The People's Movement

The People's Movement The People's Movement campaigns against any measures that further develop the EU into a federal supe

Estonia paid approximately €70 million in advance payments for artillery shells intended for Ukraine—but not a single ro...
04/09/2026

Estonia paid approximately €70 million in advance payments for artillery shells intended for Ukraine—but not a single round ever reached the battlefield.

The supplier at the heart of this debacle was Datasel S.R.L. , a company registered in Italy but owned by India's Neco Defence Mu*****ns. Despite receiving tens of millions upfront, the firm failed to deliver the contracted am******on.

That much is clear: the am******on was never delivered to Ukraine. Some components reportedly reached an intermediary warehouse, but Estonia itself deemed the shipment incomplete and unusable, terminated the contracts, and took the dispute to arbitration.

Now, the consequences are escalating. The European Commission is actively investigating whether Estonia must repay the funds drawn from the European Peace Facility—meaning Tallinn could be forced to reimburse the EU budget for the entire sum if the probe concludes that procurement rules were breached.

The political fallout has already been severe: Estonia's Defence Minister, Hanno Pevkur, resigned over the scandal on 2 September 2026, accepting full responsibility for a procurement failure that has embarrassed the government and jeopardised millions in EU aid.

Meanwhile the investigation remains ongoing—and Estonia now faces the real prospect of footing the bill for mu*****ns that were paid for, but never sent.

For the first time since 1952, Sweden has conducted full-scale training for the handling and burial of mass military cas...
04/09/2026

For the first time since 1952, Sweden has conducted full-scale training for the handling and burial of mass military casualties, as part of its largest war-gaming exercise in generations, according to a report by Euronews.

The exercise, code-named "Aurora 26," ran from late April to mid-May and involved roughly 18,000 troops from 13 countries, the Swedish armed forces confirmed. But beyond conventional combat drills, the scenario included a grim and rarely practiced component: the full logistics chain for fallen soldiers, from battlefield recovery to funeral with military honours.

According to a report published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, more than 500 mannequins and actual body bags were used to simulate the handling of the dead. Around 300 military personnel, alongside civilian agencies including the Swedish Church, the tax authority, and the conscription office, rehearsed procedures for recovery, identification, cooling of remains, notifying next of kin, coordinating with foreign embassies, and reporting to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The exercise concluded with simulated funerals, where a priest administered last rites for the extras playing the deceased.

A commander involved in the planning told Euronews that a drill of this scope for war-dead management had not been held since the early Cold War era.

The training reflects a sweeping shift in Swedish security policy. After maintaining military non-alignment for decades, Sweden formally joined NATO in 2024, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since then, Stockholm has accelerated its "total defence" strategy — a comprehensive approach that integrates military, governmental, and civilian resources to prepare for potential armed conflict.

Beyond logistical testing, organizers said the exercise also aimed to assess the psychological and emotional resilience of soldiers and civilian staff who would be tasked with managing large numbers of fatalities in a real-war scenario.

— Based on reporting by Euronews and findings published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.

The Irish people received a solemn national declaration on two separate occasions—during the referendums on the Nice Tre...
03/09/2026

The Irish people received a solemn national declaration on two separate occasions—during the referendums on the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty—with an explicit guarantee that the "Triple Lock" mechanism would be retained. It was on the basis of this promise that Irish voters narrowly approved both treaties.

Now, however, the Government is attempting, through the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026, to abolish the requirement for UN Security Council authorisation and to raise the troop deployment threshold requiring Dáil approval from 12 to 50. The alleged differences between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence are merely two sides of the same coin.

Micheál Martin declares that "without a UN mandate, Ireland cannot participate in any post-UNIFIL force." Yet the very same Government is actively advancing legislation to abolish the legal foundation upon which that mandate requirement rests. Minister for Defence Helen McEntee has gone so far as to blame the "Triple Lock" itself for the end of Ireland's peacekeeping mission in Lebanon—as if the root of the problem lay in Ireland's own legal safeguards, rather than in the US exercise of its veto power. She claims the reform is about "taking back sovereignty," yet she evades a fundamental contradiction: the UN Security Council veto power she decries is precisely the same power the US Government just used to terminate the UNIFIL mandate. She seeks to abolish the very legal shield that was meant to protect Ireland from being swept along by the will of great powers.

