The People's Movement, 25 Shanowen Crescent, Dublin (2026)

01/06/2026

Government Betrays Nice/Lisbon Commitments on the Triple Lock

They promised. They lied. Now they want to send our soldiers to illegal wars.

Remember the Nice referendum? The Lisbon referendum? The Government gave us solemn guarantees: "Your neutrality is safe. The Triple Lock stays." The Irish people voted Yes. We trusted them.

Now those same politicians are abolishing the Triple Lock by simple legislation. No referendum. No consultation. Just a broken promise erased.

The Triple Lock is the only thing standing between Irish neutrality and Irish involvement in foreign wars.

Without it, any future government can deploy our soldiers to any EU or NATO-led force – no UN mandate required, no international law required. Ursula von der Leyen has already declared that Europe must find "creative ways" to bypass the UN Charter. She calls international law a "hindrance." And our Government agrees.

They tell us the UN is broken. So their answer is to break the last safeguard that protects us?

The same Government that cannot fix housing or the cost of living now wants us to trust them with the power to send our children to war. When diesel hit €2 per litre, they fled to Brussels. When accountability beckoned, they hid behind European photo opportunities. Now they want to hand our defence policy to unaccountable Eurocrats while NATO marches towards all-out war with Russia.

The "Russian threat" to Irish cables? They refuse to publish a single piece of evidence. The real threat is closer to home: a government that breaks its word and a political elite that has learned to rule without listening.

The Triple Lock is not outdated. It is a conscience. It is a firewall. It is the last line between non-belligerence and direct involvement.

01/06/2026

Israeli Historian Ilan Pappé: "If the EU imposed on Israel half the sanctions it imposes on Russia, it would save thousands of Palestinians […] In South Africa, as long as the actions were limited to boycotts and divestments, they did not succeed in overthrowing the apartheid regime. From the moment governments agreed to follow the example of their societies and added sanctions to the boycott, international pressure became an effective tool to help the African National Congress overthrow the apartheid regime. That was the path to follow, alongside the internal struggle, of course. […] today's Zionism is more messianic, far more theocratic, more racist, more dangerous, and much more extremist—not only for Palestine, but also for neighbouring countries. Historical reconciliation was impossible, and yet they still hoped to somehow reconcile universal values like democracy and liberalism with racism and colonialism.[…] The majority of Jews killed during the Holocaust were not Zionists. Many of them were religious Jews, convinced socialists. The N***s killed very few Zionists, but a considerable number of Jews. Therefore, it is not the victims of the Holocaust who commit these acts, but the state that claims to represent them.

31/05/2026

On May 22, 2026, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum signed the EU-Mexico Global Agreement. The pact updates the original trade accord, which has been in force since 2000, concluding nine years of negotiations. However, the deal must now secure ratification from both the European Parliament and Mexico’s legislature before taking full effect.

Coinciding with the signing, 72 civil society organisations from Latin America and the EU issued a joint statement cautioning that the agreement largely serves to extend corporate privileges. Groups such as PowerShift Germany argue that while investors gain binding rights, the deal fails to impose enforceable obligations regarding human rights or the environment.

The timing of the signing is widely interpreted as a geopolitical signal. Both the EU and Mexico are eager to reduce their reliance on the U.S. market. President von der Leyen hailed the deal as "fantastic," announcing €5 billion in new European investments in infrastructure, energy, and pharmaceuticals. In exchange, Mexican agricultural producers secured duty-free access to European markets.

Bettina Müller, a trade policy officer at PowerShift, notes that environmental and human rights standards remain non-binding, contrasting sharply with the "very concrete access rights" granted to corporations. While the European Commission asserts that the agreement includes "legally binding commitments on environmental protection and labour rights" enforceable through dispute settlement, critics argue these provisions lack the legal teeth found in the investment chapter.

