Irish public do not approve of a Trump state visit, poll finds
According to research conducted by Ireland Thinks for the Irish Independent, 74% of respondents said they were against such an invitation.
Just 20% were in favour, while 6% expressed no opinion. Participants were asked whether the Irish government should officially invite Trump for a formal visit.
Trump was recently in Scotland, where he played golf and met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to finalise a trade agreement.
During his presidency, he also made private visits to his golf property in Doonbeg, County Clare, and met with then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Shannon Airport during a brief stopover in 2019.
He spent a night at his resort in Doonbeg on that occasion.
The Irish public's perception of Trump stands in stark contrast to the warm welcomes historically given to previous US presidents.
In 1995, Bill Clinton drew a crowd of 80,000 in Dublin's College Green.
A similar reception greeted Barack Obama in the same location during his 2011 visit.
Former President Obama and his wife, Michelle, have now been invited by Dublin's current Lord Mayor, Ray McAdam, to formally accept the Freedom of the City next month.
The invitation includes a ceremonial reception at the Mansion House.
In his letter to the Obamas, Mayor McAdam praised the former president's leadership during a turbulent period in American history, noting his "dignified and hopeful" approach to governance that inspired many globally, including in Ireland.
See More: Donald Trump, Irish State Visit
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Media's role in fighting corruption must be defended
This summer marks the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. Although commended for introducing statutory disclosure obligations for designated public office holders, including politicians, and the establishment of Sipo's predecessor, its significance runs deeper. The act ended a 79-year hiatus in Ireland's anti-corruption legislation. From the foundation of the Irish Free State, the legislation governing corruption in Ireland was housed in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916. That legislation remained unamended on the Irish statute book until 1995, when modest revisions were introduced under the Ethics in Public Office Act. That act was introduced partly as a response to political indiscretions exposed in a number of scandals that gripped Ireland during the 1990s, including the Greencore affair, Telecom Éireann's site purchase, and the Beef Tribunal. But behind that legislative response lay another powerful force — the media. From the 1970s onwards, investigative journalism in Ireland began to develop, which led — among other things — to the exposure during the 1990s of conflicts of interest and ethical lapses among public officials. The media reports unearthed a culture of impunity and lack of oversight, and were significant in embedding corruption in the public discourse. The Greencore affair, for example, which arose out of the privatisation of Súicre Éireann, revealed weaknesses in the anti-corruption legislative architecture that had never been focused on before, namely conflicts between public duties and private interests. It centred on a small number of executives who bought a 49% stake in a subsidiary of the company for £3.2m and sold it back to the State a year later for £9.5m, prompting concerns over corporate governance and abuse of trust. Although statutory investigations found breaches of company law and corrupt practices by some of those involved, no criminal prosecutions followed. Then there was Telecom Éireann, a semi-state company, which found itself the subject of much media attention in 1991, arising from irregularities surrounding its purchase of a piece of land for use as its headquarters. The Beef Tribunal, established in 1991, on foot of an ITV World in Action programme, would go on to reveal questionable and uncomfortably close connections between big business interests and Irish political interests. These revelations helped shift public sentiment, fostering a climate more receptive to investigative journalism and expanding the public understanding of corruption. Before then, corruption was regarded as an overt form of bribery. This understanding was reflected in the legislation criminalising corruption, which dated back to 1889. Events throughout the 1990s showed that corrupt behaviour could constitute more clandestine activities where private interests and public duties collided, and an awareness of the connection between conflicts of interest and corruption. This growing public awareness, aided by the media, created the necessary political pressure for reform. The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 was the first enacted legislative response. However, it was not the first attempt to introduce accountability into Irish public life. Four years previously, Labour TD Brendan Howlin initiated the Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill 1991 as a private members' bill. Although the bill was defeated, its principles were incorporated into the 1995 act. The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 sparked a series of incremental reforms over the next 15 years, including the introduction of freedom of information