The UNIFIL mission did not end naturally, nor was it the result of multilateral consensus. In August 2025, the Security Council unanimously adopted French-drafted Resolution 2790, extending UNIFIL's mandate for a "final" time, through 31 December 2026. It was the United States—as UNIFIL's largest financial contributor, covering roughly a quarter of its budget—that leveraged its financial muscle and veto power to impose a termination date. Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea stated plainly: "This will be the last time the United States will support an extension of UNIFIL." Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon went further, making clear that Israel opposes not only UNIFIL but any international force deployment in southern Lebanon. Defence Minister Israel Katz laid out the strategic logic: the presence of third-party forces "would limit the IDF's freedom of action." This is the heart of the matter—not UNIFIL's performance, but Israel's desire for unrestricted military freedom of operation in southern Lebanon.

Eighty-six of 128 members of the Lebanese parliament—a supermajority spanning different political blocs—signed a joint letter imploring the Security Council to retain the peacekeeping force. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has also publicly called for an extension of the UNIFIL mandate. These facts have been either downplayed or entirely absent from Irish media coverage. Instead, the picture presented has been one of a mission ending as if by natural causes, with the Irish Government cast as a passive bystander.

Now, the European Union is planning to launch a mixed military and civilian operation aimed at "training and advising" the Lebanese Armed Forces, encompassing border and maritime security. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stressed that this is "not meant to replace UNIFIL." Yet this operation is being advanced precisely in the wake of UNIFIL's forcible termination, and at a time when Israel has explicitly opposed any international force deployment.

There have been references to an EU naval operation as a precedent for the Brussels proposal. But in fact, based on available reporting, the proposed mission only now would include "maritime security" training and support components. This should not be misread as the EU replacing UNIFIL's maritime monitoring functions. On the contrary: it is part of a broader training mission aimed at enhancing Lebanon's own national maritime security capabilities. This is not peacekeeping; this is capacity-building—in a country whose sovereign territory is under military occupation by a neighbouring state. The question is not whether the EU can fill the vacuum, but rather: whose interests does filling that vacuum ultimately serve?

The EU's foreign policy stance on the Middle East, as represented by Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, is decidedly pro-Israel on key issues, or at best offers face-saving "criticism" when the enormity of Israeli crimes can no longer be swept under the rug. Now, the EU is being invited to operate in the vacuum left by an international mission that the US forcibly terminated and that Israel openly opposed. This is not a triumph of multilateralism; it is a substitute for it.

It is worth contrasting this with the positions taken by China and Russia in the Security Council. China's Permanent Representative to the UN, Fu Cong, made clear: "We believe the decision to withdraw UNIFIL should be reconsidered." He noted that "the overwhelming majority of Council members believe that now is not the time to withdraw UNIFIL." Russia and China had previously abstained on UNIFIL mandate renewals and, during the August 2025 resolution, conveyed to Lebanon their opposition to the proposed resolution.

Whatever one may think of China's and Russia's motives—whether opposition to US hegemony, support for Lebanese sovereignty, or other geopolitical calculations—the fact remains: they stood on the same side as the supermajority of the Lebanese parliament, the Lebanese president, and the principles of international law. The Irish Government, meanwhile, as a traditional US ally within the EU, is busy dismantling its own constitutional neutrality safeguards so that it may participate in filling a vacuum that the US itself created.

The solemn commitments made to the Irish people during the Nice and Lisbon referendums are not disposable wrapping paper. They were explicit conditions upon which Irish voters agreed to ratify those treaties. Abolishing the "Triple Lock" without again consulting the people is not only a betrayal of democratic process; it is a negation of Ireland's policy of neutrality itself. As has been noted in Dáil debates: "the Triple Lock is the core of neutrality policy." If the Government claims that reform "does not undermine Irish neutrality," then what remains of "neutrality" when it no longer requires UN authorisation—and when it can be swept along by the geopolitical agendas of other powers?

