CMAT takes a pop at former taoiseach Bertie Ahern in new Euro-Country single
CMAT
has teased the next single on her forthcoming album Euro-Country, which includes a cut at former taoiseach
Bertie Ahern
over his time in government.
The upcoming album, expected to be CMAT's most political record to date, comes after the singer received rave reviews for her standout performance on
Glastonbury's
Pyramid Stage.
In social posts on Tuesday, CMAT shared a short clip of the single, which shares the same name as the album, along with a snippet of the lyrics:
'All the big boys,
'All the Berties,
'All the envelopes, yeah they hurt me
'I was 12 when the das started killing themselves all around me...'
The song about the financial crisis in 2008 references the hardships people faced in the area where CMAT grew up.
READ MORE
'I was about 12 and it all happened around me, it didn't really happen to my family directly,' CMAT said in
a recent interview
.
'My dad had a job in computers, we didn't really have any money, we weren't affluent, but we were fine. Everybody else on the estate we lived in worked in construction, or in shops, and they all lost their jobs. Everybody became unemployed.
'Then, in the village I grew up in, there was a year or 18 months where loads of the people I went to school with, their dads started killing themselves because they'd lost everything in the crash.'
The reference to Ahern in the song is not the first time CMAT has made her feelings known about the former Fianna Fáil politician who served as taoiseach between 1997-2008.
In an interview with
Hot Press in 2023
, she said if Ahern ran for the presidency she would 'make it my personal f**king mission to make sure that he doesn't win'.
Ahern has yet to confirm if he will be running in the presidential election this year, but his name has been included among those speculated to join the race. - Additional reporting from the Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
34 minutes ago
- Irish Independent
Wexford councillors oppose Triple Lock amendment as chair goes against his party to cast deciding vote
The Triple Lock refers to Ireland's method of sending Defence Forces Personnel overseas to serve as part of peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations. It requires UN approval, a decision by Government and a vote in the Dáil. However, in May of this year, the government published a proposed amendment to the Defence Bill which would remove the requirement for UN approval when deploying members of the Defence Forces outside the State, thus ending the Triple Lock system. At the July meeting of WCC, Councillor Jim Codd forwarded a motion requesting that the council express its opposition to the proposed changes. Arguing that any amendments to the current Defence Bill would 'signify a breach of trust with the Irish electorate and a serious diminution of Irish neutrality', Cllr Codd called upon his colleagues to support his motion. Although the motion was swiftly seconded by Cllr Paddy Kavanagh there was some pushback from members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. 'The facts of the matter on the Triple Lock are that the government makes a proposal and it goes to the Dáil, no other representative from any country should have any say on a decision made in Ireland on what to do with our troops,' said Cllr Darragh McDonald (Fine Gael). 'I trust the government, I trust all the people in the Dáil across all parties to make the right decisions, and I think they can act responsibly for the people of this country.' While he was 'glad' that Cllr McDonald had such trust in the government, Sinn Fein's Tom Forde didn't share that sentiment. Offering his support for the motion, Cllr Forde said, 'This is an important safeguard for our neutrality. I'm glad Cllr McDonald has trust in our government in relation to this, I don't.' His party colleague Aoife Rose O'Brien argued that this was an issue 'which should be discussed at every local authority meeting' and said she 'would be very disappointed' if any of Wexford's TDs members went against this motion. Cllr John Dwyer was particularly strident in his support of the motion, arguing that removing the Triple Lock would see Ireland become an implement of the EU. 'It's through small incremental steps that our neutrality will be taken,' he said. 