The agreement establishes an Investment Court System (ICS) permitting foreign companies to sue governments—both Mexico and the EU—before permanent arbitration panels. Raúl Benet, a biologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), warns that European firms could use this system to challenge future Mexican laws concerning environmental protection, mining restrictions, indigenous land rights, or energy regulation, despite the text formally acknowledging Mexico’s energy sovereignty.

Critics emphasise that Mexico is already the most sued nation under investment treaties, with dozens of pending cases and billions of dollars at stake. According to Manuel Pérez Rocha of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, such treaties disproportionately benefit large export-oriented corporations at the expense of smallholders and local communities.

Opponents point to two ongoing disputes involving European-linked companies:

Proman Ammonia Plant (Sinaloa): The Swiss-German company Proman plans to construct Latin America’s largest ammonia factory on indigenous territory in Topolobampo. The project is financed in part by Germany’s state-owned KfW IPEX Bank. Indigenous and environmental activists have filed formal complaints, warning of irreversible damage to the wetlands of Ohuira Bay.

Ternium Mining Dispute (Michoacán): Luxembourg-based steelmaker Ternium has been implicated by the families of a missing lawyer and an activist in their 2023 disappearance. The victims were representing Nahua communities opposing a Ternium iron ore mine. The company denies any connection to the violence.

While Presidents von der Leyen and Sheinbaum frame the trade deal as a stride toward a "green" and "strategic" partnership, the 72 opposing organisations discern a pattern of lopsided rules that empower corporations at the cost of environmental protection, indigenous rights, and democratic sovereignty.

As biologist Raúl Benet starkly put it, "we are still trading gold for glass beads."

30/05/2026

The recent reporting by RTE on the drone crash in the Romanian city of Galați serves as a textbook case of how "our"media constructs a narrative of aggression through the careful curation of facts. By examining the RTE article alongside the actual statements made by Romanian President Nicușor Dan, we can see a clear editorial strategy designed to amplify the "Russian threat" while systematically erasing the context that might complicate that simplistic storyline.

The RTE piece opens with a classic piece of fear-mongering framing: "NATO accused Russia of reckless behaviour and pledged to 'defend every inch of allied territory' after Romania said a Russian drone had crashed into an apartment block." The headline and the lead paragraph are engineered to trigger a specific emotional response—an image of a deliberate, hostile Russian strike on a NATO home. The language is definitive: "Russia said a Russian drone had crashed."

However, the reality on the ground, as acknowledged by the very leader RTE quotes, tells a radically different story.

Buried deep within the RTE report—or perhaps omitted entirely from the central narrative—is the crucial testimony of President Nicușor Dan. While RTE focuses on NATO’s sabre-rattling and NATO Head Mark Rutte’s condemnation of "Russia’s reckless behaviour," they conveniently skip over the President's explanation of the physics and proximity of the incident. Dan stated clearly that the drone was "hit kinetically" by Ukrainian air defences while passing over the Ukrainian city of Reni. It was this impact, this interception by Ukraine, that caused the drone to "change its trajectory" and crash into Galați.

Why is this omission so critical? Because it fundamentally alters the moral and legal evaluation of the event.

If RTE were committed to impartial reporting, the lead would be: Debris from a drone intercepted by Ukrainian air defences crashes in Romania. Instead, RTE presents the event as a direct incursion and attack by Russia. By leaving out the fact that the drone was disabled and redirected by Ukraine, RTE allows the reader to believe this was a deliberate targeting of Romanian civilians. This framing feeds directly into the NATO narrative quoted later in the piece—that Russia is solely responsible for escalating tensions on the eastern flank.

The manipulation continues in the selection of quotes. RTE trots out Stephen Evelyn, an American citizen in Galați, who declares, "I don't believe this was an accident... Either that or they're highly incompetent at waging war." This is a loaded statement designed to reinforce a "Russian incompetence or malice" line. RTE gives platform to a subjective opinion that aligns with their editorial stance, while ignoring the objective assessment provided by the Romanian President regarding the drone's flight path. To include the American's speculation while excluding the Romanian President's technical explanation is not journalism; it is agenda-setting.

