For the benefit of the ordinary man in the street, what exactly is the EU–Mercosur deal?
The EU–Mercosur deal is a major trade agreement between the European Union and four South American countries, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay(known together as Mercosur).
Its main purpose is to make trade between the two regions easier by: (1) Cutting or removing many tariffs (import taxes) on goods going both ways. (2) Opening up markets for EU cars, machinery, medicines and services in South America. (3) Giving Mercosur countries more access to the EU for products like beef, poultry, sugar and other agricultural goods. (4) Setting common rules on things like food safety, intellectual property, and government contracts, including environment and labour commitments, though critics say these may not be strong enough.
Supporterssay: It will boost trade and strengthen EU ties with South America. Opponents, especially Irish farmers, say: It will bring in cheaper agricultural imports produced under lower standards, thus harming rural economies, and could indirectly increase deforestation in South America.
The EU–Mercosur Agreement, now entering a contentious ratification phase across the European Union, represents one of the most far-reaching trade deals negotiated by the EU in decades. While the agreement promises tariff reductions, expanded market access and strategic benefits in South America, it also presents serious risks for Ireland’s agricultural sector, its environmental standards and long-term rural sustainability. For these reasons, Ireland is justified in maintaining a cautious, and in many respects critical, stance as the ratification process unfolds.
Politically, the agreement remains highly unstable. The European Parliament is deeply divided, with recent votes showing only a narrow margin between supporters and opponents. Key member states, including France, Poland, Austria, the Netherlands and Italy, have already expressed strong reservations. The European Commission has attempted to push the process forward, but the fact that ratification was paused earlier this year reflects the scale of political tension surrounding the deal. Ireland is far from isolated in its concerns.
From an Irish perspective, the most immediate threat arises in agriculture. The agreement would grant substantial additional market access for South American beef, poultry and sugar into the European Union. Even with quota limits, the increased volume of imports would land directly into the most sensitive areas of Irish farm production, particularly beef. Irish farmers compete in one of the most regulated, high-cost and environmentally scrutinised agricultural systems in the world. Allowing cheaper imports produced under lower labour, welfare and environmental standards risks undermining the viability of family farms that form the backbone of rural Ireland. The European Commission has floated an “emergency brake” to reimpose tariffs if imports surge, but farmers’ organisations in Ireland are unconvinced that such mechanisms would be swift, robust or transparent enough to prevent serious market disruption.
Environmental concerns deepen this opposition. Ireland, like all EU member states, is bound by stringent climate and biodiversity targets. Yet the Mercosur bloc includes regions facing chronic deforestation pressures, particularly in Brazil and parts of the Amazon basin. Critics fear that increased export incentives for beef, soy and other commodities could accelerate land-use change in sensitive ecosystems. Although the agreement contains sustainability clauses linked to the Paris Agreement, enforcement mechanisms remain weak. It would be inconsistent for Ireland, already struggling to meet its own climate commitments, to endorse a trade deal that may indirectly contribute to global environmental degradation.
A further issue is regulatory asymmetry. The EU maintains some of the highest standards in the world regarding food safety, traceability and animal welfare. While the agreement requires Mercosur exporters to meet EU standards at the border, there is limited assurance that production systems on the ground will adhere to equivalent requirements. This raises real concerns about fair competition and consumer confidence. Irish farmers and processors, who invest heavily in compliance, would face competitors who do not operate under the same regulatory burdens.
Ireland also has legitimate procedural concerns. The decision by some in the European Parliament to challenge the structure of the agreement before the Court of Justice highlights unresolved questions about democratic scrutiny. Attempts to rush ratification without adequate debate risk eroding public trust in EU trade policy at a time when transparency is essential.
Finally, the strategic argument advanced by the European Commission, that the deal is needed to diversify trade and secure access to raw materials, does not outweigh the potential social and economic consequences for Ireland’s rural communities. Diversification is important, but not at the expense of domestic sectors that have already absorbed significant pressures from climate policy, volatile markets and rising production costs.
