in the initial investigation by the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. The Commission’s report has faced criticism for its narrow focus, leaving many individuals without the recognition and support they deserve.

Fehily, who left Temple Hill with her adoptive parents at the age of three months, emphasizes that her advocacy is for those who were not as fortunate. Many ageing survivors of institutions, who endured abuse and neglect, currently find themselves without access to the supports offered by the scheme. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has echoed these concerns, labeling the commission’s report as flawed due to its exclusion of various institutions.

In light of these issues, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality Norma Foley is set to review the operation of the payment scheme by September 2026, marking two years since its inception. The delay leaves many survivors in a state of uncertainty, with their experiences still unrecognized.

The artistic community has also contributed to the dialogue surrounding Temple Hill. Bernard Canavan, an artist and recipient of the prestigious Presidential Award, recently showcased his work that reflects the trauma endured by residents of such institutions. Canavan, who resided in Temple Hill more than 25 years before Fehily, is similarly excluded from the payment scheme due to contested definitions of his experience.

Educational initiatives are emerging to address this complex history. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) has developed a comprehensive resource on “mother and baby homes” for the Junior Cycle curriculum, in collaboration with survivor advocacy groups. This curriculum aims to provide students with a deeper understanding of Ireland’s past, encouraging critical thinking regarding the interplay of history and current affairs.

Despite these efforts, there remain significant gaps in the educational materials. While the NCCA has compiled an extensive reading list, it predominantly features official reports that may omit crucial narratives, including those from contested institutions like Temple Hill. Fehily highlights the importance of understanding how governmental definitions influence access to justice, stating that students must learn to question the presentation of their history.

As discussions around these topics continue, the urgency for recognition and acknowledgment of overlooked experiences becomes increasingly significant. The complexities surrounding Temple Hill illustrate the broader implications of how history is interpreted and taught.

Fehily’s advocacy sheds light on the necessity for inclusivity in historical narratives, ensuring that the voices of all who have been affected are heard. As Ireland grapples with its past, it is essential to confront these contested histories and seek justice for those who have long been forgotten.

A candidate from the recent Seanad election has brought her case to the High Court, asserting that there was a legitimate expectation for a full recount of the votes due to an exceedingly narrow margin of defeat. Angela Feeney, a member of the Labour Party and Kildare County councillor, claims that the circumstances surrounding the vote counting raised significant transparency issues.

Feeney lost her bid for a seat on the agricultural panel to Fine Gael’s Maria Byrne by a margin of just one-ninth of a ballot. The High Court proceedings, held in Dublin, have revealed that Feeney’s request for a full recount was denied by the returning officer, despite the close nature of the election results.

Transparency Concerns in Vote Counting

During her testimony, Feeney highlighted problems with the counting environment at Leinster House, describing it as “cramped and crowded.” She expressed that the layout hindered the ability of candidates to observe the counting process effectively. “There was no proper line of sight to see the ballot papers being counted,” Feeney stated. According to her, the situation did not allow for adequate scrutiny of the electoral process, which is essential for maintaining public confidence.

The electoral laws permit candidates to request recounts, but the decision ultimately lies with the returning officer. Following her initial request, Feeney received a response indicating that only a limited recount of the 23rd count would be performed. This decision has prompted Feeney to challenge the returning officer’s discretion in her petition to the High Court.

Legal Arguments and Historical Context

Feeney’s senior counsel, Conor Power, argued that the margin by which she lost is among the closest seen in the Seanad elections since the 1980s. With a valid poll of 95,667 votes cast for the agricultural panel, Feeney secured 17,513 votes, while Byrne received 17,629. The minute difference raises questions about the integrity of the electoral process, especially when human error in counting could lead to significant discrepancies.

Power emphasized the importance of recounts, stating that “the purpose of the Electoral Act is to ensure an outcome that the public has confidence in.” He further noted that small margins warrant careful consideration by the returning officer, as recounts can lead to changes in vote totals. He is requesting the court to order a full recount to clarify any potential mistakes or irregularities in the initial count.

Feeney, who has participated in numerous election counts over the years, expressed her surprise at the counting conditions. She stated that the lack of visibility during the counting process was not only unusual but also detrimental to the transparency expected in elections.

Cross-examination by Catherine Donnelly SC, representing the returning officer, revealed that Feeney was not the only candidate eliminated by a narrow margin, suggesting that such occurrences are not uncommon. Nonetheless, Feeney maintained that the closeness of her loss was unprecedented for her experience.

The case continues, with the court considering the implications of the recount request and the broader issues of electoral transparency. As the proceedings unfold, they highlight the critical balance between procedural integrity and the public’s trust in the electoral system.

Negotiations over a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the European Union have entered a stage of confusion, as conflicting interpretations emerge regarding a proposed cap on the number of visas available for young people. While Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, and Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Brexit minister, have publicly stated that a capped scheme was agreed upon during discussions on May 19, 2023, EU officials have provided a different perspective.

UK’s Interpretation vs. EU’s Position

During the summit, Starmer mentioned that the agreement included a “capped scheme” with specific numbers to be determined. Thomas-Symonds echoed this sentiment in a parliamentary committee, asserting his expectation for a cap to be implemented. However, EU Ambassador Pedro Serrano clarified that there was no formal agreement on a cap. He described the arrangement as one focused on achieving a “balanced student exchange” that would benefit both sides. This divergence raises questions about the future of negotiations surrounding youth mobility.

Notably, the official documentation from the summit contains only a vague reference to a “balanced youth experience scheme on terms to be mutually agreed,” which does not explicitly mention a cap. This ambiguity suggests that while the UK government is keen on establishing a cap, the EU is not currently in agreement. EU diplomats had previously warned that the discussions on youth mobility would be complex, indicating underlying tensions that remain unresolved.

Impact on UK’s Trade and Industry

In a related development, the UK government has decided to discontinue a significant pilot project known as Authorised Operator Status. This initiative aimed to allow businesses to conduct their own checks on imported plants, a move that has left the industry “devastated.” The government cited concerns about the value for money for taxpayers as a reason for halting the scheme, which was initially proposed in the Border Target Operating Model released in August 2023.

The decision has drawn disappointment from industry leaders who had invested in infrastructure to support the new border control capabilities. Jennifer Pheasey, director of public affairs at the Horticultural Trades Association, expressed her support for swift negotiations on a new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which is expected to ease trade restrictions between the UK and EU. She noted, however, that the process would not yield immediate benefits for businesses.

Nigel Jenney, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium, criticized the government’s decision, labeling it “catastrophic” for the handling of perishable goods. He emphasized the need for a more efficient inspection system, arguing that abandoning the pilot project without a viable alternative represents a betrayal of industry trust.

Future Trade Relations

As the UK navigates these challenges, the potential for closer trade ties with the EU remains on the table, although there is no immediate pressure for change. At a recent EU citizens’ gathering in Manchester, Katarina Barley, a German socialist Member of the European Parliament, indicated that the door for rejoining the customs union or single market is open, should the UK government decide to pursue that path.

Despite this openness, the current UK government has set clear red lines regarding rejoining the EU single market or customs union. Polling data from YouGov suggests a notable portion of the UK public supports such a move, with 50 percent in favor of rejoining the customs union and 49 percent backing membership in the single market.

As UK-EU relations evolve, the coming weeks and months will be critical in shaping the future of trade and mobility agreements. Ongoing negotiations on youth mobility and the implications of the halted pilot project will likely continue to dominate discussions between both parties.