Furthermore, RTE highlights Vladimir Putin's response—that it is "too early to say" the drone was Russian—in a way that paints him as evasive. Yet, they fail to balance this with President Dan’s own admission that while the drone was Russian in origin, the immediate cause of the crash in Romania was the kinetic action of Ukrainian defences. The report mentions that "Russian drones had breached its airspace 28 times," failing to clarify how many of these "breaches" were actually missiles or drones disabled by Ukraine subsequently falling onto Romanian territory. The term "breach" implies an intent to pe*****te; the reality of "debris falling due to interception" implies a tragic consequence of a war taking place next door.

By stripping away the cause-and-effect relationship established by President Dan RTE transforms an incident of war spillover into a narrative of Russian aggression against NATO. The article cites NATO’s promise to "defend every inch" and discusses "enhancing readiness," effectively lobbying for military escalation based on a premise that the outlet itself has helped to distort.

In the end, the RTE report does not inform the reader; it propagandises them. It relies on the reader's lack of knowledge regarding Dan's specific comments to construct a fantasy of a reckless Russian attack, when the truth is far messier: a Russian drone was shot down by Ukraine, and the debris landed in Romania. In the hands of RTE, that debris is rebuilt into a casus belli.

30/05/2026

A new Greenpeace study, “Europe Alone at Home?”, takes a good hard look at one of the most little-questioned claims doing the rounds. The story goes: Europe, especially without the Americans holding its hand, is militarily surpassed by Russia; so we need a grand, historic splurge on armaments. The study shows that both claims are untrue.

Yet for all its valuable number-crunching, the Greenpeace document is itself part of a trend. It treats the EU project—specifically in its headlong rush toward militarisation—as eminently open to debate, but ultimately as reformable. In doing so, it accepts the very terms of engagement that have led us to the brink of a new arms race. The report’s focus on "inefficiencies" in European defence spending is, in fact, not too different from what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself argues. The difference is one of tone, not of first principles.

The problem is that the Greenpeace study never questions the military logic itself. It simply takes for granted that a conventional war between the great power blocs is a feasible notion. It assumes that “deterrence” is a valid goal, and that the only error is doing it badly.

Consider the theory of “Schrödinger’s Russians”. On the one hand, the Russian army and its economy are so weak that even little Ukraine – with a leg up from NATO – should be able to send them packing. On the other hand, Russia is so powerful that in a few months or years it’ll be sweeping into EU/NATO territory, and soon enough their tanks will be rolling across Europe to threaten our shores.

So which is it? Greenpeace rightly points out the contradiction. But then it makes a fatal concession: it agrees to debate the scale of the response rather than the sanity of the premise. By arguing for a more efficient, less wasteful military build-up, the organisation implicitly validates the idea that a build-up is necessary in the first place.

Greenpeace provides the damning statistics. Today, NATO is head and shoulders above Russia in every key military category – even without the Americans, whose reliability has been questioned as a justification for a European armaments drive. In 2025, European NATO states plus Canada spent roughly 626 billion on armaments.
Russia spent190 billion. Even adjusting for purchasing power, Russia doesn’t come close.

Once you take the actual state of play into account, you cannot talk about closing a gap any more. EU militarisation is about pushing an already massive advantage over Russia even further. Greenpeace is rightly critical of “deterrence” rhetoric on these grounds.

But then the study reveals its fatal flaw. While lambasting EU/NATO countries for shoving a percentage of GDP into arms spending, “Europe Alone at Home” does not criticise rearmament as such. Instead, it criticises the inefficiency and lack of planning behind it. The report identifies the sheer waste of money from European NATO countries developing nineteen different main battle tank systems or twenty-eight different artillery systems. For comparison, the Americans have one battle tank system and two artillery systems.

This is where Greenpeace sounds indistinguishable from a McKinsey consultant—or indeed from von der Leyen, who has repeatedly called for “more joint procurement” and “fewer duplications” in European defence. The subtext is clear: if only we did rearmament properly, it would be acceptable. This is a trend that sees the entire EU project—even its most dangerous turn toward militarisation—as open to debate only on terms of technical efficiency, not moral or strategic sanity.

