Camogie Association chiefs pushing for skorts change at Special Congress
Camogie Association top-brass are instructing provincial councils and county boards to advocate for change at next week's Special Congress for fear of the colossal fallout if shorts are rejected for the second time in 14 months.
The Irish Examiner has learned that the highest office-holders in the Camogie Association are pushing on the ground for a yes vote at the May 22 Special Congress so as to ensure that players are given the choice between shorts and skorts on matchday.
Camogie Association top-brass did not seek to influence the failed shorts motions at Congress 2024, but such has been the mass media coverage of the recent skorts protest, and subsequent public backlash, including emails sent to officials that have been forwarded to Gardaí, the message of the past week has been to push for change in the forthcoming vote.
With the All-Ireland senior championship throwing in two days after Special Congress, there are concerns as to whether those games would proceed if the compulsory wearing of skorts was retained by delegates.
Last Saturday's Cork-Waterford Munster Senior final was pulled at 8pm the evening before because of acceptance amongst Munster and national officials that players would refuse to change out of their shorts when instructed to do so by the referee and the unwanted spectacle this would thus create.
The motion to allow for choice in the matchday kit requires 66% support at Special Congress. To reach two-thirds approval requires a significant swing on the comprehensive rejection of the two motions at last year's Congress.
Great Britain, on that occasion, proposed the inclusion of shorts as part of the mandated playing uniform. Their motion received 45% support, with 55% against. The Tipperary motion went a step further and called for shorts to replace skorts. This was soundly beaten, with 64% against and only 36% for.
Separately, former Camogie Association president Joan O'Flynn is in favour of player choice and expects the motion to receive the necessary backing at next week's Special Congress.
'Sport, by and large, reflects wider social norms. Sometimes it drives some of those social norms. It is no surprise then that we have got to this stage,' O'Flynn said of inter-county players seeking a choice in the matchday kit.
'Having said that, I think it is still interesting that there is diversity of views around shorts and skorts. I know there is a very strong, predominant view among the subset of inter-county players. That is clear.
'Informally, when you talk to other players, that diversity is more evident and more quietly articulated. I think the way the motion is framed by Ard Chomhairle speaks to that, speaks to respecting the diversity of views. That puts it in good stead in terms of standing before Congress and that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution here, and girls and women have the autonomy then to make that choice as to what suits them better at different times and particular times of their playing career.'
The former president credited Central Council for offering a motion that attempts to reconcile differences of option but also facilitates diversity of preference.
'What you choose today might be different to what you choose in four or five years' time. That freedom of choice for players would be a really positive thing should it get voted in, and I am sure it will.
'And it is interesting and beneficial that it is not a team-based decision, but an individual decision. That allows players to make that personal choice and not feel inhibited in terms of either choice because both are allowed.'
Meanwhile, it has yet to be confirmed if the media will be permitted entry to next week's Special Congress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
27 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Carlow gunman disclosure set to lead to scrutiny of An Garda Síochána
It was Drew Harris 's last appearance before the Oireachtas Justice Committee before his retirement. In between well-wishes for his contribution to policing over a long career – including from Sinn Féin's chair Matt Carthy – there was some close questioning and a political edge to it. The most dramatic came from Labour TD Alan Kelly, who disclosed that Evan Fitzgerald, the young man who fired shots in a shopping centre in Carlow before turning his shotgun on himself, had been supplied with guns and ammunition by undercover gardaí . As Pat Leahy and Conor Lally report, it was confirmed by the Commissioner that Fitzgerald (22) was supplied with the guns by gardaí under what is called a 'controlled delivery'. The gardaí then arrested and charged him with possession of firearms and ammunition offences. It was some disclosure. Such are the time limits on the questioning – because there are so many committees in the 34th Dáil there are strict restrictions – Harris didn't actually manage to respond to the question posed by Kelly. READ MORE A little later, however, Michael McDowell came back to the specific question and Harris said that controlled deliveries were frequently used in drugs and firearms cases. The matter has been referred to Fiosrú, the policing ombudsman, but has now a public and political dimension. It's certain that down the line, the Garda will come under political and public scrutiny for the deployment of this tactic. As Kelly later told The Irish Times: 'What he was doing was wrong, but where is the proportionality in the actions of An Garda Síochána? When undercover gardaí met this young man, followed him and knew who they were dealing with, did they not assess the level of threat differently and look at alternative interventions? 