For all these reasons, economic, environmental, regulatory and democratic, Ireland is justified in maintaining a firm, evidence-based opposition to the EU–Mercosur Agreement in its current form. Any trade deal of such scale must protect the interests of Irish farmers, uphold the integrity of EU environmental commitments and ensure equal standards for all producers supplying the European market. Until those conditions are met, Ireland’s stance is both prudent and necessary.
A Growing Catalogue of Arrests, Resignations, Expelling’s and Charges Raises Questions.
As Sinn Féin positions itself as a “Government-in-waiting”, the party continues to face uncomfortable scrutiny over the number of members, former members and associates who have been arrested or charged with serious offences in recent years.
An examination of publicly reported cases between 2015 and 2025 reveals a significant series of criminal investigations involving individuals linked to the party; ranging from sexual offences and child exploitation to violent crime, coercive control, fraud, and high-profile gangland-related charges. While the party has consistently stressed that individuals facing prosecution are immediately suspended and that Sinn Féin “does not tolerate criminality,”the accumulation of cases has prompted renewed debate about whether the organisation is adequately equipped to manage governance at national level.
A Decade of Difficult Headlines. Among the most serious cases is that of Mr Jonathan Dowdall, the former Dublin City councillor who was arrested and later charged in connection with the Regency Hotel investigation. Dowdall ultimately pleaded guilty to facilitating the murder of Mr David Byrne and received a four-year prison sentence before entering the Witness Protection Programme.
Also significant is the conviction of Mr Michael McMonagle, a former Sinn Féin member in Derry, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault against minors. He was sentenced to prison and later returned to court for breaching court-imposed restrictions.
Then there was Mr Niall Ó Donnghaile a Senator and former Sinn Féin Seanad leader who was suspended (reported Sept 2023) and resigned from the Seanad in December 2023. Referred internally to PSNI/Social Services after it emerged, he had sent “inappropriate” messages to a 17-year-old; party says there were no criminal findings, but the matter led to his suspension and later resignation.
Mr Barry McElduff, a Former Sinn Féin MP (West Tyrone) was suspended in January 2018 and then resigned as MP shortly afterwards. The reason was he posted a video widely seen as mocking the Kingsmill massacre, (Whitecross massacre) which saw the shooting dead of 10 workmen, which caused major public outrage; suspension was a party sanction (the incident was not a sexual/criminal charge but was a conduct controversy that led to suspension/resignation).
In Belfast, Mr Cathal McLaughlin, a councillor at the time of his suspension from the party, was charged and later convicted of sexual assault, receiving a suspended sentence. His appeal was dismissed.
In recent days a female, a party member in Co Laois, was expelled from Sinn Féin after her home was searched by an Garda Síochána and her partner was arrested in connection with a terrorism-related investigation. The probe relates to an alleged far-right extremist group plotting an attack on a mosque in Galway, linked to explosives found in Co Laois and Co Down. Sinn Féin’s statement says the member failed to inform the party that her home had been raided, or to alert the party to the seriousness of the situation. That failure was cited as the reason for expulsion. Her partner, a man in his 30s, remains detained under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. He is not named in initial press reports. The fact that a raid occurred on the house of a party member linked through a partner to an extremist investigation, touches on issues of vetting, disclosure and risk management within the party structure.
The full facts are not yet publicly available. However, we understand that the suspect in this far-right extremism probe met Mrs Mary Lou McDonald campaigning during the general election and urged people to vote for the party last year, declaring: “Let’s bring our country back.” While not known as a party member he was in attendance at a party event in Dublin some six weeks ago. Sinn Féin have confirmed that the woman and her partner, who is being held in a Midlands Garda Station, were signed into Leinster House twice. We ask the question, “Is Sinn Féin now expelling members for terrorist activities, God knows in the past they were welcomed?”
Why have so many Councillors Jumped Ship in the past decade?
Name.
Council/Area
When left
Reported Reason/ Context
June Murphy.
Cork (Fermoy).
Sept 2015.
Resigned citing “an increasingly negative experience” amid local bullying/discipline disputes.
Kieran McCarthy.
Cork County Council.
June 2015 (expelled).
Expelled after an internal review into constituency structures (financial/disciplinary disputes).
Melissa Mullane.
Cork.