If you accept the deterrence logic, you’ll agree with Greenpeace. To achieve “military deterrence”, set a clear goal and work towards it as efficiently as possible. Be cost conscious. But that’s not even the European politicians’ approach. They see a rearmament drive as a stimulus for a moribund economy. Every euro senselessly squandered on arms is a euro taken from the real economy.

Yet Greenpeace refuses to take the final step. Speaking of the military balance of power between the transatlantic bloc and Russia implies that a direct war between the two blocs could somehow be fought below the nuclear threshold. That is a mad delusion. In the age of the atomic bomb, the greater enemy isn’t the supposed opponent—it’s war itself.

The Greenpeace study is laudable for puncturing the myth of Russian conventional superiority. But it is deeply disappointing for what it fails to do. By framing the debate around “waste” and “efficiency,” it joins a dangerous trend that treats the EU’s militarisation as a technical problem to be reformed rather than a catastrophic logic to be rejected. We shouldn’t be debating the merits of arms spending at all. We should be questioning the military logic in its entirety. But we are light years away from that—so far that even this genuinely laudable Greenpeace study hasn’t taken it on as its central theme.

29/05/2026

The Strait of Hormuz is not international waters. Not a single drop. At its narrowest, the strait is a mere 21 miles wide. Under international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, every nation possesses the right to extend its territorial waters 12 nautical miles from its coast. Iran’s 12 miles to the north and Oman’s 12 miles to the south overlap. They swallow the strait whole. There is no "international" corridor. There is only Iranian and Omani water.

For years, we have been lectured about "freedom of navigation," a principle used to justify Western military dominance. But the Law of the Sea is a double-edged sword. While it guarantees the right of "transit passage"—preventing Iran or Oman from physically blocking the strait—it explicitly prohibits the imposition of "transit fees." You cannot charge a toll for the world to pass through nature’s doorway.

However, here lies the brilliance of the legal trap that Trump and Co. are so terrified of. There is a profound difference between a prohibited toll on passage and a permitted fee for services.

The West is comfortable with fees when they go to the Suez or Panama Canals—artificial ditches dug by human labour. But when it comes to natural straits, they scream foul. Yet, the law offers a giant loophole. Under the same conventions, coastal states are perfectly within their rights to charge for "pilotage, rescue, and lighthouse services."

If in doubt. Look at the Bosphorus. Turkey, a NATO member, generates revenue through the Montreux Convention by charging for specific navigational services. If Turkey can do it, why the hysteria when Tehran and Muscat consider the same mechanism?

Because in the hands of Iran and Oman, this isn't just about safety; it's about leverage. By formalising pilotage and navigational service fees, these two nations can generate vast sums of money completely within the framework of international law. It is a masterclass in asymmetric warfare—using the letter of the law to tax the empires that usually write the rules.

This prospect drives American hawks into a state of madness. Faced with the impossibility of refuting the legal reality, the U.S. resorts to its only remaining playbook: economic terrorism. The threats coming from Washington—sanctions on Omani officials, targeting financial institutions and bullying the country—are the desperate thrashings of a dying hegemon.

The United States cannot legally stop Iran and Oman from imposing these service fees, so it threatens to burn the economy of anyone who tries. It is a admission that the era of unchecked American maritime control is fracturing.

The U.S. is not the victim here, but the aggressor, destabilising the region to maintain a stranglehold on global energy flows. Iran and Oman have every right to the waters off their coasts, and if they choose to charge for the services that keep those waters safe, no amount of American tantrums can change the law.

29/05/2026

The US prepares for yet another war to dominate the Western Hemisphere. But will Trump even feel that he needs to bother to claim that this barbarism is all about "democracy" for Von Der Leyen, Kallas, Merz and Co. to certify that it conforms with Western "values"?