'They knew they were not dealing with dissidents or organised crime gangs but a young man with some issues. They have effectively said the same and even agreed to his bail, so obviously they didn't believe he was a huge threat.' Payback time (or more pay time) for former ministers and senior civil servants There was a bit of surprise when it was announced on Tuesday that Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers was holding a media conference in relation to the National Shared Services Office (NSSO), a classic back-office State agency that doesn't exactly draw news headlines. But as Cormac McQuinn reports, errors in handling pension payments have resulted in a situation where Government ministers and as many as 13,000 retired civil servants could either owe money or be owed money because of miscalculations in relation to their pension contributions. 'This cohort of former civil servants were in work-share arrangements and, while not all are necessarily affected, their pensions are to be checked for underpayments,' writes McQuinn. 'There is also an issue in relation to the pensions of 30 retired senior civil servants and one of them could owe as much as €280,000 as a result of NSSO errors.' It is believed most current Government ministers will owe money to the State, though some may be due some money back. The highest overpayment may be in the region of €30,000. Ministerial Pressure Zones There was a time when the political pressure zone only surrounded the Minister for Housing but this week it has extended nationwide, as it were, to the whole of Government. Not only did the Minister James Browne have a testing day trying to explain the changes he has introduced to rent pressure zones (RPZs), the issue dominated Leaders' Questions. There was a snarly back and forth all day between the Government and Opposition parties over the changes, with some very thorny prose being used (see best reads below). Extending the RPZ from the current 111 local election areas to all 166 was simple to explain. It was the future arrangements for tenants – especially existing ones – that came under scrutiny and, by extension, put the Government under the cosh. Browne was explaining all day and living up to the Karl Rove dictum that when you are doing that, you are losing. Under the new classification, a landlord who owns three properties or less is a 'mom and pop' landlord. That became an issue. The distinction between new accommodation coming on stream and existing accommodation also became an issue. The Opposition pounded the Government all day on whether existing tenants in RPZ zones would see changes to the increase limits after six years, like new tenancies that begin from March 2026. 'The rights of existing tenants will not change' became the mantra of all Government people during the day. In other words, RPZ rules would continue for them ad infinitum. However, it did not succeed in convincing. The Smaller the Party the Bigger the Split Wow. We did not see that coming. People Before Profit coming under attack from within for becoming too mainstream. A group of some 30 activists have left the party over concerns it would enter a future Government with Sinn Féin . It's not over the concerns the likes of Simon Harris or Micheál Martin would have. It's because Sinn Féin is essentially an establishment party, they say. The group's best known politician is Dublin City Council member Madeleine Johansson. In a statement, it said a Sinn Féin-led government would 'coalesce with the establishment and leave untouched the real government, the permanent government – the State bureaucracy, army chiefs and head of Guards'. Ronan McGreevy has the full story on this latest split among the micro parties of the far-left . Best reads Miriam Lord has the full welly on the back and forth over the RPZ changes yesterday including some choice name-dropping by the Taoiseach. Ellen Coyne, our newest colleague on the political team, covered the press conference on Gaza on Tuesday, hosted by Senator Frances Black and others. She reports that the Independent Senator said a 'groundbreaking' case against Airbnb will set a precedent for legal action against any Irish companies with links to illegal Israeli settlements. Black said similar cases will continue to be taken until the Government includes services in the upcoming Occupied Territories Bill . Gordon Deegan writes that Michael Healy-Rae's family property company has posted €842,000 in profit over two years. Playbook Dáil Wed, Jun 11th 09.00: Topical Issues 10.00: Private Members' Business (Social Democrats): Motion re Ending the Central Bank's facilitation of the sale of Israel Bonds 12.00: Leaders' Questions. 12.34: Other Members' Questions 17.02: Government Business: Mental Health Bill 2024 – Committee Stage 21.02: Deferred Divisions 21.32: Dáil adjourns Seanad 10.30: Commencement Matters 11.30: Order of Business 13.00: Government Business: Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024 – Second Stage 15.30: Private Members' Business: Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Amendment) Bill 2022 – Committee Stage 17.30: Seanad adjourns Committees 09.30: Transport Driving Test and NCT Delays The NCT will say it has reduced the waiting time for tests from 27 weeks to 20 weeks and that one of the causes of the delays were a 60 per cent upsurge in driving test applications. 09.45: Health Issues relating to the priorities and concerns in the context of the Mental Health Bill 2024 10.45: Social Protecion Engagement with Minister for Social Protection Dara Calleary 12.30: Arts, Media and Communications Committee Matters relating to the termination of the Arts Council Grant Management IT system. Pat Leahy has details of the opening statement , which deeply regrets the decision by Minister for Arts Patrick O'Donovan not to renew the contract of director Maureen Kennelly over the handling of a controversial ICT project. 12.30: Further and Higher Education Engagement with Minister for Further and Higher Education James Lawless. 15.30: Finance, Public Expenditure Israeli Bond Programme 15.30: Agriculture Examination of the impacts of the Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertilisers Regulation Act 2023
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Government had to choose tenants over investors
