Occupied Territories Bill: Poll finds many voters now want economic implications examined
Occupied Territories Bill
?
Perhaps.
Friday's poll numbers
suggest that there is a growing awareness of potential economic consequences and that many voters want those consequences to be examined fully before the
Oireachtas
passes the Bill into law.
This is not, it should be stressed, a finding that the public has turned against the idea of the Bill. The proportion of those who say it should be shelved completely is just 10 per cent, down from 12 per cent when
the issue
was last asked about in an Irish Times opinion poll.
There a definite shift in the public mood on the issue, all the same. Though the questions differed slightly, back in April a majority of those who gave an opinion wanted to proceed with the Bill immediately; now a majority does not, split between those who want to examine the consequences first and those who oppose the Bill outright.
READ MORE
The proposed legislation has begun to command significant international attention. This week, a series of US politicians spoke out against it, a move that suggests Israel's formidable lobbying power in Washington is being deployed against the measure and this State. Last week, a legal opinion commissioned by a pro-Israel group in New York suggested that US companies operating here under the proposed legislation would fall foul of US federal and state laws.
[
Ireland's dissatisfied voters are moving, but not towards the left
Opens in new window
]
There is also significant interest in and support for the Bill in the European Union, however, which has seen many member states move to a position much more critical of Israel over the last 12 months. The Republic has emerged as something of a leader of the pro-Palestinian cause in the EU and passing the Bill, say supporters, would be the strongest statement yet against Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.
The heads of the Bill – a summary of what it intends to do – is being discussed by the Oireachtas foreign affairs committee, which will forward its report to the Government, probably before the end of this month. The committee is certain to recommend proceeding, and may recommend the inclusion of services in the actual text to be submitted to the Dáil in the autumn.
The Government will also consider a revised legal opinion on that question, as well as an impact assessment. But then it will have to make some very tricky decisions, with significant consequences either way.
Tariffs: Why has Donald Trump threatened the EU again?
Listen |
47:35
The decisions on the Bill will be made against a background of extreme economic turbulence. Today's poll reveals that the public is split on the best approach to the ongoing negotiations with the US.
Asked if the EU should agree a 10 per cent tariff to secure a trade deal with the US, or if the EU should negotiate harder and risk a trade war, there's not much between the two views: 39 per cent of respondents want to cut a deal at a 10 per cent tariff rate, while slightly more, 42 per cent, want to tough it out.
These findings were somewhat overtaken by US president Donald
Trump
's announcement over the weekend that he would impose a 30 per cent tariff on August 1st if there was no deal with the EU. If Trump proceeds in that direction, the bloc will have little option but to fight a trade war until a better deal is reached.
[
The Irish Times-Ipsos B&A poll July 2025: the full results in charts
Opens in new window
]
Following recent public divisions on the question in the Coalition, voters were also asked their attitude to third-level fees, and the possibility of them being restored to €3,000 a year from the current €2,000.
The results are not, perhaps, surprising. Three-quarters of all respondents (75 per cent) say that this is not the right time to restore the €3,000 level, with just 16 per cent agreeing.
Among
Fianna Fáil
and
Fine Gael
voters, there is a bit more support for restoring fees to €3,000 – but not all that much. A fifth (20 per cent) of Fianna Fáil voters and a bit more than a fifth (23 per cent) of Fine Gael voters favour fees going up – but really, the move would be unpopular across the board.
With the Government committed to a tighter budget in the autumn and a removal of all the one-off
cost-of-living
payments that were part of the last three budgets, these numbers show just how hard it will be to take away benefits to which voters have become accustomed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
We need to face up to the fact that not all middle-earners are squeezed
While we have all been focusing endlessly on the latest Truth Social post from Donald Trump, the Coalition has been having backroom rows about its budget plans . Serious ones. A key document which sets the framework for the budget – the Summer Economic Statement – will be published next Tuesday. And alongside it will be the Government 's updated investment spending plans in the revised National Development Plan (NDP) . The game, in other words, is on. When you see the Independents who support the Government being filmed for the RTÉ News going to talk to senior ministers, you realise there is some good news coming and kudos to be sought for a new road or rail upgrade. But there will be tough calls, too. And it is no exaggeration to say that Tuesday will be a key moment for the Government as it signals a change of budgetary direction. The Coalition is going to go all in on State investment – energy, water and housing in particular. The catch is