Government will be on 'the wrong side' of history over Israeli bonds decision, opposition says
The Government has been warned it is on the "the wrong side" of history after rejecting a motion to prevent the facilitation of Israeli war bonds.
Opposition parties united behind a motion demanding the Government enact emergency legislation to explicitly force the Central Bank to stop facilitating the sale of Israel bonds.
The Social Democrats motion, supported by Sinn Féin, Labour, and People Before Profit-Solidarity also called on the coalition to advise the bank that "by acting as the enabling cog in Israel's fund-raising machine in the EU, it is putting the State at risk of a charge of complicity in genocide".
However, the Government's countermotion stated that it had "received advice from the Attorney General that recently proposed legislation to introduce 'restrictive measures' was not compatible with our obligations as members of the EU and in conflict with Article 215 and Article 63 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU".
The motion with the amendment put forward by the Government was then passed by 85 votes to 71.
Speaking in the Dáil ahead of the vote, finance minister Paschal Donohoe said: "Despite the human feelings I have and the determination of the Government to respond to this, I have to recognise the law with regard to the EU and the law that recognises the independent operation of the Central Bank of Ireland."
But Social Democrats TD Cian O'Callaghan claimed that the Government was "hiding behind technicalities" and could act on the matter if it wanted to.
Let us be clear about this. Genocide is taking place and is being part-funded by the sale of Israeli bonds including in Europe, which is being facilitated by the Irish Central Bank.
Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty described Mr Donohoe's response as "shameful", adding: "History will show that the minister is on the wrong side of this issue. He has used carefully constructed words to tell us what we cannot do.
"However, the reality is that if Government wants to initiate national measures that will ensure that the Central Bank does not sign off on a prospective and therefore, not facilitate the sale of these war bonds in Ireland, then it can do so."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
The EU's indictment of Israel in Gaza: the hard work begins
The review into whether Israel is in violation of its obligations under its trade relations with the European Union, due to its conduct of the war in Gaza, was shrouded in secrecy and hobbled by last minute timing. National capitals only got the assessment late on Friday afternoon - foreign ministers are supposed to give a detailed response at a meeting in Brussels on Monday. Diplomats complained about having little time to assess the review's contents. The less time they have, the more potential for a divisive debate at the Monday meeting. The paper was circulated not long before EU ambassadors were scheduled to meet to discuss it at 6.30pm Brussels time on last night. "Until a few days ago, we had no idea if it would be just an oral presentation," an EU diplomat said yesterday morning. "Now we have confirmation it will be a written report, which for us is extremely important. The value of a written report is greater." The review was ordered by the EU's Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas after a majority of EU foreign ministers supported a Dutch proposal last month to assess whether Israel was in breach of the human rights and international humanitarian law obligations enshrined in Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The review was carried out by the EU's Special Representative for Human Rights. It essentially collated existing findings produced by a plethora of UN bodies. Yet, over seven pages it was a searing indictment of Israel's alleged failure to abide by human rights law, and the rules governing the protection of civilians during war, both in Gaza and the West Bank. It focused on Israel's complete blockade of any food, medicine and fuel entering Gaza for 11 weeks from 2 March, before Israel eventually permitted a "militarised" food distribution service which was accompanied by "deadly" shootings of Palestinians. Since the Hamas 7 October attacks, discrimination, oppression, and violence against Palestinians had increased in the West Bank, with a "significant increase in Palestinian fatalities" and attacks by Israeli settlers, accompanied by "sustained settlement expansion". There were road closures, checkpoints, and barriers that "permanently or intermittently restrict the movement of Palestinians across the West Bank." These increasingly undermined Palestinians' access to livelihoods, healthcare, education and other essential services. The "unprecedented level of killing and injury of civilians" in Gaza was "a direct consequence of the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) failure to comply with fundamental principles of [International Humanitarian Law]". The report said of the verified Palestinian deaths caused by attacks on residential buildings in Gaza, 44% were children - "mainly young children and babies." The fact that these deaths did not reflect the demographic of Hamas combatants "points to indiscriminate attacks." The use of heavy weapons, including airstrikes, on civilian shelters (including tent encampments and