'If you look at the disgraceful behaviour of Ursula von der Leyen (President of the European Commission) in supporting the genocide happening every single day in Gaza, then you will see exactly the direction the EU is taking. Let there be no doubt the EU wants an army it can deploy. "It is obsessed with Putin and undermining and attacking Russia. I fully support this motion. Seán Lemass was an ardent advocate of neutrality and I would ask the Fianna Fáil members here to reflect on his views when considering this motion.' ADVERTISEMENT One of those Fianna Fáil members had considered the motion and remained steadfast in her objections to it. 'If we maintain the Triple Lock, when peace comes to Gaza, we won't be able to send peacekeeping forces there,' said Cllr Barbara Anne Murphy. 'This is about peacekeeping, something we have honourably been doing for many, many years. There has been no UN peacekeeping mission mandated since 2014, none. And we are now living in a whole new world.' Cllr John Fleming (also Fianna Fáil) described the motion as 'stupidity' while Pip Breen (FF) said the Triple Lock was 'not for purpose any more and has to go'. With the chamber divided, Cllr Codd asked for a roll call on his motion but not before he took a sideswipe at his Fianna Fáil adversaries. 'This is a sad day, I'm mindful of Redmonditism rearing its head again,' he said. 'I'd understand that in Fine Gael but now it seems to be in Fianna Fáil as well.' He reckoned without Cllr Sullivan, though, who, on this occasion, chose not to follow the party line. 'I'm absolutely conflicted,' he said. 'I hate war and anything which contributes to the death and destruction of human beings. We've had the Triple Lock in place for a number of years and it has served our country well. Ireland is one of the most respected international peacekeeping countries in the world, there is huge value in our neutrality, so this is a vote of conscience for me., "But I believe in the Triple Lock, and if I sit here and vote against something I believe in I am a fraud.' The motion was subsequently put to a vote with Cllrs Vicky Barron (LAB), Jim Codd (Aontú), Craig Doyle (SF), John Dwyer (IND), Tom Forde (SF), Paddy Kavanagh (Wexford Independent Alliance), Leonard Kelly (IND), Marty Murphy (WIA), Aoife Rose O'Brien (SF), John O' Rourke (IND), Michael Sheehan (IND), Joe Sullivan (FF), and Biddy Walsh (LAB) voting in favour. On the other side, Cllrs Pip Breen (FF), Trish Byrne (FG), Anthony Donohue (FG), John Fleming (FF), Pat Kehoe (FG), Donal Kenny (FF), Garry Laffan (FF), Darragh McDonald (FG), Barbara Anne Murphy (FF), Bridín Murphy (FG), Frank Staples (FG), Robbie Staples (FG), and Oliver Walsh (FG) voted against. With the vote tied at 13 apiece it was left to Cllr Sullivan, as cathaoirleach, to have the deciding say. 'I stand by what I said, ' he announced to much cheering from the chamber.
Irish Times
35 minutes ago
- Irish Times
The ‘honest belief' defence in rape cases rewards ignorance and insensitivity
There is still much work to be done before the human rights and dignity of victims of sexual violence in Ireland are truly realised. A persistent barrier to protecting victims' rights in sexual offence cases is the legal defence based on 'honest belief' that is open to those accused of rape. This means a person accused of rape may avoid conviction if the jury accepts that they honestly believed the other person was consenting – even if that belief was entirely unreasonable in the circumstances. While the Supreme Court has clarified that juries need not accept 'obviously false' accounts, the law still permits acquittal based solely on the accused's subjective perception of events. As it stands, the 'honest belief' defence does not require that the belief be 'reasonable', and relies entirely on the accused's perception of whether the victim was consenting. This undermines the core principle of mutual, meaningful consent that is enshrined in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, which defines consent as 'freely and voluntarily given'. READ MORE Some other areas of criminal law measure a person's actions or beliefs against what a reasonable person would have done. However, when it comes to rape, an accused person can rely on their own interpretation of events, even if there is no reasonable explanation for their belief, and even if they took no steps to establish or confirm consent. The Law Reform Commission recommended changing to a 'reasonable belief' standard in its comprehensive report in 2019. It pointed out that a complainant's silence – which may have derived from fear and trauma – could be interpreted incorrectly as consent, and that an honest belief on this basis might even encourage people not to ascertain consent. The commission concluded that arguments against the current law far outweighed arguments in favour of it. Prof Tom O'Malley said that the law as it stands 'places a premium on ignorance, lack of consideration