Irish Examiner view: Dáil disorder discouraging at such a fraught time
Social Democrats deputy leader Cian O'Callaghan, Green Party leader Roderic O'Gorman, leader of Solidarity-People Before Profit Richard Boyd Barrett, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, Labour leader Ivana Bacik, and Independent Ireland leader Michael Collins outside Goveernment Builings, Dublin, declaring they had no confidence in Verona Murphy.
The ongoing turmoil in Leinster House reached something of a watershed yesterday when the opposition parties called on Ceann Comhairle Verona Murphy to resign.
Readers could be minded to focus on Independent TD Michael Lowry, who appeared to use two fingers to make an immediately recognisable gesture in the Dáil Chamber, an image which swiftly assumed viral status.
This was not the most remarkable occurrence in the House this week, but that does not excuse Mr Lowry.
It was a crass act, unworthy of the Irish parliament: a genuine apology is the least he owes to the people he represents.
Days of argument, disorder, and anger culminated in Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald’s blunt assertion about Ms Murphy’s fitness for the office: "The Ceann Comhairle must be impartial, fair and independent and by your actions, you have demonstrated that you are not. Your position is therefore untenable...”
That was echoed by other opposition party leaders, who have given Ms Murphy until the end of the week to resign or else to face a motion of no confidence.
On paper, Ms Murphy’s position is safe. There are indications she does not intend to resign and she is backed by the Government.
If she were a minister she would survive with relative ease, apart from some metaphorical bruising.
For the Ceann Comhairle it is not nearly as straightforward.
Chairing Dáil debates means enforcing the rules, but a vote of no confidence means many Deputies do not believe she can do so fairly. How will the opposition parties accept procedural rulings issued by a chairperson they wanted to get rid of?
We can expect further turmoil in the Dáil Chamber, a discouraging thought at this fraught time.
At first glance it looks positive: Russia and Ukraine to agree some form of ceasefire in which maritime attacks are to stop, for instance, as well as attacks targeted at energy facilities.
Given the long grind of death and destruction in the region any prospect of a ceasefire seems welcome, but even this outbreak of peace, limited though it is, comes with significant caveats.
For one, both sides are disputing when the ceasefire comes into effect.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said it is effective immediately.
The Kremlin disagreed, and the details of that disagreement make for depressing reading.
As part of any ceasefire agreement Russia wants the easing of sanctions which it claims are affecting its exports of food products, fertilisers, and agricultural machinery.
It is also pushing for its financial institutions to be reconnected to the Swift payment system, having been expelled as punishment for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Swift is headquartered in Belgium and is therefore guided by EU law and EU sanctions.
America has signalled its intention to help Russia restore its access to export markets, but although it has been vague on helping Russia reconnect with systems such as Swift, clearly there is the potential for a significant disagreement between the EU and America on Russia’s access to same.
In terms of international diplomacy it is difficult to see Europe embracing American requests to accommodate Russia on a return to Swift with any warmth, to put it mildly.
The attitude of vice president JD Vance towards Europe, for instance, has won few fans for the US on this side of the Atlantic.
More significantly, the notion of America seeking sanctions relief for the aggressor in this conflict defies belief.
Whether the ceasefire is even functioning is a separate question, with Ukraine and Russia each accusing the other of breaching its terms already. Even if the guns eventually fall silent, issues such as Swift show that there are plenty of other complications to deal with. And a long road to travel first.
It is the time of year when one gets a glimpse of the changes in what is acceptable as discourse in real time, because the Oxford English Dictionary has updated us on its latest additions.
For Irish readers there is plenty to feast on.
‘Spice bag’ has been accepted by the dictionary as ‘a takeaway meal usually sold from either Chinese food outlets or fish and chip shops’, with the lexicographers offering a full description of the contents.
In an attempt to establish the provenance of the term, the dictionary has been brave enough to pinpoint a particular establishment in Dublin, allegedly the first to offer a spice bag to its customers.
The dictionary contributors can expect an influx of competing claims from every neighbourhood chipper and Chinese takeaway in Ireland, each claiming primacy, in the coming weeks.
The spice bag is of course best accompanied by a ‘mineral’, a term which has baffled non-Irish users of the English language for decades.
It is good to see that common sense has prevailed and it is now accepted as a term for a soft drink, bringing civilisation everywhere English is spoken.
Another addition to the OED is ‘blaa’, which readers familiar with the indigenous cuisine of the Southeast will know well.
The dictionary has tried a couple of tentative explanations for the term — a corruption of ‘blanc’ for white or ‘blé’ for wheat, but neither are entirely convincing.
Devotees of Waterford’s famous soft roll will no doubt be advocating strongly for the acceptance of ‘red lead’ — both as a necessary inclusion in the dictionary and as the ultimate accompaniment to the blaa itself.
