Paul Murphy: Demands direct presidential nominations, condemns assault

I presume I move my amendment now. Yes, I move my amendment. Just before I start on the topic, if I can, have a small bit of leeway, just in terms of the events that have happened in Saggart over the last number of days, and to express my utter horror condemnation discussed at the alleged sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl. My heart goes out to her, to her family. It's obviously, you know, beyond every family's worst nightmare. It does seem to me, from what we know so far, that there is failure by the state here, of a vulnerable girl in state care, and yet ending up in a situation where they could be, where she could be sexually assaulted in this way. So, utterly horrific. Very briefly, though, people are right to be angry about this situation, but I think that some people's anger is being abused by those who want to cause violence, those who want to spread division, those who want to spread hate, and last night's violence at City West Hotel will do nothing for the victim of sexual assault. But the man has been arrested for it, the man who's allegedly did it, and wasn't even living in City West Hotel at the time. I'm sure the people living there were horrified, were in fear last night, the children living there were in fear about what would happen if the crowd succeeded in breaking through. So, instead of division and violence, I think we need to stand together with the victim, with the family, and against the repeated failures of the state. Just on this motion, I mean, the simplest, very easy part, which, in theory, I think every party in this House agrees with, but some parties aren't going to do anything about it because it doesn't suit them politically, is the fact that Irish citizens living in the North should be entitled to a vote in presidential elections. And that's obvious, it's an opinion that's held by the vast majority of people, it's an easy problem to fix, and it should be fixed with a referendum as soon as possible, and, you know, we all know the cynical reason that it is not. The more complicated, in a way, more interesting area is the question of the nomination process for president, which has obviously come into focus. I think it is undemocratic, I mean, I agree with a lot of the criticisms that are made of, like, why we're discussing this now, and so on, but I think it is overly restrictive. I think it suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, they're the ones who made the rules, they told their councillors not to nominate anyone other than Jim Gavin and Heather Humphreys. But I think there's quite a gulf between the rhetoric of Aintu on this issue and the actual proposal. Like, I listened to Padre Tobin's speech earlier, and it was about, let the people pick, you know, stop the political establishment curating the process. But the proposals remain to, don't let the people pick, they keep the political establishment curating the process. They just create a slightly lower bar for the creation of the process to ensure that, if these rules have been in place, Mary Reasteen would have been selected. So it reduces, for example, the number of TDs from 20 to 14, and the motion also allows for a candidate to be nominated by 110 councillors, which obviously is, that is a new development to say councillors as individuals can nominate, or three councillors. I mean, I agree with all of those proposals in the sense of they lower the barrier slightly. But we shouldn't pretend that this allows the people to pick. And I presume, fast forward seven years, and let's say we have a highly conservative candidate who gets 13 TDs. We will have exactly the same discussion in seven years' time, where we'll be told it's an overly restrictive process, and so on. That's assuming that, you know, this motion passes, and we actually have the referendum, and so on. So I don't believe that what's proposed by Aintu actually gets to the nub of the issue in terms of actually letting the people pick. And obviously, you know, let's be real, and everyone here has to be real, that we can't have a system where anybody can nominate themselves for president. Just on a practical level, you have to have some barrier to standing for a president. It's just not feasible to allow thousands of people to stand for president. It would not be a democratic process. You couldn't have an informed debate. Never mind what sort of ballot paper would you have with thousands of names. So we need to have some kind of barriers to entry to be a presidential candidate. The question is, what are those barriers? That's really what the discussion is about. And what our amendment puts forward is to say that we need a newly direct democratic process, where actually the people do get to decide that there's a process whereby people can nominate, that people can, a set number of people, we chose 35,000 because it's about 1% of the electoral register who can vote in a presidential election, that you need to get signatures from 35,000 people, and then you can be nominated without the need for any votes or support or nominations from TDs, senators or councillors. I hope the parties and amendments will support our amendment. It would mean a real, radical democratisation of the nomination process that is not provided for in A&T's motion. Just the only objection I've heard so far is the practical objection of, like, how would it work? But this is a process that works in many, many other countries. I just spoke briefly to my partner who was involved in socialist politics in America and on multiple occasions collected signatures for ballot initiatives, effectively referendums, or nominations for candidates. And you had to provide the name, the address, contact details for each person, and then they're checked. Right? Because that's the objection, is, like, what's to stop me just listing 1,000 people? I go to the electoral register and I list all those people and I sign them. So they are physically checked. And, like, in America, this is very, very common. In lots of different states, you have different requirements. In Florida, you need 145,000 signatures. In Michigan, you need 12,000 signatures. In some different states, you have different requirements. But it's very, very common. But we also have this in the European Union. You have Citizens' Initiative, Citizens' Petition Initiative in the European Union, which requires 10,000 signatures from Ireland. So this is a process that absolutely can be done, exists in Switzerland. So I think it can be done. Just finally, I want to comment on the calls to Spoil Your Vote on Friday. These are pitched as an anti-establishment campaign. That's what you're supposed to think it is. But it's very revealing if you look at where these calls are coming from and who stands to benefit from them. So leading the Spoil the Vote campaign from his Downton Abbey-style mansion is multi-millionaire businessman Declan Ganley. He said he's going to write one Maria Steen on his ballot paper. And him and Maria Steen have a lot in common. They are filthy rich, anti-choice, Catholic fundamentalists. Anyone who can afford to pay more than 20,000 euros for a handbag or to live somewhere called Moyne Park Mansion is by definition not anti-establishment. Okay. But the people who are driving this Spoil the Vote process are part of the elite. They're not anti-establishment at all. They're a different, more socially conservative part of the elite than Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They're the opus de wing of the establishment. Wealthy, fundamentalist Catholics that want to drag us back to the Ireland of the Magdalene Laundries, the mother and baby homes and the industrial schools. They want to make divorce and contraception illegal again. They want to abolish choice and bodily autonomy and force women back into the home. So, you know, you have the right to spoil your vote. There's no question about that. That is your right. But if you do so, you will be taking for a fool. Like the millions of working-class Americans who voted for billionaire businessman Donald Trump because they thought he was anti-establishment. That's the reality. You're offering to be a dupe of the Irish millionaires. And don't be under any illusion that Neil Martin, Simon Harris or Heather Humphreys will be upset. They will not be upset. All the spoiled votes will go into one big pile in the Count Centre. The Fianna Fáilers, the Fine Gaelers, they won't care what you wrote on your ballot paper. The only thing they'll care about is that the more spoiled votes from people who are rightly angry, rightly alienated from the political establishment, the less votes there will be for the candidate who is not their candidate. The less embarrassing a defeat it will be for them and the establishment. So if you want to strike a blow against the political establishment, against Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on Friday, you should not spoil your vote. There are two candidates. One of them is going to win. One of them is the government candidate. The other is an independent candidate backed by the opposition. The independent candidate backed by the opposition voted, like most ordinary Irish people know, in the First Nice and First Lisbon Treaty referendums. I didn't mention anyone. It's a pre-will themselves to assume which of these candidates is which. Someone who defends freedom of speech and ordinary people's rights to criticise the European Union, who wants to protect neutrality, condemns the genocide in Gaza and all those who have supported it, who stands with carers and disabled people, who voted again and again to ban evictions. People have a choice. One of them is going to win.