2015 Suspended (12 months).
Following the Cork East internal review; part of the same row that saw other departures.
Ger Keohane.
Cork County Council.
Nov 2015.
Resigned from Sinn Féin (reported as a defection) part of multiple Cork departures in 2015.
Noeleen Reilly.
Dublin City Council (Ballymun-Finglas).
Feb 2018.
Resigned citing an “orchestrated bullying campaign”; previously suspended by the party.
Lisa Marie Sheehy.
East Cork.
Sept 2017.
Resigned citing intimidation / being “plotted against”(connected to the Cork East disputes).
Sorcha O’Neill.
Sorcha O’Neill Kildare (former Sinn Féin councillor).
Apr 2017.
Resigned citing “bullying, hostility and aggression” within the local organisation.
Gabe Cronnelly.
Galway County Council.
May 2020.
Resigned from Sinn Féin and sat as an Independent; cited lack of local/national support.
Paul Hayes.
Cork County Council May 2020.
May 2020.
Resigned from Sinn Féin and sat as an Independent; cited lack of local/national support.
Danielle Twomey.
Cork County Council (East Cork).
Dec 2023.
Resigned citing relentless online harassment and internal party “backhanded moves”; now Independent.
Aidan Mullins.
Laois County Council.
Aug 2024.
Resigned after being told he would be suspended for three months; said he was being “silenced” on migration and related issues.
Caroline Dwane-Stanley.
Laois County Council.
Dec 2024.
Resigned saying the party was “not a safe place”; cited the party’s handling of a controversy affecting her family.
Ursula Gavan.
Limerick City & County Council.
Jan 2025.
Resigned citing “family loyalty” after her husband, Senator Paul Gavan, was left off the party’s Seanad selection.
So we ask “Pattern or Misfortune?“ Sinn Féin would argues that such incidents are comparable to those occurring in other major parties and insists that swift disciplinary action is taken when allegations emerge. In several cases, the party suspended individuals even before charges were formally brought, citing safeguarding concerns.
Critics, however, contend that the volume and gravity of cases linked to Sinn Féin is “disproportionately high,” particularly compared with other parties of similar size. They also point to instances where individuals remained active in local structures despite concerns being flagged, or where the party leadership sought to distance itself, only after legal proceedings became public.
Security analysts note that Sinn Féin’s rapid growth, combined with historically looser local-level structures, may have contributed to inconsistent vetting and oversight. Several of the cases involved long-standing activists who operated within community-based settings with limited central supervision.
Mounting Political Pressure. Opposition politicians have already moved to capitalise on the issue, arguing that Sinn Féin has yet to demonstrate that it can meet the standards of transparency, safeguarding and organisational discipline expected of a party preparing to lead government. Privately, some within Sinn Féin acknowledge that the headlines of the past decade, and particularly the high-profile nature of the most serious cases, have caused significant internal discomfort.
The Question for Voters. As the party continues to anticipates entering government for the first time in the Republic, the question lingers: Can Sinn Féin convincingly reassure the public that its structures, oversight and internal controls are robust enough for national leadership?
The answer may ultimately rest not on the number of individuals charged, but on whether the party can demonstrate that it has learned from its many past failures, and whether voters believe Sinn Féin can uphold the standards it repeatedly demands from other parties in Government.
Ireland has failed to achieve the targeted emission reductions during the first Carbon Budget period (2021-2025).
Instead of the maximum emissions of 295 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2eq) set out in the Carbon Budget to 2025, we will overshoot by about 10 Mt CO2eq. Whilst acknowledging progress made, the Council warns that this overshoot will need to be paid back in the next Carbon Budget period (2026-2030) making it increasingly difficult to achieve.
The biggest blockage to Ireland’s progress remains our dependence on expensive, harmful fossil fuels, which were subsidised by €4.7bn of taxpayers’ money in 2024.
Launching the final chapter of its Annual Review the Council once again, called out Transport, where emissions remain stubbornly high. Both the Government and the public can do more collectively and individually to make significant emissions reductions. The Council calls for increased expenditure on public transport ensuring efficient, reliable and timely services, increased grants for less expensive electric vehicles (EVs) and the rapid implementation of a demand management strategy to help drive down emissions in this sector.
