Paul Murphy Challenges Government Shift on AG Advice and Trade Ban
Paul Murphy challenged the government's change in the Attorney-General's advice on implementing a ban on trade and investment with Israel, arguing there is no legal distinction between goods and services and urging that services be included. He accused the government of making a political choice to exclude services, reneging on an election promise made by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and called for urgent legislative action amid continuing violence in Gaza.
Attorney-General's advice and ICJ decision
He asked why the Attorney-General's advice had changed and what legally had changed, citing the ICJ decision that states must abstain from economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with Israel. He argued the previous advice made no distinction between goods and services and that any exclusion of services would be a political choice rather than a legal necessity.
Government decision and accusations of political pressure
He accused the government of watering down the commitment and said it was bowing down to external pressure, describing a senior government figure as openly stating the change in the Dáil. He said ministers were seeking legal advice to justify a political decision and that comparisons with other jurisdictions showed the Irish approach was being narrowed for political reasons.
EU comparisons and legal complexity
He reviewed developments in other EU states, noting Slovenia, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands had taken differing approaches rooted in domestic legal systems and parliamentary procedures. He said Spain implemented a ban on goods and was advertising restrictions on services, and argued that domestic legislative routes and the presence or absence of primary legislation explained some differences. He also noted sanctions are easier to implement where the EU has adopted a common vehicle, citing the example of measures related to Ukraine.
Urgency amid violence and parliamentary pressure
He highlighted continuing and worsening conditions in Gaza, including record home demolitions, settler attacks and orders for new settlement construction, and said more than 500 Palestinians had been killed since the so-called ceasefire, with 18 killed the previous day. He said the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Oireachtas had urged inclusion of services and that ministers had sought further technical clarifications from the Attorney-General, but that the government appeared to be delaying implementation.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Yeah, I have to say I have a question. Why has the Attorney-General's advice changed? What legally has changed? The ICJ decision, which is that all states must abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with Israel, stands. That was the basis upon which the previous advice of the Attorney-General was made. In the previous advice of the Attorney-General, he made no distinction between goods and services, because legally, in international law, there is no distinction between trade in goods and services. And instead, he made the point that it would be a political choice to exclude services. What's happening is the government is making a political choice to exclude services, to bow down before what Trump is asking. Michael Martin is pretty open about it when he says it in the Dáil. Simon Harris tries to hide it a little bit, but Michael Martin is completely open. I can quote it. And you're watering it down and reneging on an election promise that was made by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and you're trying to find some legal advice to hide behind. It doesn't work because Spain, an EU country, is currently doing it, is currently implementing a ban on services with the Occupied Territory. So how can they do it under European law, and yet the Irish Government isn't able to do it? A couple of things there, and I'll try and answer them in order. In relation to the situation with Ukraine, obviously, it's much easier to implement and indeed find a vehicle for sanctions that have been adopted by the Union as a whole when it comes to an area of trade competence. In relation to the situation, I suppose it's important just to actually be clear what's happening around Europe, because people have made assertions in relation to what's happening in other European jurisdictions. Four other EU states have expressed an interest, a desire, or a commitment, or have started the process following the Irish Government's commitment to do this in the programme for government, and I've discussed it with the actual ministers at European Council levels. The first, in relation to Slovenia, they have a different legal system which didn't require primary legislation in order to, in fact, a ban on goods and goods alone. In relation to Spain, let's just be clear what they actually, again, using a different legal situation that didn't need the primary legislative response that we did, they were able to implement the ban on goods, and then the advertisement of services, and that distinguishment hasn't been made yet here in this chamber, and I think that's important. There were also commitments from the Belgians and the Dutch, but they haven't moved perhaps as far as the Irish Government has. Equally, in relation to the ICJ judgment, that made it quite clear. It was actually the then Taoiseach Simon Harris who asked the Attorney General on foot of that ICJ judgment, is there a pathway to pass a version of the original Occupied Territories Bill brought into the Shannon by Senator Francis back? Indeed, I was in the channel with her at the time. And since consistently then, we have looked for a way, firstly, to do with goods, we finally related that, and then following pre-legislative scrutiny at the Foreign Affairs Committee, there was an ask to ensure that we could guarantee services, bearing in mind the programme of government commitment was only on goods initially. That is related to additional legal advice being provided, the legal advice has been digested by officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they've gone back for additional questions, to be quite frank to the Attorney General, and we await the clarifications and responses, some of them are technical, some of them are otherwise. Let's just remind ourselves that last year not only saw the continuation of the genocide in Gaza, but saw a record number of home demolitions, record number of settler attacks, record number of orders for new illegal settlement construction in the West Bank. That all happened last year, that's all continuing this year. The urgency of this Bill is never greater. Since the so-called ceasefire, well over 500 Palestinians have been killed. Yesterday, 18 Palestinians were killed. It's the position of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the government should include the question of services. It's the position of this DAW, which you didn't vote against. The whole DAW voted for a motion two months ago to say that it should include services and it should be implemented as enacted before the end of the year. We're, what, two months on, and it seems to me the government is just kicking the can down the road trying to avoid taking action. And the point about all these other countries have different legal frameworks, yes, fine, in terms of their domestic legislation, but the government's argument has also been the problem here is European law. European law applies equally to all European countries. If you can't do services in Ireland because of European law, well, you can't do it in Spain either. I think the clear point that I was making is not necessarily in relation to EU law, in relation to the ability of different jurisdictions to progress legislation in a different manner as per their domestic parliamentary structure for creating legislation allows for. And we have to recognise that. In relation to, yes, Deputy, of course you're right, any legislation can be challenged, but we have made it quite clear that we will not produce a piece of legislation that we feel will actually fail the test of EU or international law. And that's a very real commitment because we are talking about the rule of law and the importance of it, and we have to act as such. And I must straight, this isn't the only thing the Irish government is doing in relation to the absolute horrors of the genocide that is going on at the moment in Gaza. If you look at our response at an EU level, if we look at twice, we've called for a suspension of the association agreement. We've asked for investigations under Article 2. We have led the way on it. And I'm not looking for backclaps. I'm just providing the context that we have no material opposition. I absolutely respect and support the declaration of the Foreign Affairs Committee last summer. And indeed, of course, I didn't vote against the motion at all. I have no political obstacle to this. But we have said consistently as a government that we need to work in something that is fit for purpose in terms of international law. We've prepared legislation as we committed to the programme in relation to goods. There was the clear response and request and instruction from the Foreign Affairs and Services. We sought the Attorney General to provide that legal guarantee. That has been received. And now we're looking for the technical details and responses. And in fairness to the previous Foreign Minister, and I'm sure it will be no different with Minister McEntee, there will of course be briefings provided to the opposition and full engagement, not only in this House, but also in the Shannad, noting that the genesis of this came from Senator Francis Black's Bill back in 2018. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