or insensitivity'. At the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre , we support a legislative change that introduces an objective reasonableness standard, as well as a requirement that appropriate actions have been taken to confirm consent. Such changes will mean a closer alignment with our existing statutory definition of consent. For most victims and survivors, this reform would be welcome and necessary. Honest belief as a defence centres the accused's subjective viewpoint, often at the expense of the victim's experience and agency. Reporting a rape takes immense courage and determination, yet survivors must navigate a legal system that is often very challenging. When the law allows the accused to invoke honest belief without any need to demonstrate that this belief was reasonable or based on any concrete steps to establish consent, it can compound survivors' feelings of disempowerment and erode their confidence that their voice matters. If we truly wish to encourage more survivors to seek justice, this reform would be an important positive step. In Ireland, we have come close to modernising this law once before. We strongly supported the honest-belief reforms in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill, published in July 2023. It would have replaced the current defence with a requirement that belief in consent must be objectively reasonable. It also proposed that juries must consider whether the accused took steps to ascertain consent, which might include verbal confirmation or other clear indication of agreement. In effect, the planned changes enshrined the question: would a reasonable person, in the same situation, with the same knowledge, have believed there was consent? These reforms were necessary and proportionate. They reflected both public understanding and the legal reality of what genuine consent entails, as well as the lived experience of survivors of sexual violence. [ 'Scale of our sexual violence epidemic' shown by record calls and texts to national rape crisis helpline Opens in new window ] Adopting an objective standard would align Ireland with international best practice. Countries including England and Wales already require a reasonable objective belief of consent, for instance. It would also reflect the principles of the Istanbul Convention, which focuses on whether the alleged victim freely and voluntarily agreed to sexual activity, as assessed in the full context – not just on the accused's own belief. Similarly, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) urges states to eliminate laws that permit subjective or unreasonable interpretations of consent. These international bodies recognise that in matters as serious as rape, subjective belief – no matter how honestly claimed – is not enough. In recent years, Ireland has taken progressive steps towards addressing gender-based violence and supporting victims. The national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence sets out ambitious goals and legislative reform is central to achieving them. So we were very concerned to learn in November 2023 that the honest belief provisions were being dropped from the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill. We warned that removing these provisions weakened the legislation and we urged then-minister for justice, Helen McEntee , to reconsider. She clarified that these provisions were only being cut so as not to hold up the rest of the Bill, while her department addressed considerations on honest belief arising from a recent Supreme Court judgment. McEntee committed to drafting a stand-alone Sexual Offences Bill that would mean the proposed reforms would apply to both rape and sexual assault cases, as flagged by the judgment. Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan is progressing the matter with the Attorney General and should move swiftly to introduce legislation that would ensure belief in consent can only be a defence if it was both honestly and reasonably held. If the new Bill is the robust piece of legislation it ought to be, it must receive cross-party support from members of the Oireachtas when it is published. It will send a clear, consistent message that consent must be mutual and ongoing, based on communication and not on assumption or a one-sided perception. Rachel Morrogh is chief executive of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Anyone affected by sexual violence at any time can get free, confidential support on the 24-hour National Helpline 1800 77 8888
Irish Times
35 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Can Europe break free of American tech supremacy?