In addition, the Council has emphasised the critical role that Local Authorities play in driving climate action at community level, especially with the establishment of flagship “decarbonisation zones” within each local authority area. These zones create momentum and deliver locally tailored solutions for households and businesses.
The Council re-emphasised the significant opportunity that Ireland has to invest in households, communities and businesses, rather than paying extremely punitive compliance costs estimated to be up to €26bn for failing to meet EU targets.
Commenting, Ms Marie Donnelly, Chair of the Climate Change Advisory Council said, “In our first Carbon Budget period, progress has undoubtedly been made in the built environment with the roll out of retrofits in our homes, the increased uptake of protected urea in agriculture and the growth in the development of renewable energy especially wind and solar, including on our houses. However, we need to redesign how we commute, heat homes, and power the economy. That means real investment in people, infrastructure, and communities, not more delay.”
“We have the opportunity and the resources to transform Ireland, both in terms of reducing emissions and preparing for future climate events. We must act now because if we don’t, we will pay the financial and societal price by losing out on secure and affordable energy, a healthier and more sustainable society, both today, and for future generations.”
Ahead of Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union, the Council has urged the Government to fully integrate all climate and energy-related EU directives into Irish law within the legally binding time limit.
Government announces 117 projects to be funded under the 2025 Integration Fund.
€3.6 million will be made available to 117 not-for-profit, civil society and community-based organisations for integration based projects.
Grants of up to €100,000 will be allocated to successful organisations to assist in the integration of migrants.
The Irish government announced the names of 117 community-based projects set to receive €3,612,974 in funding under the 2025 Integration Fund. The Fund helps enable community organisations across Ireland to play a greater role in promoting the integration of migrants.
The Integration Fund combines the two funds previously known as the International Protection Integration Fund and the Communities Integration Fund. Since their inception, both funds have provided close to €10m in funding to over 1,000 projects across the country.
Scheme A was open to projects that specifically promote the integration of International Protection Applicants; while Scheme B was open to smaller scale projects that promote the integration of any migrant group. All applications have been assessed against the selection criteria set out in the funding call guidelines.
Of the 2025 Integration Fund Successful Projects, Tipperary benefitted from only two grants, namely:-
Scheme A
Organisation Name.
Project Name.
Amount.
County.
Silver Arch Family Resource Centre.
Unity Youth Hub.
€94,874.
Tipperary.
South Tipperary Development Company.
Bridging Language for Employment.
€38,900.
Tipperary.
Also under Scheme A the other organisations who benefited included:- one in Cavan; two in Cork; three in Donegal; twenty three in Dublin; four in Galway; one in Kerry; one in Kilkenny; two in Limerick; one in Louth; three in Mayo; two in Meath; one in Sligo; one in Westmeath and one in Wexford.
Scheme B
Under Scheme B the other organisations who benefited included:- one in Carlow; two in Clare; five in Cork; four in Donegal and six in Dublin
This level of funding has been made available in 2025 as a targeted measure and parity funding may not be available in future editions of the fund.
€18,611 Per Bike? That’s One Expensive Two-Wheeler Area.
Bike Rack or Bank Vault? €336K Suggests the Wheels Were Secured Through Gold Bars.
Simon Harris faced a wave of criticism from the public after news broke about the €336,000 bike shed erected at Leinster House.
Dozens of emails accused the then Taoiseach and other politicians of wasting taxpayer money, with some suggesting the project symbolised everything wrong with government spending priorities.
Leinster House’s Deluxe Bike Hangar: While Taxpayers Wait In The Rain.
An internal audit later found that no value-for-money assessment was carried out before construction began. The controversy intensified after it emerged that a separate €190,000 was being spent on a fitness instructor for TDs.
Failure by OPW to plan “hot air” openings for Tipperary politicians.
Many correspondents expressed anger over what they saw as misplaced priorities, contrasting the bike shed’s cost with ongoing struggles faced by families of children with disabilities and survivors of State institutions. One disgruntled observer locally in Thurles was heard to quip that a section of the shed should open occasionally, to allow “hot air” to escape, from Tipperary politicians.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Recent Comments