After months of deliberation the Government seems to have finally settled on a rent control strategy . It is something of a dog's dinner and can best be seen as an attempt to reconcile two things that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The first is the need to reassure the increasing number of people in rented accommodation that their already sky-high rents are not going to be driven even higher by avaricious landlords capitalising on a severe housing shortage . The second is creating the conditions that will entice international institutional investors into the property market, which requires convincing them that they will be able to set and keep rents at a level where they can earn the sort of market-beating returns that would make investing in Ireland an attractive option relative to the myriad of other global opportunities. READ MORE Much of the emphasis is understandably being put on the measures intended to protect existing tenants, which include the extension of rent controls across the State. Rent increases will be subject to a limit – inflation or 2 per cent – and landlords will be severely restricted in their ability to reset rents to market levels when a tenancy ends. [ Why is the housing crisis Ireland's most enduring failure? Opens in new window ] There will, however, be a distinction drawn between small and large landlords. Those with fewer than three properties will be able to evict tenants and presumably put up rents. There is less emphasis or detail on the measures intended to encourage institutional investment. New builds will not be subject to rental caps and landlords will be able to increase rent to match inflation. The industry is understood to be disappointed. The Government will argue with some justification that it has done its best to balance various competing interests and that a compromise was inevitable. Doing nothing was not an option. The Government is right about that. But how this fudge will work in practice is anyone's guess and the potential for unintended consequences is high. One thing is for sure. Rents will go up. A combination of upward pressure from small landlords at the bottom and a pull from large institutional investors at the top will ensure that rents in the middle also rise. The details of the plan have not been published but the apparent decision to focus more on protecting tenants than encouraging investors may prove the right one. The inherent contradictions in trying to coax private capital seeking high returns into investing in a sector in which policy is to keep rents down is probably insurmountable. The most likely outcome is that the new measures will prove sufficient to swing the investment case for some projects already in the pipeline and a few more top-end developments will be built for rent than might have been otherwise. Every little helps of course The Government would appear to have resisted the entreaties of property developers and their backers as represented by lobby group Irish Institutional Property, which holds that 60 per cent of the funding needed to address the housing shortage must come from international investors. The State and the domestic banks will make up the rest, they believe. The fundamental problem with this argument is that we are approaching the limit in terms of people who can pay the sort of rent that international investors will be seeking without enduring significant financial pain, which in turn will have a detrimental knock-on effect for the economy. Most people are already paying rents in excess of what economists deem sustainable, which is between 20 and 35 per cent of net income. The average Irish person earns about €44,000 a year and the average rent is €1,600 a month or about €20,000 a year. The political pressure that has led to implementation of nationwide rent controls and other pro-tenant measures confirms that we are at the limits of what can be tolerated by society in terms of housing costs. Any international investor looking at investing in housing in Ireland as a long-term bet that will return more than 10 per cent a year would really want to get their head around that before committing. The ones that get in early might do okay, but the risk premium they will want is only going to push up the rent they charge. The reality is that a property market as badly broken as our one does not represent an appetising low-risk investment opportunity. The system – based around widespread home ownership and the accumulation of private wealth – worked reasonably well for a long time but now it doesn't. The reasons are a combination of factors beyond the State's control and the ball being dropped in areas that are its responsibility, such as planning and infrastructure. Housing and rental accommodation in particular are increasingly taking on the characteristics of a public good along the lines of health and education in the minds of voters: something the State regulates, provides and supports on a not-for-profit basis. Nationwide rent controls are just further evidence of this. Health and education are not services that the State looks to fund via hedge funds. They are funded by the exchequer and ultimately in the sovereign debt markets. That is where the Government should be looking for investment. It may now have no choice.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Many Northern nationalists doubt Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's commitment to Irish unity