Benjamin Revcolevschi, an engineer by training, did not imagine one of his future jobs would involve meeting digital ministers from EU member states almost every week. But the chief executive of OVHcloud, a provider of cloud computing services, is riding a new wave of political interest as EU leaders increasingly wake up to the bloc's dependence on US tech companies for the infrastructure that powers everything from healthcare systems to national defence. 'We have been on the sovereignty topic for the past 20 years,' Revcolevschi says. But since the election of US president Donald Trump , the tone of the political conversations has changed, he adds. 'This is truly a different world.' Europe is grappling with uncertainty over the US president's long-term commitment to the transatlantic security alliance and his tendency in negotiations to conflate issues such as trade, defence and regulation. READ MORE Trump has fuelled anxiety among European governments and companies over privacy and data access and prompted concerns that the US could suspend or block the operations of US tech companies in Europe altogether. Those operations are both deep and wide. Amazon , Microsoft and Google control more than two-thirds of the European cloud computing market. Google and Apple prevail in the mobile phone operating systems in the EU, while Google dominates the global search market. OpenAI's ChatGPT is the leading artificial intelligence chatbot in Europe, while the social media platforms that millions of Europeans use are mostly US-owned. Just as in defence, the transatlantic tech dependency has become a geopolitical liability, amplifying long-standing calls for Europe to invest more and even favour its own companies in procurement. In a symbolic nod to the new realisation, Henna Virkkunen, who started in December as the EU's new tech commissioner, has the moniker 'tech sovereignty' added to her title. The Finnish politician wants to focus on Europe's independence in areas such as quantum computing, AI and semiconductors. 'These are identified as critical technologies and it's important that we build up our own capacities here,' she told the Financial Times this month. But as Europe moves from analysing the problem to proposing potential solutions, such as favouring European tech companies over American ones, it must also grapple with its own lack of alternatives. Only a handful of the world's top 50 tech companies are European. Tech start-ups in the region face regulatory uncertainty, fragmentation and a lack of financing options to help them grow, especially in venture capital. 'When you want to buy European, you need to have something to buy which is produced in the European Union,' says Dariusz Standerski, state secretary at Poland's digital affairs ministry, who chaired meetings of the bloc's digital ministers while Poland held the rotating EU presidency. In a landmark report on EU competitiveness last year, the former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi demonstrated clearly that Europe saw its productivity gap with the US widen mostly because of the EU's weakness in emerging technologies. For Andy Yen, founder and chief executive of Proton, the Geneva-based group behind ProtonMail and other privacy-focused applications, the debate around nurturing home-grown tech groups is about exactly this. 'If we don't invest in tech in Europe, we are simply opting out of the biggest driver of economic growth,' he tells the FT. 'These are the companies that are going to create the high-paying jobs, the high profits and revenues, which will allow us to fund our social system.' France's Mistral AI is an example of Europe's wider struggles to capitalise on promising starts in next-generation technology. Once hailed as a potential global leader in AI, it has lost ground to US rivals backed by Big Tech groups and, like many others, was taken aback by the capability of China's DeepSeek. Meanwhile, the bloc is struggling to balance the challenge of regulating AI with the need to attract enough investment and talent to increase the computing capacity in the bloc. That leads directly back to cloud computing, an immediate priority when it comes to reducing reliance on US tech groups. As more governments, companies and citizens move data from on-premise servers to a cloud-based environment, data centres and their associated cabling have become critical infrastructure for modern life. US companies dominate the European cloud market, prompting worries among European policymakers and industry leaders that US law, particularly the Cloud Act, could embolden the Trump administration to exert more leverage over European data – even if it is stored on servers located in Europe. That is worrisome because Washington has also moved from complaining about EU regulation and enforcement actions on tech to challenging those decisions and 'coupling that with threats around tariffs, sometimes even tying it to security decisions that could negatively impact the continent', says Zach Meyers, of the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) think tank. Key institutions, including the European Commission, are now in talks with players such as OVHcloud to transition some of their cloud services away from US companies in order to enhance Europe's digital autonomy. Later this year, the European Commission will present a new act intended to address Europe's gap in cloud and AI infrastructure capacity, including actions to increase the secure processing capacity of EU-based cloud providers. EU officials are still mulling whether and how they could include 'Buy European' provisions – which would favour European companies over American ones – in the legislation while