I join colleagues in proposing amendments that would include services in the occupied territories Bill or, as an alternative, at least restrict the advertising of services available within the occupied territories. Today the Government is going to use its majority to force the adoption of a piece of legislation - its version of the occupied territories Bill - which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with our international law obligations. Throughout the entire process of debating the occupied territories Bill the Government has conceded that for full compliance with the July 2024 legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, a Bill that bans all trade with the occupied territories - trade in goods but also trade in services - is required. When we were looking at this Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny at the foreign affairs committee a number of months ago, officials from the Department of foreign affairs confirmed this to me and others when we put the questions to them. Indeed, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, accepted this point during the Committee Stage two weeks ago when she conceded that the Bill being advanced is only in partial compliance with our obligations. Let me reiterate what those obligations are as set out in Article 29(3) of the Constitution: "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." Yet today the Government will push forward with this Bill which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with international law because it does not go far enough and does not meet the criteria set out in the ICJ opinion. This did not have to happen. The issue of services was introduced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael after the 2024 general election. The concern about services did not originate in the legal advice given by the Attorney General to the last Government. This is a political decision taken by this Government which, in my view and that of many colleagues here, is dictated by fear of the Trump administration. Last week during oral questions I raised the issue of the exclusion of services with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. She argued that there was a distinction in terms of how the public policy exemption contained in Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, applied to goods and services by saying it does apply to goods and somehow does not apply to services. What I say now and what I said then is that distinction is entirely unconvincing. First, it is not backed up by any case law. There is no case law that says the public policy justification does not apply to services. Indeed, if we look at the vast bulk of case law discussing goods and services from the Court of Justice of the European Union, over decades it has always sought to treat the protection of the free movement of goods and services and limitations on those freedoms identically rather than trying to separate them and treat the two differently. Not only is there no case law, the strong advice heard and the strong academic understanding of EU law that was at the Oireachtas committee also speaks very much to there being no distinction on the grounds of a difference in treatment between goods and services when it comes to public policy. Professor Takis Tridimas and Professor Panos Koutrakos said very clearly that public policy provides a derogation not only from the free movement of goods but also the freedom to provide services. Professor Graham Butler, who actually does not agree with the overall approach of the Bill, said on that point: I am in total agreement with what Professor Koutrakos said about the [public policy] existence of the exception even if it is not explicit for services in the same way as it is for goods. So, there is no case law to justify the distinction. The strong academic advice is that there is no distinction, and the practical application of what is happening in Spain demonstrates there is no distinction either. That is because Spain has brought in national legislation restricting goods from the occupied territories and restricting the advertisement of services. I know that is a narrower ground than the initial one put forward in Senator Black's Bill. Nevertheless, Spain has justified that restriction on advertising of services on the grounds of the public policy justification in Article 36 of the TFEU and no effort has been made by the European Union to take enforcement action because it accepts what everybody accepts: that the distinction the Government is trying to rely on does not really exist in terms of the day-to-day application of European Union law. While everyone here accepts that action at an EU level on restricting trade for goods and services with the occupied territories is the better approach, and I welcome the statements the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the Taoiseach have made, we have no certainty of success following and relying solely on that EU route. If Ireland acts on this Bill, we will deliver restrictions on services immediately but, more importantly, we will continue that leadership role and we will show a direction for other member states to follow, in the same way they followed us when we took the brave step of recognition of Palestinian statehood, in the same way we have shown leadership on calling out genocide in Gaza, and in the same way we stood up for United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, when there was major pressure against it from other members states. We have shown leadership in the past but by passing a Bill that excludes services and excludes the most meaningful restrictions we can implement, we are sacrificing that leadership role and we are sacrificing it on the basis of fear of the Trump administration. On that point, I believe we are fighting yesterday's war because even in the United States that steadfast support for everything the Netanyahu government does is fading. For a Democrat who gets donations from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, it is a kiss of death in the primary elections. This cause, the cause of Natanyahu, is lost in the Democratic Party and even in significant and growing parts of the Republican Party the overreach Netanyahu has demonstrated in terms of the Iran war is undermining support for him. The Government is fighting yesterday's war in terms of adhering to the Trump administration's view.

Sentiment score: 0.08