schools) "raise concerns about Israel's compliance with the principles of precautions in attack, and proportionality". Attacks on hospitals and medical centres in Gaza included "direct strikes, sieges, the use of snipers, raids, and the apparent arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of medical staff, patients and their companions, and internally displaced persons (IDPs) sheltering at hospitals", and the killing of many emergency medical workers. Israel had failed to comply with binding International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings in early 2024 to provide humanitarian aid in Rafah "with a view to prevent the commission of acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention." And on the review goes… Needless to say, the report found that Israel's obligations under human rights and international law to protect civilians were in breach, as were its obligations under Article 2 of its agreement with the EU. Ireland and Spain first highlighted concerns last year that Israel was in breach of Article 2. The trenchant support for Israel by Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others meant there was no consensus for a review to take place. That changed after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire collapsed in March and the IDF intensified its assault on Gaza, including the prolonged humanitarian blockade. Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp revived the Irish-Spanish initiative in April, and at a meeting of his counterparts in May, the pendulum swung in favour of action. 17 member states - including Ireland - supported a review of Article 2 compliance (two countries joined the list afterwards); sentiment at EU level was clearly shifting. Yet, the divisions remain. Despite last night's report, we are in for a protracted period of step-by-step diplomacy. Ms Kallas will canvas the views of 27 foreign ministers on Monday, and then brief EU leaders during their summit in Brussels next Thursday. Yesterday, diplomats were emphasising the need for unity. So sensitive is the Israel-Gaza issue, that a menu of options against Israel will be kept off the table for now. "There are those among the 17 (member states) who wanted the review but who don't actually want any measures against Israel to be taken," says a senior EU official. "They want to use this as a way of applying pressure to Israel. There are those who definitely want measures to be taken, and there are those who didn't even want the review in the first place." A senior EU diplomat, from a country in favour of the review, said: "It's clear what needs to happen: first of all, we want as broad agreement as possible on the outcome of the review. We know it will not be unanimous, it will not be consensual, but we hope that a big group of member states can subscribe to the conclusion of the review." That would, in theory, allow Ms Kallas to take the findings to the Israelis and use the threat of punitive measures to encourage Israel to massively increase humanitarian support and to move towards a ceasefire. Preserving unity next week will be challenging. When EU ambassadors had their first meeting on the forthcoming review on Wednesday, the divisions were already clear. "You could see the different positions of member states reflected in the more procedural interventions," says one diplomat. "The Irish, Belgians, Spanish and Slovenians were pushing for an immediate discussion among ministers about next steps and consequences, whereas others were fiercely pushing back on that: the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Germans and - to a lesser extent - the Italians." It is understood the Irish government initially wanted Ms Kallas to lean towards some kind of list of options the EU could take against Israel, now that it had been found in violation of Article 2. However, Dublin had apparently accepted the prevailing view that unity was vital and that the threat of further action could convince Israel to change its policy towards humanitarian aid, and towards a ceasefire. In this scenario, we would have to wait for a meeting of EU foreign ministers in July before Ms Kallas presents a range of options Europe could take. In a statement, Tánaiste Simon Harris welcomed the findings of the review. "Ireland has always been clear that any such review can only reach one conclusion – there is clear evidence that Israel is in breach of its obligations under Article 2 of the Agreement. We now expect the EU and its Member States to take concrete actions in follow up to the review." External events could also derail any consensus building. Diplomats stressed the need to keep the Article 2 issue separate from the Israel-Iran war raging in the background. "It's part of Israel's strategy to divert attention from what is happening in Gaza and in Palestine," says one diplomat. "That's precisely what we don't want. The situation in Gaza and Palestine is absolutely critical, and we need to keep a very strong focus on it." "On the Iran-Israel issue," says another diplomat, "some foreign ministers will make the point that given what's happening, perhaps we should hold off on the review, hold off on making this an issue in our conversation with Israel. