Joe O'Reilly Questions Cogan's Norms and Central Bank Independence

Welcome to our guests, and a special welcome to my former colleague and colleague, I suppose it merits saying very briefly on the outset that we're individually and collectively horrified by the genocide in the form of the bombings and the starvation, and indeed the recent legal settlements on the West Bank, and the West Bank has been lost, the focus there a bit, naturally, and that's a horror too. And I've been saying all of this repeatedly as a foreign affairs spokesperson in the Shannon over a number of years, and at both plenary and committee meetings of the Council of Europe, where I'm one of the Irish representatives, and those are all on the record. But I have a number of questions, or a brief few questions I have four questions, and I'll address the first four to the Professor, and then the last one to Helen, if I may, but I don't mind if you decide to both answer each other. Number one, you used the term just Cogan's norms, that, you know, these are binding on states. Would it not be the case that... Sorry, there's a boat in the Shannon, so I just wanted to highlight that with you. Do you want... Will I have time? Is it started? You don't know? Unfortunately, we don't have a balance here. I think I'll keep going. Okay, that's fine. I just want to let you know. Yeah, I think I'll keep going. I might make a chance. Yeah, anyway. Yeah, okay. But you do use the term just Cogan's norms, being binding on states. Is that not the case that there's a sort of a general binding nature there, but they're not absolutely binding? And in the sense that, leading to my second question, is EU law under the Treaty of Rome, is it not a term of the Treaty of Rome that EU law in the form of regulations, directives, et cetera, etc., is binding in Ireland? And in that sense, as the Governor said, is he not bound? I'll ask all the questions and then take that. Good idea. Yeah. Is the Governor not bound by the EU law? Now, all of the questions this week and last week from everyone are coming from what I said in the introduction. But number three, can the central bank function normally if conditions like this are imposed on it by the government. What I mean is, next year, on a regular basis, countries and bonds are – a number of bonds you could question the purpose of what products they are, whether they ultimately can be complicit in mortar, whether they're complicit in various forms of crime and states that indeed are rogue states issuing bonds. What I'm trying to effectively say here is, if you start to limit the central bank in this fashion, where do you stop? And does it not – is a logical sequitur of your argument not that we'd have to be a policing of the central bank, a kind of a moral policing all the time, and where would you begin or end? And then, next, are you going to implement – or sorry, we are going to implement the Occupied Territories Bill, and we are – Thornish said we're open to including services there. But – so would you accept that that's very considerable progress? And I personally think we should do that with great speed. But – and the last question I was going to put to Helen, because it has a more domestic quality. The Minister for Finance, Minister Donoghue, has stated that he has legal advice, which we assume comes from the Attorney General, that the central bank must be independent in this sphere. And you might comment on that. Thank you. I'm conscious that the vote started maybe a minute or two before you started speaking, and you've done about four minutes, so I'm just letting you know. I might make it – but yeah, I'd like to – maybe I'll listen to the beginning. And you leave – and as well, I understand you have to leave at some point, so both of you leave when you need to, OK? And so bring it back to the – And I can look at the blacks later. OK. So I'll answer quickly and then leave to catch my flight. Yeah, I understand. Thank you very much. Youth Coggins norms are binding and are the highest norms in international law, to the extent that states cannot agree to breach them. They are the top of the top of the rules of international law, and therefore they are binding absolutely for every country in the world. And not only that, there are situations when – of course, maybe because they are not always enforced. You see a genocide and it's not being stopped. You see war crimes and they are not being stopped. So maybe people assume that it means that, you know, it's just like general advice, it's not that binding, it's not that important. But legally speaking, they are the highest form of laws and they can be enforced even later. So for example, if someone commits a war crime today, 50 years from today, they can be prosecuted because there is no, you know, prosecuted domestically or internationally. And there are examples and precedents about individuals who are prosecuted for crimes that they did, you know, decades earlier. That's the reality of international crimes that has been established since the Nuremberg Tribunals in the aftermath of the Second World War. Regarding policing the central bank, the idea is not to erase the independence of the central bank in its financial matters. However, it's very important that due diligence is introduced to the work of the central bank, because if it is not introduced, then the central bank is likely to authorise crimes like the ones we have mentioned, but also, you know, maybe terrorism, maybe human trafficking. It could be many other crimes that it will be authorised through Ireland. And this is not something, it's not a situation that Ireland wants to be involved in. In terms of the progress with the OPT law, of course, and maybe this is a chance for me to say, that indeed, when we look at Ireland and its diplomacy, Ireland is doing much better compared, especially within its context, the European context, maybe not compared to every country around the world, but