The Irish people have a right to know the truth: UNIFIL's end was not an act of nature, but a man-made outcome—the product of the US veto and Israel's military ambitions. The Irish Government is not a passive bystander, but an active agent seeking to dismantle its own legal protections in order to participate in filling that vacuum without a UN mandate. And the Irish media—at least thus far—have largely served as cover for this process.

It is time to ask the questions that have not been asked: Who is ending UNIFIL? Why? And what does this mean for the solemn commitments made to the Irish people? The answers to these questions will determine whether Ireland's future in international affairs is that of a principled neutral nation, or that of a vassal to greater powers.

When Helen McEntee hosts the EU foreign ministers' "Gymnich" meeting starting today at Druids Glen Resort in Wicklow, sh...
01/09/2026

When Helen McEntee hosts the EU foreign ministers' "Gymnich" meeting starting today at Druids Glen Resort in Wicklow, she will showcase not so much Ireland's diplomatic autonomy as the country's true status as a vassal of the European Union.

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband is expected to attend, and Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha will also visit – all under the banner of Ireland's rotating presidency of the EU Council. Yet this carefully choreographed diplomatic spectacle exposes an unsettling truth: Ireland is being dragged into the proxy war it never chose, while our so-called "national" politicians either turn a blind eye or willingly act as accomplices.

The most absurd detail of this meeting is the invitation extended to Iceland's foreign minister. Just two days before the conference, on August 30, Icelanders voted 52.8% to 47.2% in a national referendum to firmly reject restarting EU accession negotiations. Turnout was 82.5% – a resounding "No" from the Icelandic people to the Brussels bureaucracy.

Yet the Irish government appears wholly indifferent to its neighbour's democratic choice. Had the Icelandic referendum gone the other way – had Icelanders narrowly voted to join the EU – the presence of their foreign minister at the Wicklow meeting would undoubtedly have been trumpeted by the EU propaganda machine as a victory for "European integration." But the reality is that the Icelandic people said "No," and our government behaves as if nothing happened. Iceland's foreign minister still receives the red-carpet treatment. One must ask: by what right does a foreign minister from a country that just rejected the EU in a popular referendum attend an EU foreign ministers' meeting? Was the Irish Government so certain of the referendum's outcome – or so arrogant – that it could not conceive of any other result?

Even more alarming is that, as the Wicklow meeting convenes, a group of 11 EU member states led by Germany and France – Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, and Sweden – have signed a joint letter demanding an end to the unanimity rule in foreign policy. According to Euronews, the letter, addressed to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, outlines five reform principles, including exploring a shift to qualified majority voting via the "passerelle clause."

This is no mere technical adjustment. It is a direct assault on Irish national sovereignty.

Ireland's voting weight in the EU Council has already fallen from 2% before the Lisbon Treaty to less than 1%, while Germany's share doubled from 8% to 16%. The six largest EU states saw their combined Council votes rise from 49% to over 70%, while the 22 smallest states saw theirs fall from 51% to less than 30%. Now even foreign policy – the last bastion of national sovereignty – is being targeted.

Even the super-europhile Irish Times acknowledges that the veto ensures that small member states like Ireland are not forced to comply with foreign policies that contradict their values.

Yet what does Helen McEntee and her government colleagues have to say? Silence. Or worse – complicity.

This Wicklow meeting and the German-led campaign to abolish the foreign policy veto reveal a disturbing reality: Ireland's so-called "national" politicians have become completely disconnected from their own citizens.

The Irish people were never asked whether they wanted to hand over foreign policy decisions to Brussels qualified majority voting. They were never asked whether they wanted to be dragged into a proxy war against Russia. They clearly rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, but their will was ignored, the referendum was rerun, and the treaty was forced through.