Northern nationalists felt betrayed by Dublin 100 years ago, after the collapse of the Boundary Commission in December 1925. It left the border with Northern Ireland unchanged despite their hopes that it would make unification inevitable. Many of their descendants still feel that way. Most Irish nationalists believed the commission, set up as part of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, would see much of the territory of the six counties of the Northern Ireland state that was established in May 1921 being transferred to the fledging Irish Free State. The shifting of Tyrone, Fermanagh, south Armagh, south Down (including Newry) and Derry City with their Catholic majorities to the Free State, it was hoped, would leave the remainder of Northern Ireland an unviable rump. Irish unity would then be inevitable. Events, however, did not turn out as nationalists hoped, for a catalogue of reasons, including the ambiguous wording of Article 12 in the Treaty that set up the commission and allowed for multiple interpretations. READ MORE From the off, the newly-created, inexperienced Free State government was politically and diplomatically outmanoeuvring by both London and the new authorities in Stormont. And, throughout, Northern nationalists were naive. In the end, the commission ended in rancour when it proposed that only slight rectifications should be made to the original boundary lines drawn up in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, leaving the Border as it was then and remains today. Even the simple things were not handled properly by the Irish side. The commission was chaired by a British-appointed head, not by an independent chairperson, while there were lengthy delays in setting the body up. Following a largely accurate forecast of the expected final boundary recommendations published by the diehard unionist Morning Post newspaper on November 7th, 1925, WT Cosgrave 's Free State government insisted the report as a whole should be shelved. The newspaper's report had rightly claimed that the commission would propose only minimal transfers from Northern Ireland to the Free State. Crucially, the Free State would lose parts of east Donegal and north Monaghan. The furore led the commission's Free State representative Eoin MacNeill to resign from the role. Once it was revealed, however, that he had appeared to consent to the changes, or had not substantially objected, he was forced to resign as the Free State's minister for education. In a panic, Cosgrave rushed over to London to have the Boundary Commission report buried, and after a week of intense negotiations involving the Free State, British and Northern Irish governments, a tripartite agreement was signed on December 3rd, 1925. Under the agreement, Article 12 of the Treaty, which set up the commission, was revoked and Northern Ireland's boundary remained as it had been defined under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Meanwhile, Article 5, which had created a £150,000,000 bill that the fledgling State was to pay to London, was waived, with the Free State becoming liable for malicious damage incurred during the War of Independence. Under the treaty, 40 parliamentarians, 20 each from Stormont and Dublin, were to have looked after subjects of common concern, including railways, fisheries and contagious diseases of animals. Extra powers could have been added, as required. However, these were scrapped too. While the Council of Ireland was considered an 'irritant' to the Northern Ireland government, it was the Free State government that readily abandoned it. In lieu of it, the Northern Ireland prime minister James Craig 'suggested joint meetings of the two governments in Ireland 'at an early date' so that both governments could deal with charges brought by one against the other'. Cosgrave agreed but they never met again. In fact, the next meeting between the heads of both Irish governments was 40 years later, when Seán Lemass met Terence O'Neill in 1965. Instead of engaging with Ulster unionists with a view to ending or limiting partition, Irish governments of different hues preferred to preach about its evils without offering anything like practical or tangible policies that could deal with the issue. It was only from the 1960s that Irish governments promoted the merits of North-South bodies, such as the Council of Ireland, as well as bodies that exist today such as the Shared Island initiative. The fallout from the Boundary Commission has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Northern nationalists ever since 1925. Their trust in British governments (always threadbare) evaporated completely, but, perhaps more importantly, their trust in the South suffered an irrevocable blow, due to the Free State government's abandonment of the North for financial benefits. That mistrust still resonates today. Many Northern nationalists believe there is a partitionist mindset in the South and that the 'establishment' political parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not interested in Irish unity, despite rhetoric to the contrary. There is contempt for the geo-blocking of programmes in the North by RTÉ (particularly sporting ones), the provision of weather information from Met Éireann for just the 26 counties, the naming of the 26 county state as Ireland under the Constitution, and the prohibition of citizens in the North from voting in Irish presidential elections. [ Geography and destiny – Ronan McGreevy on the Boundary Commission Opens in new window ] As prospects of a Border poll have entered public discourse since the acceptance of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, focus has shifted to an ambiguous clause in that agreement: Schedule 1 (2), which states that the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland 'shall exercise the power' to call a Border poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland'. As with the Boundary Commission, many Northern nationalists believe this clause leaves the power in the hands of the British government. Some fear that this could prevent a Border poll from occurring at all. While there appears to be a clear avenue to Irish unity now through the Belfast Agreement, people are still very wary that the way the commission imploded in 1925 could happen again through what they would see as underhand and devious methods over calling a Border poll. Cormac Moore is a historian, currently serving as historian-in-residence with Dublin City Council. His latest book, The Root of All Evil, about the Boundary Commission, is published by Irish Academic Press