within the European context, it is doing much better. And it is very progressive in its situation. However, it's very important that we also close the gaps where either Ireland can be complicit or participating because of, you know, situations like the central bank or the arms trade. Could you facetiously say that I'm okay, it's okay. Okay. Thank you for making me aware. Thank you. Yeah. Could you facetiously say, though, that if you were to apply moral criteria to the bonds and imposition rules on the bonds that, other than the prospectus outlined last week, that we might have very few bonds? You know, the way, where do you begin to render this kind of thing? With law, right? I mean, every country must have due diligence for every action that it takes in order to be consistent with its moral but also international legal obligations. Now, it's not that every country around the world currently is doing... What I'm thinking, I know it's simplistic, but bonds saying cigarette companies, they are killing people on a daily basis. Yeah. Bonds in maybe certain alcohol thing, bonds in a number of things, and bonds from a number of other rogue states. Yes. You know, I'm just thinking, how does this work in practice? That's up to you. This is up to you. Okay. Go maith agat a hana dhore. We think it might have been the bells coming back, so... Is that you finished, or did you want to...? Yeah, so he's answered me there, yes. That's fine. I'll go back. Helen will take up the other lines. May I be excused? You absolutely may, and safe flight. Thank you so much. Miss Mahoney, if you'd like to continue, or Mr Marameen. Yeah, the question of whether or not the... When you talked about Pascal O'Donoghue's response, I think that's been dealt with in terms of whether or not the Central Bank has been independent. I think that that's really been well dealt with today, but you also talked about the Attorney General's advice to him, and he also quoted in the debate on the Sinn Féin bill, on the Israeli war bonds bill. He also quoted Article 215. And I understand that the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advice have actually wrote that. That has actually got no bearing whatsoever on the bill, right? But I do want to just read a small passage that we did include in our submission, which takes this up. And I just want to say at the outset as well, I'm actually a former employee of the Central Bank, retired. And I don't actually hold any personal animosity against them. I actually really enjoyed working there. But I was shocked, like many of our colleagues, when I heard that they were facilitating Israeli war bonds. But the Central Bank did write to the Finance Committee in December last year, after the Governor had appeared in the last time he was here last year in October. And what he did say was, I will adhere to any financial restrictions or sanctions that are opposed under law. And this was an open invitation to the government to bring in a restriction to stop the sale of Israeli war bonds in the EU. And the government not only failed to act, but they actually opposed the recent Sinn Féin-Israeli war bonds restrictive financial measures bill, which would have done exactly that. Now, the bill sought to empower the Minister for Finance to make regulations imposing restrictive measures in respect of securities issued on behalf of the State of Israel. And it was underpinned by the ICJ advisory opinion of July. But it was also informed by the advice of the OPLA, which said we can provide for restricted access to its financial services on the basis of public policy grounds that are rooted in Ireland's fundamental interest in pursuing its international law obligations. Now, the government have not tried in any meaningful way to set out a legal argument against this bill. They have said they have legal advice from the Attorney General, but they have not made this available. They invoke the Attorney General as a barrier to action instead of simply setting out their legal arguments. And we have seen this being played out, sorry, we have seen this being played out as a barrier to action in the Occupied Territories Bill. Go on, Mark, just a question. Sorry. Let's come back in. Very briefly, because we're under time. It is the norm that they would seek. It is normal practice that they seek the AG's advice. And by appointing him or her, once they appoint an AG, they must seek their advice on legislation and they kind of have to go by it. Okay. What do you say to that? We have to wrap up on this, but there will be time for a second round. Okay, Murray, just one minute. So just very, very, very briefly seconds. Okay. What I wanted to say was that the AG has been used as a barrier. And particularly if we look at the Occupied Territories Bill, this was passed in 2018. And then we had all the backwards and forwards on whether it was lawful. Francis Black, who introduced it, got further legal advice to show that it was legal. Then when we had the July ruling last year, the government said that that actually would allow them to pass the Occupied Territories Bill. But in January of this year, Micheál Martin said that virtually every section of the bill would have to be amended. And it's a claim that when the AG's advice, he said that that was actually a political choice. Sorry. We'll come back to it. We'll see you. Bye-bye. Guys, pop out if you want to do here. You guys say this. You guys have pink nowadays. You guys think they're new? So thank you. You guys. You guys think you're very bloated among the schools using Stick Entertainment. Who will? You honor some gear. He does not. I don't believe what you want. You may call a Vine. We will make it. You know something. I will show up every which I am. To get started by you. So listen to the сообщ film. I'll probably check whether or not to a lot of people except you do. They also get along the mind known notes. I don't think you might be familiar with anything.