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time." There is also growing frustration - shared in Dublin - at those EU capitals which have emphasised quiet diplomacy with Israel. One source suggested that "whispering to the Israelis" had yet to deliver any meaningful response in 18 months of the Gaza war. Pressure is building elsewhere. This week, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot spearheaded a joint letter - co-signed by Tánaiste Simon Harris, as well as the foreign ministers of Finland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden - calling on Ms Kallas to ensure that the EU is compliant with last summer's ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The advisory opinion held that Israel's occupation was illegal, and that countries were obliged to ensure they did not support the occupation through trade. The Belgian initiative chimes with the Irish government's view that the ICJ ruling is binding on EU member states and that a ban on products from illegal settlements is effectively a legal obligation (ie, the legal impetus for the Occupied Territories Bill). Belgium expects other countries to join the call. A senior diplomat from one member state said his government was in favour of the Belgian initiative, but preferred not to sign the letter given that its recommendation - banning settlement products - was one of the "options" that could put pressure on fragile EU unity. The private view within the European Commission is that the EU is broadly in line with the ICJ ruling. However, the Commission has sent a number of legal opinions to the member state working group on international judicial affairs (COJUR). "The issue has been back and forth without any consensus," says a senior EU official. "It's never reached the political level, but it's been discussed by diplomats." The Belgian letter essentially calls for Ms Kallas - who represents both the Commission and member states - to speed the process up. It urges the Commission to bring forward measures to ensure that member states are in compliance, given that the "European Union is founded on the values as stated in the UN Charter, such as the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights…[and that] all EU Member States are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice." Whether the Commission will introduce new legislation to reflect the growing clamour - as reflected in the Occupied Territories Bill - for a ban on goods coming from illegal Israeli settlements remains to be seen. One source suggests that the Commission could provide for individual member states to make their own national arrangements. The fact that the review of Israel's conduct, for so long a disregarded Irish-Spanish gambit, has finally happened and does not pull any punches is, relative to the EU's tortuous policy on Gaza, an achievement. However, the length of time it has taken to hold Israel to account, and the fact that even now a punitive response could take several months, will further call into question the EU's moral backbone, with the death toll in Gaza standing at over 56,000, according to Palestinian authorities. The fact that the EU's role in foreign policy necessarily gives each member states a veto (foreign policy is normally a fundamental expression of national sovereignty) is of meagre comfort to those who believe Europe should have done more and done it quicker. Diplomats are increasingly frustrated that in the generational challenges of our time - Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Israel's response to the Hamas October 7 attacks - the EU's voice has been blunted by division and national vetoes. In the event that Ms Kallas does provide a menu of responses to foreign ministers in July, it is by no means clear what happens next. The EU has never taken action against a trade partner for such a breach of a trade agreement. A full suspension of the Association Agreement would require unanimity, with a Hungarian, German and Czech veto almost certain. There has been speculation that suspending elements of EU Israel trade would only require a so-called Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). On the basis of the 19 countries which supported a review, that qualified majority could be reached. However, one EU official questioned whether even this would be possible. "Even suspending some trade could be seen as a sanctions measure, and that would therefore require unanimity," said the official. "We've also discussed a complete ban on trade with Israel, and that would be against our WTO obligations - so that is a non starter." For any measure to be taken it would require a proposal from the European Commission, meaning the issue runs - once again - straight into national divisions. On only two occasions in the history of the EU has an issue gone to a vote among the College of 27 commissioners (each from a member state) since the body strives for consensus. There is no doubt that attitudes to Israel have hardened, even among its traditional allies. Last month, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in a TV interview: "What the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip, I no longer understand the goal. To harm the civilian population in such a way … can no longer be justified as a fight against terrorism." Whether this pressure, which should be amplified by the publication of the review, makes any difference to Israel's conduct remains an open question.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
'Combined opposition' to continue for now, but for how long?