Now the same script is being played out. Without a referendum, without popular consent, the Irish government is tacitly allowing the EU to strip away our veto in foreign policy. Meanwhile, our political elites are hosting Ukraine's foreign minister and NATO officials in a luxury Wicklow resort, as if none of this concerns the Irish people.

As one commentator observed, the EU has "hollowed out" Europe's nation-states – formal institutions remain in place, complete with salaries and perks for those running them, but the most important functions have been transferred to the supranational level. The State itself has become an enemy of its own people.

The campaign by Germany, France and their allies to abolish the national veto in foreign policy is the latest chapter in a decades-long transfer of power from nation-states to Brussels. From the Single European Act to the Maastricht Treaty, from Nice to Lisbon, each successive treaty has stripped powers from national parliaments and governments, gradually transforming Europe's nation-states into effectively provinces or regions of an emerging federal superstate.

Now foreign policy – the most fundamental expression of national sovereignty – is in the crosshairs.

The Irish government must vigorously oppose this move at every opportunity. If our government allows the erosion of our veto without a referendum, it will be betraying the trust of the Irish people. The Irish people must have the final say on any further transfer of power to Brussels.

The Wicklow meeting is a carefully staged diplomatic public performance. But the real drama unfolding behind the scenes is the slow death of Irish sovereignty.

When Helen McEntee hosts the EU foreign ministers at Druids Glen, she should remember: she represents not Brussels, but the Irish people.

Does she still remember that?

That's really below the belt! Spotted on the main street in Naas. A parody FF poster.
01/09/2026

That's really below the belt! Spotted on the main street in Naas. A parody FF poster.

The incomprehension of Irish europhiles at Iceland's decisive rejection of European Union membership talks reveals a fun...
31/08/2026

The incomprehension of Irish europhiles at Iceland's decisive rejection of European Union membership talks reveals a fundamental unwillingness to confront the historical record and undemocratic character of the European integration project.

When 52.8% of Icelandic voters rejected the government's proposal to reopen accession negotiations, the reaction from europhile quarters in Dublin—where the EU has been elevated to near-religious status—has been one of bewilderment. How could a prosperous, progressive Nordic nation choose to remain outside the club that Ireland embraced so enthusiastically?

The answer lies in a history that Irish europhiles have chosen to forget.

Icelanders probably observed what happened to Ireland—a small country that voted "No" to the Nice Treaty in 2001 and was made to vote again until it delivered the "correct" result. They witnessed Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, only to be forced into a second referendum in 2009, when economic pressure and manipulation secured the required "Yes." What kind of “union” disregards the expressed will of its citizens and demands they vote until they comply?

Irish europhiles, in their incomprehension, fail to acknowledge the institutional realities that Icelanders understood all too well.

The European Commission—the body with exclusive right to propose legislation—is composed of unelected officials who swear allegiance not to their countries but to the EU. Charles de Gaulle described it as "a conclave of technocrats without a country, responsible to nobody."

The Council of Ministers makes laws in secret, with approximately 85% of EU directives agreed privately in committees of civil servants. It is responsible collectively to nobody—the classical definition of an oligarchy.

The European Parliament, for all its democratic pretensions, cannot initiate any EU law. It can only amend draft laws that come from the Commission and Council. This is not a parliament in any meaningful sense.

And the Court of Justice has become a constitution-maker, interpreting treaties in ways that extend EU powers beyond what was agreed, ruling that EU law has primacy over national constitutions.

Icelanders weighed these realities against the modest benefits of EU membership. They recognised that the fisheries sector—a pillar of their economy and national identity—would be placed at risk. Ninety percent of companies in the industry opposed joining the bloc.

The EU's conciliatory approach on fisheries in the lead-up to the vote was treated with appropriate scepticism. Icelanders had seen how "solemn declarations" and "creative solutions" in Brussels often prove worthless once the treaty is signed. They understood what the Irish have learned through bitter experience: that the EU's promises are written in disappearing ink. Icelanders recognised this pattern. And they refused to become its next victim. They see the "Solemn Declaration" that was supposed to guarantee Irish military neutrality—the Triple Lock—subsequently written out of history by Ireland's political establishment.