still trying to respect the World Trade Organisation's agreement on government procurement, which requires domestic and overseas bidders to be considered equally. Proponents say doing so would nudge investments towards European tech companies, help to boost the existing tech ecosystem across the bloc and accelerate the build-up of alternatives to US providers. The EU has tried to use industrial policy in things like cloud computing in the past and they have been thoroughly unsuccessful Alexandre Roure of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include many Big Tech groups, says the debate about blunt market access restrictions for non-EU tech companies 'only distracts policymakers from the real task: finally delivering a functioning digital single market with clear, simple and practical rules'. But it increasingly looks like the direction of travel in Europe. The bloc has already announced it wants EU governments to exclude foreign bidders in public procurement tenders in its forthcoming public procurement directive, which the bloc's commissioner for prosperity and industrial strategy Stéphane Séjourné has dubbed a 'Buy European Act'. Séjourné, a former French foreign minister and close ally of President Emmanuel Macron, has previously told the FT that he sees favouring European bidders in public procurement as a 'first step'. While he refrained from confirming he would push for such clauses in the forthcoming cloud initiative, Séjourné did say that action was needed in areas in the private sector where Europe was totally dependent on one country, arguing that 'in tech, we're very, very dependent on the Americans'. Marc Ferracci, the French industry minister, has been more specific, telling reporters that 'Buy European' clauses should be applied to critical industries, adding that for him 'cloud data centres, especially server infrastructure, is such a critical industry'. Faced with the prospect of the playing field being tilted away from them, Big Tech is putting up a fight. In recent months, Microsoft, Google and Amazon have all announced so-called sovereign cloud offerings, designed to keep data and operational control within a specific geography, to reassure their European customers. Microsoft's top legal officer previously told the FT that if necessary, the company would take the US government to court to protect European customers' access to its services, positioning itself as a 'source of digital stability during a period of geopolitical volatility'. Google is rolling out 'air-gapped' solutions – where a client's data does not have to be connected to other networks – and beefing up its sovereign cloud options in the EU. Amazon has introduced new sovereign controls and established independent governance for its European organisation. For Roure, of the CCIA, real sovereignty is more about managing dependencies by expanding free choice. 'The true priority should be avoiding [a situation where] European users are locked in by a single cloud vendor and ensuring healthy competition – not forcing the use of certain companies at the expense of efficiency.' Revcolevschi, the OVHcloud CEO, welcomes Big Tech's latest initiatives but says it is up to corporate decision makers 'to truly analyse what they are served with' given that data localisation or encryption alone are not enough to provide true sovereignty in cloud computing. The digital sovereignty debate reaches far beyond cloud computing, touching on all digital infrastructure and its use. Rising awareness has led to initiatives such as EuroStack, which aims to build a European tech infrastructure, and calls for policymakers to not just prioritise European companies in public procurement but also launch a fund to stimulate home-grown tech. The initiative was explicitly mentioned in the coalition agreement between Germany's two main parties. But investment is a key stumbling block to achieving those goals. EuroStack argues that investment of €300 billion is needed over the next decade. Other estimates put the amount as high as €5 trillion. Even if the EU could pool public and private financing to boost its digital infrastructure, as officials and researchers have argued it should, that risks taking too much time or not materialising at all. The obvious example of this, cited so frequently it has turned into a cliche, is the Franco-German Gaia-X initiative, a network of linked cloud providers that hoped to challenge US cloud dominance in Europe. For others, the debate has to move away from just the infrastructure. 'What we lack is not chips and data centres,' said Christian Klein, chief executive of Germany's SAP, Europe's biggest software group, on a recent call with reporters. 'We are lacking the people and the talent who can apply AI in the context of what we need in Europe.' Boosting Europe's tech capabilities is also regarded in Brussels as an opportunity to arrest the bloc's economic slowdown. Yen, at Proton, adds that key European sectors such as cars, banking, ecommerce and healthcare are all set to be even more disrupted by tech. For him, the short-term transition costs incurred by moving away from US tech providers are not a cost but 'an investment in the future'. [ Trump keen for US to manufacture iPhones; here's how India is doing it Opens in new window ] Sovereignty provisions can too easily slip into protectionism without delivering outcomes for users or public institutions 'If you don't have the engineers, the talent, the know-how to build this type of stuff here, you're basically screwed for the 21st century,' he says. 'We don't have a chance. Even without Trump, this is something that has to be done.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025 '