that to afford this, it is going to have to keep much tighter control on day-to-day spending and also end the once-off giveaways which have been a feature of the last few budgets. It will sell the message of restraint now allowing for investment for the future. Bread tomorrow is never an easy strategy to sell to voters – but that is what the Coalition is going to try to do. There will still be some extra cash in the budget for State services and welfare and – probably – a modest tax package. Talk of a 'tough budget' is nonsense – look at France where spending cuts, tax hikes and cutting two bank holidays were put on the table this week. But Irish voters have become accustomed to their budget day goodies – and there is going to be one heck of a political row when the penny drops that they are not going to feature this October. READ MORE Given the risks ahead and the State's reliance on tax payments from a few multinationals, the brakes do need to be put on. Spending has soared and Departmental targets set in the budget are regularly exceeded. Central Bank researchers estimated in June that permanent Government spending has risen by a hefty 37 per cent since 2021. Had the 'rule' to limit State spending growth to 5 per cent been adhered to, the increase would have been 16 per cent. There has simply been little culture of spending control and reinstating it is not going to be easy at a time when demands on public services are growing. Meanwhile, 'once-off payments' – repeated so often now that the term is an offence to the English language – have a serious budget price, costing more than €2 billion in the last package, which was a reduction on earlier years. The most expensive elements have been the universal payments to all households in areas like energy credits in the annual cost-of-living packages. Budget ministers Paschal Donohoe and Jack Chambers have been saying there will be no cost-of-living package this year ; for now, at least, it seems that the rest of the Cabinet are signed up to this. Ministers will spot the political dangers. Households have started to get used to the annual boost and will feel a bit less well-off. The Opposition will scream. But continuing to throw out the universal once-off payments would be a poor use of money, benefiting many for whom the cash is nice, but not necessary. Better to use what funds are available to build up permanent supports and improved services, focused on those who need them. The cost of living is high , for sure, but it is a farce to portray all households as 'hard-pressed', or everyone in the middle ground as 'squeezed'. Effective policy should help those who genuinely are – like many younger families – through better services in areas like childcare and health, rather than repeating the annual cash giveaways. [ Government 'feckless' with public money, Social Democrats claim in budget row Opens in new window ] Meanwhile, with the sums tightening considerably , the Coalition's 'solemn promise' – as Simon Harris put it – to cut the hospitality VAT rate back to 9 per cent is looking like a 'repent at leisure' moment. Even if this is restricted just to food businesses, it will cost €550 million a year. When other demands are being turned down and 'restraint' is the message , this is not going to be an easy sell for the Coalition. The all-in bet on State investment is driven by a view in Cabinet that housing, water and energy provision have all reached a crisis point – an argument being hammered home to them by big investors. Tariffs and Trump are the most discussed threat to future investment – and do indeed pose fundamental questions. But if Ireland does not put forward a plan to develop infrastructure, then investment is going to drift away, whatever happens in the White House. [ Focus in Budget 2026 has to be on transforming infrastructure, Martin says Opens in new window ] This will be mightily expensive. As well as controlling spending elsewhere, the Government will have to run down its annual budget surplus – and there are some risks here. However, it is still legally obliged – barring a downturn – to keep putting cash away in two funds designed to support future spending and investment. As well as finding the cash, the Coalition has to show it can actually deliver big projects – and more housing – an area where the previous administration performed poorly. And it needs to heed the warnings from the Central Bank and the Fiscal Council that if the State keeps pumping out cash across the board, then it will just add fuel to an economy already at full capacity, making it even harder to deliver on the infrastructure programme. Having had a stumbling and slow start, the Government is about to roll the dice for the rest of its term. Its more serious players will know that threats from across the Atlantic could damage the favourable economic position and budget outlook, and might require mid-flight adjustments in these plans. There will be some reassurance that there is €30 billion in cash and liquid assets down the back of the State couch, but also a realisation that if the trends change fundamentally this only goes so far. But sitting and doing nothing does not look like a clever strategy. Investment is the right direction for the Government to take. It will all come down to delivery. And to a bit of luck that Trump's policies, while inevitably damaging, do not upend things completely.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
As abortions triple, when will we admit that reluctant repealers were profoundly wrong?