The Icelandic vote is not exceptional—it is part of a consistent, continent-wide pattern. Every time the European project has been submitted to democratic judgment, it has been rejected:
Switzerland, 1992 — rejected EEA membership
Norway, 1994 — rejected EU membership
Denmark, 2000 — rejected the euro
Sweden, 2003 — rejected the euro
France and Netherlands, 2005 — rejected the EU Constitution
Greece, 2015 — rejected EU austerity (only to be forced to accept it anyway)
United Kingdom, 2016 — rejected EU membership

This is not a series of unfortunate accidents. This is a consistent pattern: when the decision is left to citizens, the European Union is rejected. That is why in Brussels they prefer to make decisions away from the democratic process.

Ireland's experience with the EU should have served as a warning to smaller nations. The Lisbon Treaty gave the EU full legal personality for the first time, primacy over national law, and population-based voting that reduced small countries like Ireland to under 1% of voting weight each.

The six largest EU states now have over 70% of the voting weight in the Council, while the 22 smallest have less than 30%. Small countries have not "pooled" sovereignty to gain influence—they have surrendered sovereignty to become provinces of a German-dominated empire.

The Icelandic vote represents a clear-eyed assessment of what EU membership truly entails. It is not about “opening out to the world” it is about an accelerating surrender of democratic self-government to unelected technocrats.

Irish europhiles who cannot comprehend Iceland's choice are those who have willingly blinded themselves to history. They refuse to acknowledge that the EU's problems are not caused by a lack of integration—they are caused by supranational integration itself.

The history of European integration is not a story of progress toward peace and prosperity. It is a story of democratic subversion, of elites who learned to despise the people they claimed to serve, of the systematic erosion of the most fundamental right of any democracy: the right of a people to govern themselves.

Icelanders understood this. Their "No" vote was not a rejection of Europe—it was a defence of democracy.
The incomprehension of Irish europhiles is evidence of how deeply the EU's anti-democratic culture has corrupted political discourse in its member states, creating a class of elites who have abandoned the very principles they claim to want to defend.

"Knife-edge"? It's the way I tell em!The EU is currently not attractive for countries with relative prosperity. Iceland ...
30/08/2026

"Knife-edge"? It's the way I tell em!

The EU is currently not attractive for countries with relative prosperity. Iceland worked its way out of the financial crisis back through devaluation and debt restructuring—without economically devastating austerity dictates from Brussels.

Within the EU, many people hold the EU solely responsible for their problems; outside the EU, many people think the EU is the solution to all their problems.

Not so in Iceland.

Finland and Israel have stealthily and shamefully agreed a memorandum of understanding extending a bilateral military ma...
29/08/2026

Finland and Israel have stealthily and shamefully agreed a memorandum of understanding extending a bilateral military materiel cooperation for a full decade.

Finnish broadcaster Yle reports that the pact updates a 2013 framework to enable joint research, development, and procurement, but crucially, it was approved solely through a closed-door written exchange between defence ministries, deliberately sidestepping any open parliamentary or public debate.

Finnish Opposition figures, including Green League chair Sofia Virta and Left Alliance chair Minja Koskela, have branded the extension a "historic shame," demanding to know why the government pressed ahead so covertly—and with zero public consultation—precisely as international censure over Israel's military campaign in Gaza intensifies.

Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen has brushed off allegations of underhand dealings, insisting that such administrative manoeuvres are standard practice for States engaged in the weapons trade, and that the framework simply enables necessary procurements.

Others see the government's calculated silence as a deliberate bid to keep a deeply contentious partnership firmly out of the public eye.

Guess who's running the asylum?
29/08/2026

Guess who's running the asylum?

Happy Days!
29/08/2026

Happy Days!

Address

25 Shanowen Crescent
Dublin
D09KC91

Telephone

+353872308330

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The People's Movement posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organisation

Send a message to The People's Movement:

Shortcuts

Share

Category