laws, regulation of political donations, and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Acts 2001 and 2010. Running in tandem with these legislative developments was persistent media scrutiny, reporting on events that formed the subject matter of various tribunals throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The media played a pivotal role in the establishment of the tribunals. However, its influence extended beyond this initial contribution, in that it was instrumental in informing the public about the proceedings and findings of the tribunals. The particular significance of the Moriarty, Planning, and Morris tribunals is that, for the first time, findings of corruption were made against individuals who were the subject of the investigations. The momentum for change, driven by media vigilance and Ireland's commitments under international and European instruments such as the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery, ultimately culminated in the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018. The 2018 Act repealed Ireland's outdated corruption laws and replaced them with a unified modern framework. It introduced offences of active and passive corruption, trading in influence, knowingly giving gifts or advantages to facilitate the commission of a corruption offence, intimidation, and substantially increased penalties for corruption offences. The legislative inertia that had persisted for most of the 20th century eventually gave way to a resurgence of reform, driven in no small way by the media's persistent focus on corruption. As Mr Justice Humphreys recently observed, the media plays a vital role in shaping public discourse, a role that mirrors Percy Bysshe Shelley's famous description of poets as "the unacknowledged legislators of the world". This is not to suggest that the media alone dictates policy and legislation; rather, media coverage can influence legislators' behaviour, as Ireland's experience with corruption legislation has shown. Irish legislation is a product of the Oireachtas, which essentially comprises directly elected politicians. Dependent on public support, politicians risk losing political power if they ignore public opinion. Media reporting and commentary often guide public opinion, which in turn can influence the legislative agenda. The evolution of Ireland's anti-corruption laws is a testament to the enduring importance of the Fourth Estate. Ireland's path towards transparency and reform may not have been so meaningful without it. In a world facing growing threats of free-speech intimidation, protecting an independent Fourth Estate capable of speaking truth to power is more important than ever. Gail Nohilly is a barrister and knowledge lawyer and recently completed her PhD at the University of Limerick, tracking the evolution of Ireland's corruption legislation and the role of the media.
Sunday World
3 hours ago
- Sunday World
Conor McGregor launches petition declaring intentions to seek Irish presidency
McGregor says the public's support will be 'instrumental in championing a more inclusive and democratic electoral process. MMA star Conor McGregor has launched a petition this evening declaring his intentions to seek the office of President of Ireland. In a Facebook post addressed to 'the esteemed citizens of Ireland and the Irish diaspora', McGregor proposes a petition advocating for a modification of the nomination process to allow his name to be included on the ballot. 'To the esteemed citizens of Ireland and the Irish diaspora, I, Conor McGregor hereby declare my intention to seek the esteemed office of President of Ireland. The current constitutional framework however presents a significant barrier to democratic participation. Conor McGregor's post on Facebook this evening The existing regulations mandate that a candidate must secure nominations from either twenty members of the Oireachtas or four county councils to be eligible for the ballot. This system, while intended to ensure a degree of political influence among candidates, inadvertently restricts the direct voice of the Irish electorate.' He goes on to say how the public's support will be 'instrumental in championing a more inclusive and democratic electoral process. "In light of this, I propose a petition advocating for a modification of the nomination process to allow my name be included on the ballot. I contend that the citizens of Ireland, both at home and abroad, should have the unhindered right to determine the candidates who appear on the presidential ballot. Therefore, I implore you to join me in this endeavour by signing this petition. Your support will be instrumental in championing a more inclusive and democratic electoral process, thereby empowering the people of Ireland to shape their own future.' Conor McGregor and his family News in 90 Seconds - Monday, August 4th
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Irish Examiner view: Two-state option is the viable solution for Israel and Palestine
