Conor McGregor and Liam Cunningham clash in row over Gaza-bound aid boat ‘Madleen'
Israeli naval forces boarded and seized the vessel carrying 12 people, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and French MEP Rima Hassan
MMA fighter Conor McGregor has hit out at the Irish actor Liam Cunningham in an online row over the Gaza-bound aid boat Madleen.
Israeli naval forces boarded and seized the vessel carrying 12 people, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and French MEP Rima Hassan, that had tried to break a naval blockade of the war-torn Gaza Strip earlier today.
The British-flagged yacht operated by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) aimed to deliver a symbolic amount of aid, including antibiotics and baby formula, to Gaza and raise awareness of the crisis.
However, the vessel was boarded during the night before it could reach shore, the FFC said on Telegram, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry confirmed the boat was under Israeli control.
Conor McGregor (left) and Liam Cunningham (right, photo by Collins)
Israeli forces seize Gaza aid boat 'Madleen'
Mr Cunningham, best known for his role as Davos Seaworth in HBO's series Game of Thrones, has shared several tweets in the wake of Israel seizing the aid boat.
The Dublin actor, who has been vocal about his support for Palestine, helped launch the vessel carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza in Catania, Italy, on Sunday, June 1.
"The Freedom flotilla was attacked during the night,' he wrote on his X account today. 'The ship was rammed, boarded, and the 12 volunteers kidnapped.'
He described it as 'more reprehensible behaviour from the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv'.
We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity.
Please review your details and accept them to load the content
Shortly after, Conor McGregor responded to the actor's tweet on X, saying: "I thought you were on this boat Liamo, what happened?'
"You forgot your goggles? You get seasick off the gargle? Bottler,' McGregor added, to which Cunningham responded: "Didn't know you could read and write, Conor. Thought you used your hands to tap out.'
The MMA fighter then uploaded a picture depicting Greta Thunberg, which was originally posted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
In a separate tweet, McGregor said: 'Tell us you're plotting an Irish goodbye without telling us.'
"Two bags full packed and ready to skid! Ah Liamo you little bottler!' he added.
His post was accompanied by a picture of Liam Cunningham during the Madleen launch in Sicily with activists Thiago Ávila and Yasemin Acar, who are both onboard the vessel.
We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity.
Please review your details and accept them to load the content
He later added: "For the record, Liam Cunningham is a virtue signaling bottler. He was right there and did not go. That is absolutely embarrassing.'
Speaking last week at the launch of a new People Before Profit pamphlet 'No To War – Defend Irish Neutrality', published in opposition to Government plans to change the triple lock system for overseas deployments, Cunningham said that it was never planned that he would be on the Madleen boat as it is a small vessel, RTÉ reported.
He also said the Irish Government is 'siding with warmongers' while the actor endorsed an opposition campaign to 'defend Irish neutrality'.
Conor McGregor (left) and Liam Cunningham (right, photo by Collins)
News in 90 Seconds - 09 June 2025
Under the current system, Ireland cannot deploy more than 12 Defence Forces peacekeepers overseas without a mission being approved by the UN, the Government and the Dáil.
As part of the draft legislation being advanced by the Government, it is proposed to remove the requirement for formal UN approval and replace it with a stipulation that the deployments are in accordance with the UN Charter.
The Government argues this will prevent the five permanent members of the Security Council – Russia, China, the UK, the US and France – from exercising their veto against Irish peacekeeping missions.
However, Mr Cunningham accused the Government of 'lying' and 'obfuscation' over the mechanics of the existing triple lock, adding that the current system allows the UN General Assembly to approve such a mission in the absence of a green light from the Security Council.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Fergus Finlay: Let's restore people's dignity by going back to the Constitution
What are my fundamental obligations as a citizen of Ireland? The Constitution spells out two, in Article 9, and it uses the word fundamental to describe them. I must be faithful to the nation and loyal to the State. In addition, if I am a parent, I have some additional duties in relation to the welfare and education of my children. None of that seems unreasonable to me. I'm proud of being Irish, never wanted to live anywhere else, always wanted to ensure that my children and their children had the same sense of pride as I have. But I've always wondered why the drafters of our Constitution never thought that the country might have the occasional duty to its citizens and all the people who live here. This is exclusive subscriber content. Already a subscriber? Sign in Subscribe to access all of the Irish Examiner. Annual €120€60 Best value Monthly €10€4 / month Unlimited access. Subscriber content. Daily ePaper. Additional benefits.
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
'Poor budgeting' has Government spending money faster than planned, says watchdog
The Government is spending money much faster this year than was planned, with Ireland's fiscal watchdog blaming poor budgeting. In an assessment of the State's financial health, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) said spending has increased by 6% so far this year, well above the 1.4% implied by Budget 2025. IFAC said the rapid spending is because earlier overruns were not properly built into the forecasts, and Government estimates were 'simply not credible'. The exchequer returns for May, published last week, show spending of €37.3bn to the end of May — €2.1bn (5.9%) above the same period last year. 'This pace far exceeds the growth rate that would be consistent with Budget 2025 forecasts, given the final level of spending in 2024,' IFAC said, adding that the overruns are in most areas of spending, not just health. Presenting the returns last week, Jack Chambers, the public expenditure minister, said the increases were in line with the amount profiled by departments to be spent at this stage in the year. IFAC said the Irish economy is in a strong position, but it warned of growing risks, saying that tariffs and trade tensions are a threat to investment and exports, and only 'phenomenal levels' of excess corporation tax are keeping Ireland in surplus. 'Without these revenues, there would be a substantial deficit, despite a strong economy,' IFAC said. 'Without these factors, there is a structural deficit of 2.4% of GNI — equivalent to €2,500 per worker. "In the short term, corporation tax is likely to grow further. However, these receipts remain high risk. A handful of large US firms pay most of the corporation tax IFAC also raised concerns about Ireland's fiscal rules, saying the framework is not effective and that EU budgeting rules will not help as they rely on GDP and ignore the risks from volatile corporation-tax receipts. 'The reality is that both the new EU fiscal rules and their mirror in domestic legislation no longer provide any credible constraint for Ireland,' IFAC said, adding that the Government appears to have abandoned the national spending rule introduced by the last government, which set a 5% limit for net spending growth. Extra stimulus Regarding Budget 2026, IFAC said the Government should adapt its approach to the state of the economy. 'If the economy stays strong, there's no need for extra stimulus,' the council stated. 'In that case, budgetary policy should show some restraint. But if the economy takes a downturn, budgetary policy should provide support.' IFAC said the Government should commit to a fiscal rule, use budgetary policy to reduce the ups and downs of the economic cycle, focus on infrastructure and competitiveness, and set realistic spending forecasts. Recent forecasts have ignored previous overruns and been unrealistic. IFAC's chairman Séamus Coffey said: 'The Irish economy is in a strong position going into a period of uncertainty. The Government needs to ensure that budgetary policy reduces the ups and downs of the economy. Introducing a rule would help guide fiscal policy in the coming years.' Read More David McNamara: ECB ready to take a pause on rate cuts
