Brian Stanley demands bill to halt trade with Israel, include services

Thank you very much. Minister, I think that given on a daily basis that we are seeing the latest version of the horrors, absolutely horrors that are coming down on top of Palestinians, you know, the sheer loss of life, the estimates for those who are missing, crushed underneath the buildings, it escalates every day. The bombing of hospitals, schools, clinics, everything, homes, the total destruction of Gaza, the infrastructure, roads, wastewater plants, everything. It's clear that what the Israeli game plan is here, and the fragmentation and occupation of the West Bank, and, you know, the news today in terms of the escalation of that and the expansion of that, it's clear that this is about wiping out not just the Palestinian state but the Palestinian people, and I would appeal to you to have this bill brought forward as quickly as possible, and to include services in it, because services are estimated to be 70% of trade. There is the ICJ ruling, that's clear as far as I'm concerned, and I think there's an obligation on this. We must do everything we can, and, you know, it may not have a huge effect because it's a limited amount of trade, but look at what happened when the drone stores workers stopped selling the South African flute. Look at what that snowballed into. It brought apartheid down, or helped to bring it down. Deputy Mayor. Thank you very much. I take the point that Deputy Connolly makes around the date on the original bill being 2018. That is, of course, a statement of fact. I would respectfully make the point back that trade has, for better or worse, I'm happy to be in the European Union, but trade is an EU competency, and it has been the position of successive governments for quite a period of time that, therefore, any issues in that bill were a matter to be dealt with at an EU level rather than a member state level. The change, if you like, at least from the government's legal understanding of the change was the ICJ advisory opinion. In my previous role as Hitchick, I asked the then Attorney General and still the Attorney General to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nations of their obligation to act in this space. The Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified, I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the legal advice in front of me, but he identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward, not a risk-free way forward, we are not looking for a risk-free way forward, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation. It was on that basis that certainly when I entered the general election campaign and I think many of us did, it was on that basis that I think every political party in Dáil Éire and every grouping was committing to enacting legislation in this space. So I take the 2018 point, but I do just want to, on the record, it has outlined why I believe it to be different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018. Deputy Murphy and Deputy America and Deputy Stanley and I'm quite sure Deputy Connolly are all asking a very fair question in terms of tell us the legal difference in relation to the goods versus services, that's a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, and I'm doing this without the benefit of advice in front of me, but my understanding is that there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a Member State to act. However, can I tell you that I intend to seek the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that, because I take the point that I heard Deputy Murphy make, I've heard Deputy O'Gorman make it before, in relation to the Attorney General advice that's published there. I don't have a policy difference. I mean, I'm doing this with you all, I hope, because we were horrified by the genocide that we're seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope that it inspires and motivates others and helps bring about pressure on Israel to end what's happening in Gaza. But obviously the position that I occupy, we've got to make sure that it's legally robust, and I think we all share that view. So like when I spoke to Senator Black, and again, I don't like invoking her name or speaking for sure to speak for herself. When I spoke to Senator Black, I made the point that the position of my Department from a legal point of view was that goods was potentially legally permissible services may not be. And I also said I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. And the final thing I would say is, and this is just a different point, but there's a practical implication around services that isn't to the policy space. There's a practical implication to how you'd enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue, but that's also fair. Thank you. Thank you. The first thing I want to ask to that just my hearing is 100%, just what you said in relation to your conversation, the tail end of that with Senator Black, just if you wouldn't mind, I'm not trying to be awkward, just if you could repeat that again, please, because I didn't, I wasn't able to pick up correctly what you were saying. But look at what I would say is in relation just to my concluding remarks on it that, you know, that there obviously is different opinions out there and there's different legal opinion. And it's been said earlier, I believe we should put the weight of the crisis that's happening and the weight that's on us. There are so many people depending on us to act. There are so many people depending on us as a neutral country to act and show example. The Palestinian ambassador will tell you this. Palestinians will tell you this. People out in the street tell me this the whole time. You know, people walking by here tell me, people on the streets down in Count Elish tell me this the whole time, that we need to be doing more than what we're doing. And I would just say to you, just the old saying that doctors differ and patients die. You know, solicitors and barristers differ, but my God, the level of death and destruction. I think we're all agreed. Like, it's absolutely horrified. I've never seen nothing like it. Thank you. If you don't mind, Tanish, just just clarify what you said. Thank you. Just hearing this. Deputy. As you can imagine, I'll be engaging with the Attorney General as we seek to advance this general scheme. That was the point I was making, Deputy Stanley, that obviously I've had the conversations that we had, let's say, in the last government, in terms of was it possible to move forward with an occupied territories bill. I do want to say, and I accept that line Deputy Murphy's quoting is accurate in terms of the political choice piece, but I would also say from being in the briefings with the Attorney General and indeed hearing the now Taoiseach when he was in my role addressing the Foreign Affairs Committee, I mean, it is the clear legal view of the government that the current bill wouldn't have been legally permissible. That is genuinely the legal advice available to the government. You're right. That was an option. You could amend line by line or section by section, and our view was that actually bringing forward a new bill was just a better way, a better way of doing it. On the issue of services, I'm open to persuasion of this, because it's not a persuasion that you need to do from a policy point of view. I'm open to persuasion as to if this bill works. I'm not afraid of infringement proceedings, there's much more important things going on in the world, but I do want to pass a bill that is robust, is practical and legally. I can't pass legislation that I believe not to be legal. No.