The sight of Opposition leaders gathering together on the plinth at Leinster House has become very familiar in recent weeks. The so-called "combined opposition" emerged as a force during the heat of the speaking rights row back in January when the Dáil failed to elect a Taoiseach. Since then, the group has pooled its weight and resources repeatedly to advance issues of mutual interest. In recent weeks, this has included joint motions on Israeli war bonds, the Raise the Roof protest and the support of disability campaigner Cara Darmody. At times, the collective approach has included leaders from Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, Independent Ireland and the Green Party. But what is really going on behind the scenes? One party source said it all flowed from the speakers' rights controversy, but added that it is also an evolution of co-operation in the last Dáil. They said: "It will continue where there are issues of common concern. But each individual party will want to maintain its own identity. "It's quite easy to agree to be against Government at the moment, there will be more nuances and policy differences as the Government goes on." One Sinn Féin TD said he saw real potential for co-operation on the issues of housing and the Middle East and that the move was about "combining and maximising collective strength". And all agree that the overlap with Independent Ireland is limited and they are diametrically opposed on key policy areas. But it is also clear that for Sinn Féin, this is about demonstrating to voters that there is a viable alternative Government - one made up of parties on the left. One party source said this hurt its vote in the last general election. "This is about showing that there is a viable alternative government in the medium term," they said. They point to the presence of Opposition spokespeople on stage at the Raise the Roof protest this week. "The physical presence of us stood together on the platform, that is a powerful symbol for those who want to see more cooperation and a potential alternative," they added. "Looking to the next election, the question is what is the alternative government?" A Social Democrats source also contended that this is partly about offering a realisable option to voters who do not support the current Government. They said: "The dynamic in this Dáil is unique. This is the second Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael government plus independents. These are two parties in decline over time, with a largely older voter base. "Looking to the next election, the question is what is the alternative government? A lot of people say to us that it is good to see you working together and that there appears to be an alternative." But all are clear that individual parties will continue to maintain their own identities and forge unique policies. Some in Labour and the Social Democrats said the whole dynamic has been overstated. A Labour source points out that they have "serious" differences with Sinn Féin on migration, housing and some tax issues. And it is clear that some have concerns about being perceived as tied to Sinn Féin. The Social Democrats has also rebuffed a few suggestions of joint appearances amid concern that the device could be overused. Behind the scenes, there have also been moves to change up the order of speakers at events so that Sinn Féin is not the assumed first speaker. This has been part of a concerted move to ensure Mary Lou McDonald is not seen as the de facto leader. Another source in a smaller party queries Sinn Féin's assertion that it is the "leader of the Opposition", suggesting this is language imported from Westminster where one large opposition party dominates. "Certainly there should not be a situation where Sinn Féin thinks it can call the shots," they said. Some Labour members have also fed back to party leadership that they are not happy with the joint approach on issues. Another source suggested that Sinn Féin has it "totally wrong" if it thinks it can present a picture of an alternative government when there are "sharp differences" between the parties. In response, a Sinn Féin source acknowledged that smaller parties are always worried about being carved up by larger ones. Presidential election a looming test of cohesion A looming test of cohesion is the bid for the combined left to nominate a joint candidate for the presidency. Smaller parties see this as a crucial decision point for Sinn Féin as it has the numbers to select its own person if it wishes. Some Sinn Féin TDs have privately suggested the party should not run its own candidate as they believe the position is not winnable for one of its politicians But another source said that fielding a party person would present the opportunity to "frame the debate", particularly on its core issue of a united Ireland. Although they add that they are aware there would be "consequences" if the party did badly. And it is not all harmony. A Labour source said he has picked up some disquiet from individuals who could run as a civil society candidate but who do not wish to be jointly nominated by Sinn Féin. Overall, there are mixed views as to how long the combined opposition will last. One source said they could not predict what would happen in a year, but it would continue for now. Another contends that disharmony will be rife as it gets closer to election time. For now though, many of the Opposition parties feel it is a useful device to combine strengths and make a bigger impact.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Ireland needs to ditch empty promises and economic fairy tales and start confronting reality
