Legislation to ban imports from Israeli settlements brought before Cabinet
Legislation that will ban imports from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territories will come before the Cabinet on Tuesday morning.
Tánaiste Simon Harris will bring forward the renamed Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025.
Advertisement
It will ban trade with the occupied Palestinian territory.
It follows a decision by Government to opt for fresh legislation instead of progressing the Occupied Territories Bill, first tabled in 2018.
Speaking on Tuesday morning, Mr Harris said Ireland will become the first country in Europe to bring forward legislation to ban trade with the occupied Palestinian territories.
Today Ireland becomes the first country in Europe to bring forward legislation to ban trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Ireland is speaking up and speaking out against the genocidal activity in Gaza.
Every country must pull every lever at its disposal.
pic.twitter.com/Z4RTjqntEY
— Simon Harris TD (@SimonHarrisTD)
June 24, 2025
'This is an important measure, because we are speaking up and speaking out on behalf of the people of Ireland in relation to this genocidal activity,' he added.
Advertisement
'But, of course, I actually think and hope that the real benefit of publishing this legislation today will be that it may inspire other countries to do likewise, because it's important that every country uses every lever at its disposal.
'Our own domestic legislation comes against a backdrop of two important developments in Europe yesterday.
'Firstly, we saw for the very first time a review concluded of the Association Agreement, which told us what we already knew, but stated it very clearly that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations.
'Secondly, Ireland joined with nine other European countries in calling on the European Commission to now review the EU's obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion.
Advertisement
'I don't believe the European Union is in compliance with its obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion. We now want to see Europe legally review whether it's right to have trade in goods or services at an EU level with the occupied Palestinian territories.'
Senator Frances Black, who brought forward the original Bill, welcomed the move.
She said: 'We urgently need to see action now. I have to be clear on this, the legislation that's agreed by cabinet today, it's still only draft, but the Tánaiste has committed both to me and publicly that the Government are willing to include services in the final Bill if we can get the legal details right.
'I am 100% certain that we can and I'm going to hold him to that promise.'
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Any appeasement of anti-Israel fanatics is doomed to fail
Next week is shaping up to be one of the most exciting since the general election. There will be two key votes – the first on the Government's welfare reform plans in which dozens of Labour MPs are expected to rebel, risking losing the party whip and, therefore, putting their parliamentary careers in jeopardy. That will be closely followed by a vote on legislation to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, which the Government will find easier to win than the welfare Bill, even if ministers anticipate the Lords will kick up a bit of a fuss over the definition of terrorism and whether it applies to the hard-Left pro-Palestinian group. How Keir Starmer handles these challenges will tell us a great deal about his style of Government and his relationship with his own party. He already outraged parts of Labour by removing the whip from a number of MPs who rebelled against the whip over the continuation of the Conservatives' two-child benefit policy. A handful of those rebels still haven't been restored to the bosom of the parliamentary party and if that doesn't change before the next general election, they will not be permitted to stand as Labour candidates. That is the threat, explicit or otherwise, that will (probably) secure a parliamentary majority for the welfare Bill. And the number of potential rebels who would risk their careers in defence of Palestine Action is considerably smaller. But feelings are running high nonetheless. It's quite the conundrum for the Government. The Prime Minister and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, have made great efforts to avoid any accusation of exhibiting any form of leadership on the continuing crisis in the Middle East. Where previous Labour administrations stood proudly alongside their American and Israeli allies in opposition to the terrorist ambitions of Iran through its funding of various Islamist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, this Labour government prefers a strategy that the Foreign Office might describe as 'diplomatic discretion', or which the late Baroness Thatcher might have called 'being frit'. Iran has repeatedly promised to wipe Israel – an ally of the UK's right up until the loss of four previously safe Labour parliamentary seats to independent pro-Gaza candidates last year – from the map and has hardly bothered to hide its support for the principle of suicide bombings in Tel Aviv. Yet the prospect of the regime gaining possession of a nuclear weapon seems not to bother UK Government ministers overmuch, despite the nightmare scenario that is certain to materialise should the Ayatollahs ever get a big red button of their own. This is the context of next week's debate on whether, finally and belatedly, the Government ought to get tough with groups like Palestine Action who have gone so much further than peaceful and legal protesting. Much of the current wave of protests is founded on opposition to the West. In the last few days, the sea of Palestinian flags that has become so familiar in protest marches in our cities has started to be intermixed with placards warning the Government not to attack Iran and that doing so would put Britain and the US 'on the wrong side of history'. Those protesters should be clear that their preferred vision for the Middle East does not include Israel, with its very anti-Arab notions of democracy and tolerance. Those who protest that Iran should be allowed to develop their own nuclear 'deterrent' know exactly how such a deterrent would be used, and they're fine with that. This is the root of the conflict currently playing out in the region, a war, not just between nations but between ideologies. And supporters of Palestine Action, along with its reprehensible and violent tactics, are unequivocally on the side of the gay-hanging, women-murdering Ayatollahs. That, rather than any niceties as to the definition of terrorism, is what next week's debate should be about. Independents like Jeremy Corbyn and his motley crew of pro-Gaza MPs and perhaps a handful of former Labour colleagues can always be relied upon to oppose any measure that smacks of pro-Westernism, and they will vote accordingly. Starmer, meanwhile, will find himself in an unusual position. He has gone to great lengths in the last year to position his Government between two stools, between his own instinct to support Israel in its fight against Hamas terrorism and the need to avoid losing any more of the UK Muslim vote. He should have worked out by now that turning on former allies, allowing the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israeli ministers and placing restrictions on military exports to Israel will never satisfy the crazed hatred of the Jewish state by a segment of the population. By lining up his MPs in explicit opposition to a group that wears its pro-Palestinian credentials on its keffiyeh, Starmer risks undermining much of his previous efforts to assuage an audience that can never be satisfied. We must hope that he accepts the futility of those efforts and abandons them.