29/05/2026

As Ireland prepares to assume the European Union Presidency, a new report offers a strategic framework that aims to shift the bloc's approach to Palestine—from humanitarian crisis management to the enforcement of international law. But the report fails to confront a deeper truth: the EU has been not merely reactive, but actively complicit in the genocide.

Senator Frances Black who, it is true to say, has never stopped in her pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people convened a meeting at which representatives from across Ireland's political spectrum gathered to discuss the report.

The document in question outlines what its authors describe as a necessary course correction for the EU's 2026 Presidency. It argues that the Union must abandon its current "reactive" posture—characterised by humanitarian appeals and ceasefire negotiations—in favour of a framework rooted in binding legal obligations and the enforcement of international law

The report establishes that the EU and its Member States are bound by multiple international legal instruments currently being violated by Israel. These include recent International Court of Justice advisory opinions ruling that Israel's occupation is unlawful and that states have an obligation not to recognise or assist this situation—a duty that extends to international organisations like the EU.

Under the Geneva Conventions, Palestinians are protected persons, and the occupation must remain temporary. Settlements, annexation, and collective punishment are explicitly prohibited. The Genocide Convention imposes a duty on the EU to prevent—and not aid—genocide, with the ICJ having found a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, the report cites findings by the UN and human rights organisations that Israel practices apartheid. Under the Treaty of the European Union (Articles 3 and 21), the bloc is strictly required to observe international law and uphold human rights in its external actions.

The report calls on Ireland to exercise political leadership in ensuring the EU enforces its legal obligations. Key recommendations include:

Adopting a rights-based approach focused on Palestinian self-determination

Formally recognising the illegality of the occupation and apartheid policies

Suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement under its human rights clause

Imposing a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel

Supporting the ICC and complying fully with arrest warrants

Banning trade with Israeli settlements across the EU

Ensuring Palestinian-led reconstruction in Gaza

Cancelling Israel's access to Horizon Research and Erasmus+ programmes

Suspending visa-free access for Israeli nationals

Protecting civil liberties including support for the BDS movement

The report concludes that accountability and the enforcement of law are the only paths to peace—and that Ireland must ensure the EU translates its stated values into operational reality.

The report is to be warmly welcomed as a serious and timely contribution. However, if it has one fundamental weakness, it is the report's failure to recognise that the EU's "values" do not include solidarity with "the wretched of the earth" in Palestine or elsewhere in the world. Thus where the report frames the EU's failure as one of being "reactive" or "devoid of concrete action," the evidence actually demonstrates something far more damning. The EU has not been passive or neutral. Rather, it has been an active, pro-Israel partner for decades.

The "current situation" is not merely a failure to react—it is the result of sustained political decisions to privilege Israeli interests over international law and Palestinian rights. The report itself highlights five areas of this from its own evidence:

The EU-Israel Association Agreement and Israel's participation in Horizon and Erasmus+ are not reactive measures. They are active, strategic choices to integrate Israel into the European single market and scientific community. By maintaining these agreements despite decades of documented violations, the EU has effectively subsidised the Israeli economy and, by extension, the occupation.

The report notes the situation "has not arisen without the acquiescence of the EU and its Member States." Acquiescence implies consent, not inaction. The EU ignored the ICJ's 2004 advisory opinion on the illegality of the separation wall for twenty years and is now ignoring the 2024 and 2025 rulings. Ignoring legal rulings is an active political stance taken to shield an ally from accountability.

The report criticises the EU for settling for "lowest common denominator texts." This mechanism is actively utilised by powerful pro-Israel member states to water down resolutions that would hold Israel accountable. By prioritising "consensus" over justice, the EU functions as a diplomatic shield for Israel, proactively preventing meaningful sanctions from ever reaching the table.

The report references a similar delegation report from 2005—twenty years prior—that identified the same issues and made similar recommendations. That nothing has changed suggests the EU is not "reacting" to a changing reality but steadfastly maintaining a status quo that favours the occupying power.