The next six weeks or so are going to go a long way to defining the Government's term in office. The printers are going to be busy. We are due an updated housing plan, a new strategy on competitiveness and productivity, the Summer Economic Statement and a new medium-term budget strategy along with a revised National Development Plan outlining state investment plans. Then, in the middle of all this, there is the deadline for the US/EU tariff talks on July 9th. The Government needs to use this crucial period to set some kind of coherent economic narrative for its term. So far it has been firing blanks. For example, bits of its housing plan are drip-feeding out in an often-disorganised fashion. Perhaps this is meant to give the impression of busyness, but all it does is confuse people. READ MORE At the heart of all this is credibility. A believable strategy must have some hope of delivery. And here the State – in the widest sense of the Government and the public service – is struggling. It is not just that things are happening late – like the National Children's Hospital. Or that there are signs of waste and carelessness with public money – step forward the Leinster House bike shed. It is that a lot of vital stuff is simply not happening at all. It is a stretch to believe that the Metro will ever get built. Or the giant project to bring water from Shannon across the State. Or the offshore wind infrastructure that is meant to be at the heart of our energy transition , where the Draghi report on EU competitiveness showed Ireland has one of the most long-drawn out consent mechanisms in Europe. In this context, government targets take on an air of fantasy. Less than six months into the Coalition's term, Minister for Housing James Browne told us this week that the target of building 41,000 homes this year is not going to happen. So why should we believe the target for 2026 or the 300,000 plus homes promised during the Coalition's term? The Departments of Finance and of Public Expenditure will publish a budget strategy over the summer, based, we must assume, on tighter control of day-to-day spending. But key spending targets have ended up being roundly ignored in recent years. Central Bank researchers estimated this week that permanent Government spending has risen by 37 per cent since 2021. Had the annual spending limits of 5 per cent set by the previous administration been adhered to, the increase would have been 16 per cent. That is a €16 billion difference. Official documents and targets seem to exist in some kind of parallel universe where no one really expects them to happen. They are more fairy stories than strategy. And the risk with the plans coming in the weeks ahead is that these are more endless checklists of stuff that is happening already and stuff that might or might not happen at all. Some central themes and directions are urgently needed. And some convincing messages of actual action to get things done. Investment is built on certainty, yet in key areas such as climate change and housing this is simply missing. The current drift has a cost. The stalling of investment across the economy is in part due to threats of tariffs from Donald Trump . There isn't much the Government can do about that. But it can start to get its own story straight. Lack of clarity about housing policy is causing parts of the construction industry to sit on its hands. With talk of more incentives and tax breaks on the way, and uncertainty on state commitment in areas of social housing, builders wait to see what emerges. House building volumes slipped by 4.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the previous three months. Meanwhile, big foreign investors – and their international headquarters – are starting to realise that promises to deliver better energy and water infrastructure are simply not being met. Investment plans, on hold to see how the US/EU talks work out, will restart at some stage. Ireland is at risk of not being in the frame. The first real alarm bell for this was when Intel ditched Oranmore in Co Galway as a possible site for a big new plant in 2021 because the State could not guarantee how long planning would take on vital supporting infrastructure. This followed the seemingly endless planning saga for the Apple data centre in Athenry , also Co Galway. A convincing economic narrative needs a few central points that everyone has signed up to. Read the Central Bank research out this week for a convincing case on how state investment remains low here, despite tripling over the past decade. This is because the economy and population have grown so fast and the economy was already hobbled by years of underinvestment after the financial crash. To allow space for investment to continue to grow – and provide a buffer if the public finances tighten – other parts of the budget need to be under control. This means keeping the budget in surplus and continuing to put away excess corporate taxes in the funds for the future. This needs to be a central part of a coherent strategy. To be credible, the whole Government – including Micheál Martin and Simon Harris – need to explicitly sign up to this. If it is just a creature of the budget departments, then it will be there to be negotiated away during the budget process. It goes without saying that the second leg of any strategy needs to focus on prioritisation and delivery. Many thousands of words have been written about this. And the challenges are significant. But Ireland, for now anyway, is in a uniquely privileged position with a flush Exchequer and room for manoeuvre. The resources are there. Spending them well is the challenge. Ireland can consider how to respond as the Trump story plays out. The odds are that it will continue to do so long after the July 9th talks deadline. But the Government needs a convincing narrative of how it is going to manage what is under its control and use what may prove to be transitory budgetary riches. There are dangers ahead. But we are starting from a good position, with full employment and flush coffers that are the envy of many other countries. The Government needs to start telling a better story – not just to the public and investors, but also to itself.