Strange, isn't it, how often this pattern repeats? We are assured in stentorian tones that not only is something never going to happen, but it is scaremongering and manipulative even to suggest that it will. Then we are told that it has happened, and furthermore, it is unequivocally a good thing. Before the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, we were assured that all that would happen was that a similar number to the 2,879 women who travelled to England and Wales in 2018 would no longer have to do so. Then-tánaiste Simon Coveney believed the argument, though he said 'removing the equal right to life of the unborn from our Constitution [was] not something I easily or immediately supported'. In an oped, he said any woman choosing abortion after a three-day waiting period and other safeguards 'is very likely to have travelled to the UK or accessed a pill online in the absence of such a system being available in Ireland'. He and other reluctant repealers were promised that numbers of abortions would not rise rapidly and inexorably. The latest abortion figures show 10,852 abortions in Ireland in 2024 . There were 54,062 live births in 2024 . For every five babies born alive, one was aborted. READ MORE Is there no number of abortions that would be unacceptable? If one in two pregnancies was ending in abortion, would that be too many? UK Department of Health figures show the number of women giving Irish addresses for abortions halved between 2001 and 2018, with a 5 per cent drop from 2017. Numbers were dropping before Repeal, in other words. Even allowing for the tiny number in 2018 of Irish-based women having abortions in the Netherlands and those using illegal abortion pills, the rise in numbers of abortions is shocking. Some 55,000 of them have taken place in Ireland since Repeal. The reality is that restrictions on abortion reduce abortion numbers. US advocacy group Secular Pro-life has a useful summary of the evidence. Many studies claiming restrictive abortion laws don't lower rates overlook socio-economic factors. Most countries with strict laws have low economic development, and poorer nations tend to have higher abortion rates. This important confounding factor is often ignored. As a relatively wealthy liberal democracy that banned abortion, our abortion rates were much lower. Abortion numbers can triple, and still Ireland refuses to acknowledge that the reluctant repealers were wrong, wrong, wrong. The Eighth was saving lives in the thousands. We collect statistics on where abortions happen in Ireland and under what part of the legislation, and virtually nothing else. We seem to have zero interest in the reasons why women have abortions – whether it is poverty, lack of support, or housing. Is that because we don't want to look too closely at anything that might undermine the idea that abortion is just another healthcare procedure? At some level, people know well that abortion is unlike any healthcare procedure. English singer Lily Allen recently sang a flippant parody of My Way about not knowing exactly how many abortions she had. It was probably five. Many pro-choice people were shocked. The comments on the BBC video of the podcast she hosts with Miquita Oliver, who has also had 'about five' abortions, showed the conflict people felt. Some pro-choice people felt that by saying the only justification needed for abortion is 'I don't want a f**king baby', she had handed ammunition to the anti-abortion advocates. [ Breda O'Brien: Ableist legislation shows lives of those with Down syndrome are less valuable Opens in new window ] Others disagreed, with comments such as: 'It's important to support any abortions for any reason. If you start putting restrictions on who can have them, how many they're allowed, and how they must act when they've had them ... well, you're not pro-choice.' I am not interested in dumping on Allen or Oliver. Allen has spoken about losing her virginity at 12, about a 19-year-old friend of her father's who bought her drinks and 'had sex with me' when she was 14, and about living through her teens to her 30s in a haze of drugs, alcohol and mental ill-health. (By the way, we have no idea how many women are coerced into abortion, even though domestic violence campaigners tell us it happens in Ireland, including one under 18-year-old who was locked in a room and forced to take abortion pills.) Allen and Oliver are not alone in joking about abortion. Irish comedian Katie Boyle has a comedy show about her experience of having an abortion aged 34 in the US, which caused the presenters of the Morning Show on Ireland AM to laugh. Nonetheless, most people still react with shock when abortion is treated as contraception – or a joke. It reminds me of debating in the past with people who were adamantly pro-choice, who visibly flinched when the number of babies with Down syndrome who are aborted was mentioned . Their humanitarian, pro-disability rights instincts conflicted with their other deeply held beliefs about the right to choose to end early human lives. The problem is that while bans and restrictions on abortion did decrease rates, those of us who consider ourselves pro-life depended on the legal ban while underestimating how the culture was changing. To keep abortion figures low in a well-off democracy, we needed to persuade people to build a woman-friendly society where pitting women's rights against the next generation's right to life became an unthinkable and completely outdated dilemma. The failure to do so really is no laughing matter.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Planners just cannot win at Dublin Airport
Who'd be a planning commissioner – resigned forever to being pilloried by one side of an application or another? Or in some cases, as with Dublin Airport , both. A decision this week to allow 50 per cent more night-time flights in a shorter 'night-time' window at Dublin Airport alongside a new quota system for noise seemed tailor-made for airlines that have been concerned about maintaining current levels of service at the airport, never mind expansion. But no, they were not happy at all, at least not with the new, higher limit on flights, characterising it as a new, second, passenger cap. They are particularly concerned about limits on flights in the generally busy 5am-7am morning window. Airlines are already fighting a separate 32-million-a-year limit on the number of passengers than can use the airport. Both it and the now-modified night-time limit on flights date back to conditions on the original planning permission for the airport's new north runway. That permission dates back more than 15 years and yet in all that time no one, not the airport operator (the DAA ) nor any of the airlines – especially Ryanair and Aer Lingus for which it is a critical hub – conducted a concerted campaign to address what were always likely to be severely limiting conditions. Only when the runway opened was there any realistic effort to address the new realities of passenger and traffic numbers at the airport. And so here we are. For their part, residents around the airport – or at least one of the residents' associations – were also dissatisfied with the latest decision, saying it will only increase pollution and noise, making their lives more difficult. It's hard to see what would satisfy local residents. The airport authority is already investing millions of euro buying the worst-affected homes and funding increased noise insulation and is, in any case, restricted in its flight paths. And the truth remains that many, if not most, of those living under those flight paths have bought their homes long after the airport was well established as Ireland's big point of entry for air passengers. For now, everyone is threatening to challenge the latest decision in the courts. Meanwhile, in the absence of any political leadership n the issue, the reconstituted planning appeals board, An Coimisiún Pleanála , must resign itself to the view that whatever it decides, the whole mess will be its fault.