By treating the situation as a humanitarian crisis requiring band-aid solutions rather than a political crisis requiring sanctions and law enforcement, the EU helps Israel manage the occupation rather than end it. The bloc effectively foots the bill for humanitarian fallout while Israel continues its expansion, absolving the occupying power of the economic cost of its military actions.

These criticisms do not diminish the report's value—they sharpen its implications. The report is a welcome study full of suggestions for what an Irish Government could do in solidarity with Palestine. But its weakness lies in failing to fully confront that the EU's institutional architecture and political culture have been shaped for decades by active choices to privilege Israeli interests.

By detailing the EU's refusal to suspend agreements, its failure to enforce ICJ rulings, and its two-decade history of inaction, it becomes clear that the EU is not merely 'reactive' or weak. It is a willing participant in a structure that protects Israel from the consequences of its actions.

28/05/2026

Hüseyin Doğru, the German journalist sanctioned by the EU, announced on X on Wednesday that his mother’s account has also been blocked. The basis for this is a letter from Comdirect Bank, which Doğru made public. It states that the funds in his mother’s accounts have been frozen "due to an existing control relationship over the funds by your son, Mr. Hüseyin Doğru." Disposals over the account and the securities portfolio are now only possible if the German Federal Bank grants a release on a case-by-case basis.

Back in March, Doğru’s wife’s account was temporarily frozen. At the time, the Central Office for Sanctions Enforcement (ZfS) justified the measure by accusing her of sanctions circumvention. The Cologne Administrative Courthas recently overturned this freeze, citing "serious doubts about the legality" of the measures imposed by the ZfS. Doğru has now published the current letter from his bank on X and commented as follows:

"Germany’s collective punishment of my family continues. Now they have frozen the bank account of my mother, a pensioner, claiming that I somehow have ‘control’ over it. She no longer has access to her savings – even though she has received no official notification from any German authority. No indictment, no proper proceedings."

28/05/2026

The Triple Lock: To Recap

Doesn't the Triple Lock make Ireland beholden to Russia and China for the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions?

This narrative is a dangerous distraction that ignores the reality of where the pressure on Irish sovereignty actually originates. The Triple Lock does not grant a veto to Russia or China over Ireland; it simply mandates that Irish troops operate only with the legitimacy of the United Nations. When a permanent member of the UN Security Council vetoes a resolution, it is usually blocking a specific mandate for geopolitical reasons, not targeting Ireland. To deploy troops without UN approval—ignoring a veto—would not be an act of independence; it would be a descent into lawlessness, joining "coalitions of the willing" where might makes right.

The real threat to Ireland's autonomy is not Moscow or Beijing, but the rapid militarisation of the European Union. The EU is no longer merely a peace project; it is evolving into a military actor deeply enmeshed in a proxy war with Russia. Senior EU leaders, such as Ursula von der Leyen, have explicitly declared that Europe "can no longer be a custodian" for the "old world order" of the UN Charter and demands "creative ways" to bypass international consensus. Removing the Triple Lock would not liberate Ireland; it would tether our Defence Forces to this aggressive EU military agenda, stripping away the safeguards that prevent us from being drawn into foreign conflicts.

Furthermore, continuing to describe Ireland’s security policy as "neutrality" is becoming increasingly dishonest. As we integrate further into EU defence structures like PESCO and the Rapid Deployment Capacity, our posture is more accurately described as "non-belligerency"—aligning with a military bloc while avoiding direct combat. The Triple Lock is the final barrier preventing this slide from non-belligerency into active participation in NATO-style wars. Removing the lock would not make us safer; it would simply confirm that Ireland has abandoned its independent foreign policy to become a logistical appendage for a European power structure that views international law as an obstacle to be overcome.

The People's Movement

01/06/2026

01/06/2026

31/05/2026

30/05/2026

30/05/2026

29/05/2026

29/05/2026

29/05/2026

28/05/2026

28/05/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organisation

Shortcuts

Share

Category