North Wales Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Omagh victims intend to use public inquiry to ‘heap shame' on Irish Government
The inquiry also heard that victims are 'sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances and broken promises' from Dublin over the bombing. The Omagh Bombing Inquiry, chaired by Lord Turnbull, is hearing opening statements from core participants. On Tuesday the focus moved to statements from the legal representatives of bereaved families. The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The public inquiry was set up by the previous government to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by the UK authorities. Barrister Alan Kane KC delivered a statement on behalf of the families of Omagh victims represented by solicitor John McBurney. These include the families of Debra-Anne Cartwright, Olive Hawkes, Julia Hughes, Philomena Skelton, Samantha McFarland, Alan Radford, Lorraine Wilson, who were all killed in the massacre, as well as several other people who were injured. He told the inquiry: 'It is important that we always keep in focus that it was republican terrorists under the name Real IRA who planned and planted the Omagh bomb. They alone are responsible for the loss and hurt caused by it. 'On hearing the accounts of so many at the commemorative hearings, it beggars all belief as to what else was intended other than murderous carnage by leaving a bomb in a peaceful town's main street on a busy sunny Saturday afternoon where so many innocent women, children and men were likely to be. 'The preventability of the murders and injuries was at all times within the absolute control of the Real IRA.' He added: 'Our clients are of the clear belief that whatever aspects of preventability may lie at the door of the UK state authorities, blame, to a greater or lesser extent, rests with the state authorities in the Republic of Ireland. 'Our clients again renew their call for a parallel inquiry to be immediately established by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, a call that they should not be required to repeat. 'Our clients remain greatly disappointed at the lack of any commitment of the authorities in the Republic of Ireland to meaningfully assist this inquiry. 'They regard the memorandum of understanding, agreed with the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Ireland as wholly unsatisfactory. 'Our clients wish to use this inquiry to heap shame on the Government of the Republic of Ireland for their failures.' Mr Kane said there was a 'moral, human and legal imperative' on the Dublin Government to set up its own inquiry. He said: 'As a country with a professed European inclination, it is extremely regrettable that the Republic of Ireland continues to be in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to ensure there has ever been any effective investigation into the death of the people to whom they owe that duty. 'There are preventability issues which clearly arise from the territorial origin of the Omagh bomb, and the cowardly refuge which its perpetrators enjoyed within the boundaries of the Republic of Ireland.' The barrister said his clients had likened the work of the public inquiry to an MOT vehicle test. He said: 'To their disbelief, they are told only the engine can be inspected, all that exists beyond the engine, including the body, the suspension, the brakes, the contents of the boot, cannot be examined. 'Such an MOT would clearly be unfit for purpose. 'This inquiry can only examine the parts of the car made in the UK as it were, the preventability, it cannot examine the rest of the car where the terrorists sat, or the boot area where the deadly bomb was hidden. 'If this inquiry could examine the whole car then it would also be able to examine any preventability issues which fall on the Republic of Ireland state authorities and all the faults and defects in the vehicle could be identified.' The barrister referred to comments from former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern that no stone would be left unturned to bring those responsible for the 1998 atrocity to justice. He said: 'That is a promise which has significance only for the ignoring and disregarding of it which has taken place over the almost 27 years which has passed since the Omagh bombing.' Mr Kane added: 'I have the authority of those I represent to say they are sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances, broken promises and grand but empty words from the state authorities of the Republic of Ireland. 'Their resolute refusal to institute a parallel inquiry and their ongoing failure to provide real and meaningful cooperation with this inquiry speaks far louder than their words.' The barrister referred to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed between the inquiry and the Irish Government to allow access to material held in Dublin. Mr Kane said the MOU is 'redundant' due to the terms of how it was drafted. He said: 'First because the assessment of relevance is in the power of the Republic of Ireland, secondly because it only relates to relevance concerning preventability by the UK state authorities. 'This is an unacceptable yet significant escape clause for the Republic of Ireland. 'Under the memorandum the Republic of Ireland state authorities, and therefore any information which reflects badly on them, could be determined by them to be irrelevant.' He added: 'This voluntary statement of participation by the Government of the Republic of Ireland lacks any degree of real commitment and does nothing to give our clients any degree of confidence in it.'
Glasgow Times
29 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Car makers call for planned easing of electricity costs to go further
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) called for the proposed relief on standing charges included in the Industrial Strategy published on Monday – which will apply to battery manufacturing – to be extended to automotive manufacturing. It stated that UK automotive manufacturers pay more for electricity than anywhere else in Europe, and in excess of double the average. This is partly because of energy taxes which are six times higher and added more than £200 million to manufacturers' bills last year, the SMMT said. It stated: 'Rapid implementation of the reforms to industrial energy costs set out in the Industrial Strategy would cut the sector's electricity bill by a fifth, helping ease this structural disadvantage.' The SMMT added that compared with other major economies, the UK has the highest business rates and is 'among the worst for the burden of government regulation'. It called for the Government to 'recreate a competitive edge', declaring that 'the time now is for giant leaps'. SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said: 'We welcome the Government's Industrial Strategy, a 10-year plan which answers our call for a long-term commitment to automotive manufacturing. 'With action to reduce electricity costs, upskill workers and unlock finance, it lays the foundation on which we can build our future. 'We now need to see the strategy implemented and at pace, because competitors will move fast so our window of opportunity will not remain open for long. 'The prize, however, in terms of jobs, innovation and economic growth – green growth at that – is worth the investment.'
