'We need to do more on this': Weapons flown through Irish airspace to Israel raised with Harris
The Journal
/ YouTube
TÁNAISTE SIMON HARRIS has said the government needs to do more in relation to the issue of weapons being flown through Ireland's airspace to Israel.
People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy walked across the Dáil chamber today to give Harris documents which he claims prove thousands of tonnes of weapons are being flown through Irish airspace.
He questioned why the Tánaiste said on RTÉ's The Late Late Show last Friday that he did not believe such weaponry was being flown through Irish airspace, stating that the government is 'turning a blind eye' to the issue.
Tánaiste Simon Harris on the use of Irish airspace
#latelate
pic.twitter.com/nKATdASpG8
— The Late Late Show (@RTELateLateShow)
May 2, 2025
Listing off a number of weapon munitions components such as detonating fuses and tear gas listed on airline documents, Murphy said they are being transported through Irish airspace without permission from the Irish state.
'It's a criminal offense which carries a three year prison sentence for the owner who hires the aircraft. But you're not just turning a blind eye to it, you're gaslighting us,' Murphy told Harris.
'You told us all last June that no Irish sovereign airspace is being used to transport weapons to the conflict in the Middle East.
'Last Friday on The Late Late Show, you said you don't believe that Irish skies are being used to transport weapons to Israel. Now you tell the Dáil that it's hard to have the level of knowledge that we need to have about these issues,' said Murphy.
Responding, Harris did not repeat his claim that he did not believe munitions are being flown through Irish airspace, instead stating:
'We do need to have a better understanding and better knowledge as to what happens above our skies and indeed below our seas.'
He said Irish law is very clear in relation to air navigation and the carriage of munitions of war which date back to 1973 and 1989 that expressly prohibits civil aircraft carrying munitions of war in Irish sovereign territory without being granted an exemption to do so by the Minister for Transport.
Advertisement
'It's one thing about what people wish to inspect when it's on the ground, but when a plane is at 30,000, 35,000 feet in the air. I'd be very interested in hearing from you your practical and implementable solutions in terms of what more we can do. And I don't say that, by the way, in any flippant way, because let me be very clear, I do think we need to do more on this,' Harris said.
Change should happen internationally in relation to this, said the Tánaiste.
'I also think we need to have better clarity and understanding around munitions and parts, and absolute clarity as to what needs to be declared, because the law of this country is clear.
'The law of this country is robust in terms of Irish sovereign aerospace. But then there's also the practicalities in terms of the implementation,' he said.
'Robust examination' underway in Department of Transport
Work is underway in the Department of Transport on the matter, he added.
Murphy accused the Tánaiste of feigning 'false ignorance' and 'pretending' that he is unaware to what's going on.
'It's very, very simple,' he said, presenting the aircraft dossier of documents to the Tánaiste in the Dáil.
'You want to know my practical solution. The practical solution is that the Minister for Transport should prosecute the companies. It's the law. They're currently breaking the law.
'Or I'll give you another suggestion, which actually came from the now Taoiseach Micheál Martin last September [who said] that there had to be consequences for airlines that do this, that they shouldn't be allowed to fly through our airspace if they violate these basic laws,' said Murphy.
Harris said he agreed that any breaches of Irish law must have consequences.
'If there have been breaches of Irish sovereign law, decisions will need to be taken on the next steps, based on evidence, based on clear and robust evidence,' said Harris.
He outlined that the existing legislation doesn't provide for a system of random inspections.
'I think it is legitimate for government to consider whether to amend our own domestic legislation and whether more needs to happen internationally,' said the Tánaiste.
The Department of Transport is carrying out 'a robust examination' of the allegations, he concluded.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
4 hours 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
4 hours 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
4 hours 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
