Paul Murphy: Bill admits Ireland will be partially non-compliant with ICJ
Paul Murphy argues the government's bill does not bring Ireland into compliance with the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion on Israeli settlements. He points out the Department of Foreign Affairs' own regulatory impact analysis says the only reasonable reading requires a complete prohibition on trade with settlements.
Main allegation: Paul Murphy accuses ministers of accepting that the bill will only make Ireland 'partially compliant' with international law. He highlights that the Minister told committee that Member States may choose how to act, yet the department's analysis and the Minister's wording together amount to an admission the bill falls short.
Constitutional implications: Murphy draws attention to Article 29.3 of the Constitution, which commits Ireland to accepting the principles of international law as its rule of conduct with other states. He says the government's acknowledgement that the bill does not secure compliance raises serious questions about constitutionality and about whether core foreign policy principles are being honoured.
EU deferral and political context: Murphy warns the government's plan to defer meaningful action to the EU is merely kicking the can down the road. He argues political establishments across Europe are often more sympathetic to Israel than Ireland's own government, making a timely EU solution unlikely and leaving Ireland to face the legal and moral consequences alone.
Main allegation: Paul Murphy accuses ministers of accepting that the bill will only make Ireland 'partially compliant' with international law. He highlights that the Minister told committee that Member States may choose how to act, yet the department's analysis and the Minister's wording together amount to an admission the bill falls short.
Constitutional implications: Murphy draws attention to Article 29.3 of the Constitution, which commits Ireland to accepting the principles of international law as its rule of conduct with other states. He says the government's acknowledgement that the bill does not secure compliance raises serious questions about constitutionality and about whether core foreign policy principles are being honoured.
EU deferral and political context: Murphy warns the government's plan to defer meaningful action to the EU is merely kicking the can down the road. He argues political establishments across Europe are often more sympathetic to Israel than Ireland's own government, making a timely EU solution unlikely and leaving Ireland to face the legal and moral consequences alone.
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.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Brendan Smith
Brendan Smith Calls to Raise Social Housing Income Limits
Luke Ming Flanagan
Luke Ming Flanagan: CAP must protect small farmers and fishers
Micheál Martin
Micheál Martin: Ireland's EU Presidency - Unity, Security, Growth
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan: On George Gibney, victims and justice
Mary Lou McDonald
Mary Lou McDonald: Government failing on affordable homes
Matt Carthy
Matt Carthy asks: Why is the GSOC public report withheld?
Transcript
I think the Minister made a point of saying that the ICJ didn't require Member States to do anything, that it's up to Member States how we choose to act and therefore whether we make a distinction between goods and services. But your own department, in its regulatory impact analysis, stated that the only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. The Minister then accepted that in committee and then used phrases like this bill is moving us, as you did, towards compliance, with this bill we will be, quote, partially compliant. I mean, all of that is an acceptance that with the bill we will not be in compliance. You're either in compliance with international law or you're not in compliance with international law. And to emphasize the point that has been made by others, it does raise a question over the constitutionality of what the government is doing here. Article 29.3 commits Ireland to accepting the principles of international law, quote, as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states. And yet here we have the government introducing a bill which it acknowledges itself does not bring Ireland into compliance with international law. So far from being one of, quote, the core principles of Irish foreign policy, as the Department of Foreign Affairs puts it, we're actually going against that. We're saying that we have to do this to be in compliance with international law, but it's not really, doesn't suit us politically to do that at this stage. And therefore the government's line officially is we'll come partially into compliance here and then don't worry, the EU will do the meaningful thing later on down the line, which obviously everyone knows not in a short period of time is that going to happen. That is just kicking the can down the road elsewhere where it's not going to move forward. Because obviously political establishments in many of the European countries are far closer, far more sympathetic to Israel than our own government.