A two-state solution in the Holy Land, whereby a Palestinian nation will be established and allowed co-exist alongside Israel, is once more becoming obvious as the only genuine answer to solving the seemingly endless warfare in the region. The merciless horror that has been visited upon the Palestinian people over the last two years by Israel requires a solution and there is an increasing realisation that the battle lines between moderate and extremist visions for the future of Gaza and the West Bank are becoming clearer. On one hand, you have the views of such as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his voluble far-right minister for finance, Bezalel Smotrich, backed by the benign inaction of the White House in Washington, trying to bury — literally — the two-state vision. On the other, there are those increasingly nauseated by what the Israeli government is doing, who have finally realised that that goal — of two countries living alongside each other harmoniously — will be dug into Palestinian soil unless they act now. The French and British have indicated their willingness to finally recognise Palestinian statehood, but only because the increasingly genocidal administration in Tel Aviv is demonstrating little enthusiasm for any potential settlement. Certainly, we are going to have to see, amongst other things, a reformed Palestinian Authority come into being if the Israeli government is to stop waging war in Gaza and make the two-state solution workable, but such an outcome is far from being beyond the realms of possibility. Hamas is not helping its cause, or that of the people it claims to represent, by screening images of skeletal hostages. Indeed, it is only buttressing hardline Israeli views. All concerned have to come to the realisation that the two-state option is the only realistic and workable solution and the sooner the increasingly entrenched radical views on either side come to this conclusion, the sooner the bloodshed will stop. Trump silencing critics Not alone has Donald Trump changed the face of global trade with his scattergun tariffs, but he and his administration are engaged in a witchhunt — a favourite word of the US president — against a wide array of American media outlets and outspoken academics, which is threatening the very fabric of democracy there. Trump has effectively silenced much of the media criticism against him personally, and his wider regime, because corporate owners fear his wrath. CBS — along with parent company Paramount — effectively fired the hugely popular late-night show host Stephen Colbert in order to secure administration approval of the sale of Paramount to Skydance. Similarly, Amazon billionaire and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos silenced any criticism of the Trump regime on the editorial pages of his newspaper, because he fears the wrath of Trump will impact on his businesses' profitability. So too American universities — for eons bastions of democracy and free speech — have had to crawl cap in hand to the White House to get funding restored after incurring that wrath because high-profile staffers have criticised his illegal, unconstitutional actions. This silencing of media and universities willing to criticise the notoriously thin-skinned Trump is happening across America. However, the shame is on those media outlets and educationalists that have allowed it. Bezos proudly amplified the Washington Post's 'Democracy Dies In Darkness' tagline when he bought the newspaper. Yet he has himself allowed a darkness to descend on one of America's most valued independent media resources. The silencing of those who have helped America to understand just how alarming this regime has become is a terrible indictment for a country that prides itself on being the leading player in a 'Free World'. What's your view on this issue? You can tell us here Sprat ban overdue The Government's proposed ban on the inshore fishing of sprat by large trawlers is not before time. In fact, the move might have come a little too late, as overfishing of the species has already had a dramatic effect on the wellbeing of our native maritime wildlife, from sharks, dolphins, and whales, to sea birds such as puffins and kittiwakes. As a result of large-scale fishing, sprat numbers have seen a huge decline, and thus reduced the food supply to a wide variety of native species. The plan to stop trawlers over 18m in size from fishing within six nautical miles of our coastline can only boost sprat numbers, thus improving prospects for other maritime creatures. Sadly, however, the new restrictions will run only from October 1 until September 30, 2026. And while it may be that the authorities here are only trialling this inshore fishing ban and planning for more focused action in the future, it seems Government action may have come too late. For too many years now, the native Irish fishing industry has been treated as the poor relation to the agriculture sector when it comes to doling out necessary financial supports. This has meant that we have allowed our rich maritime resources to be plundered by other nations who care less about the wellbeing of Irish aquatic wildlife. Their fishing fleets, invariably better resourced and equipped than ours, do not discriminate in what they catch and therefore species which they have little use for, are arbitrarily and routinely over-fished. Hopefully, this limited ban will have an immediate effect in conserving a fish vital to our rich and abundant animal kingdom. It seems almost certain, however, this is a subject that will have to be revisited. Read More Irish Examiner view: Cork Crime series prompts us to seek out the roots of criminality
