What happens to Irish Neutrality, or NATO, if TRUMP does a PUTIN over Greenland?
How will Ireland contribute to Europe’s defence if Ukraine falls and Russia attacks?
By Andy Pollak on Saturday, 27 December, 2025
Volodymyr Zelensky is my international political leader of 2025. I am amazed and humbled how this small, slightly-built former actor and comedian has, with immense calm, courage and indefatigability, maintained his morale, and the morale of his embattled country, through a year of merciless battering by the Russian army, public humiliation and near-betrayal by Donald Trump and indecision by the European Union. On Christmas Eve he was unveiling the latest peace plan, featuring a demilitarised zone along frozen battle lines, with both Ukrainian and Russian armies withdrawing equal distances to facilitate this. Almost certainly Vladimir Putin will say 'Nyet' and will continue his army's grinding advance in Donbas and murderous nightly bombardment of Ukraine's cities and towns with hundreds of missiles and drones.
Following the EU's latest 'fudge', declining to use Russian assets held in Belgium to fund the Kiev government (while offering a €90 billion loan), where does little Ireland stand in a potential confrontation between the EU and Russia over Ukraine? In a hard-hitting opinion piece earlier this month, the Irish Times' excellent political editor, Pat Leahy, wrote: "It seems increasingly likely that the question of Ukraine's ultimate survival as a sovereign and free country will come down to what the EU decides to do."1
He went on: "I wonder how much help we can be." A 2022 report from the government-appointed Commission on the Defence Forces concluded that Ireland was effectively defenceless on land, on sea and in the air.2 In particular, the report said that Ireland, with its eight-aircraft Air Corps, had "no air defence of any significance."
Leahy continued: "It is hard for EU allies to take Ireland seriously on security and defence matters. This is emphatically not because Ireland is a neutral country. Nobody minds that we are neutral. But they do mind that we are not contributing meaningfully to the EU's defence. They do mind that we are not capable of defending ourselves. They do mind that we have to rely on the expensively maintained armed forces of other countries - including, principally, the British [the irony of that!] - to defend the critical European infrastructure that runs through our waters in the shape of transatlantic cables. And they really mind that while not doing any of this, we see fit to lecture others about 'peace'.
"And they really, really mind that we do and don't do all this while enjoying the fruits of the most prosperous economy in Europe, buoyed by tax revenues from the US companies whose lucrative data flows through those same cables.
"We love to tell ourselves that we are renowned the world over as a neutral country, a 'voice for peace', on the side of right, not might. There is some truth to this. We have valuable connections to the global South where our mostly non-colonial past, and our history of missionary activity, has some currency.
"But among EU governments and the people who make policy decisions in our part of the world, many see us as freeloaders who combine an ability to benefit from the EU with an unwillingness to do our fair share in defending it - whilst at the same time striking a pose as moral leaders."
Leahy pointed out that "the EU has been the single most important policy of this country for the past half century." Most Irish people would agree that the benefits of EU membership to this country have been enormous. But "now the character of the EU is changing in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, ongoing Russian aggression aimed at EU members and the stepping back of the US from its traditional role as the guarantor of European security. Defence and security are becoming core parts of what the EU does."
Is this "a dangerous fantasy of bushy-eyebrowed colonels in bunkers, bent on the 'militarisation' of the EU at the behest of the 'military industrial complex"[in President Catherine Connolly's words during her election campaign]? Ask the Poles, Leahy said, as they mobilise 10,000 soldiers to guard railways that were sabotaged last month? Ask the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians, targeted by Russian-sourced cyberattacks, drones and balloons around their airports? Ask the Germans, probably the European country most reluctant to contemplate a conflict with Russia, whose head of military intelligence told a parliamentary committee recently that Moscow "will not hesitate, if necessary, to engage in a direct military confrontation with NATO". Ask the Ukrainians.
"All of this makes the world a more frightening place. Is an outright conflict between NATO - or at least the European members of NATO - and Russia now likely? Let's hope not. But it looks more possible than at any time since the height of the Cold War. History teaches us that only strength deters menace. It all makes fretting about the triple lock seem faintly ridiculous, doesn't it?"
And yet neutrality in general, and the triple lock in particular, were at the centre of Catherine Connolly's highly successful presidential election campaign. [The triple lock means that any deployment of more than 12 Irish peacekeeping soldiers overseas must have the approval of the government, the Dáil and the UN Security Council, including, one must assume, its permanent members, the US, Russia and China. What kind of an independent foreign policy is that?]. We Irish people love our neutrality. And one can see this point of view, for who wants to be dragged into a war over a faraway Eastern European country of which we know little? (Where have we heard that before?) And anyway, didn't we do our bit by taking in more than 120,000 Ukrainian refugees, around 80,000 of whom have remained?
The British historian of and commentator on Eastern Europe, Timothy Garton Ash, argues strongly that "it’s up to us Europeans to enable Ukraine to survive armed assault from Moscow and diplomatic betrayal from Washington. In doing so, we also defend ourselves."3
He then lists reasons why the EU may not act militarily: the myth of Russian invincibility; learned helplessness after 80 years of depending on the US for European security; the bureaucratic slowness of the EU; acute competition for public money in often heavily indebted European states with ageing populations; and national egoisms that saw Belgium's right-wing prime minister hold out against the seizure - on behalf of the EU - of Russian frozen assets in that country and their transfer to finance Kiev. He asks: "Will our diverse, complicated, self-doubting continent rise to this challenge?"
Speaking as a cussed northerner, it's the tone of moral superiority adopted by those strongly in favour of Irish neutrality and non-involvement that often gets to me. Was it morally superior (as opposed to the pragmatism of a small nation less than 20 years after its war of independence against Britain) to be neutral in the Second World War when Britain was leading Europe's democratic forces in the fight against Nazism? No. Was it morally superior to be both neutral and Catholic (and thus anti-Communist) during the Cold War, while sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella like the rest of Europe? No. So is it morally superior to refuse to have anything to do with an EU defence force when there is a warmongering Russian state on our common European doorstep? I would say no.
If we're going to be Europeans - having joined an association of nations which in 50 years saw us move from being one of the continent's poorest countries to one of its richest - we have to play our part, however small, in the defence of the common European home that has been so good for us and is now going through a difficult and dangerous time. At the very least, why don't we take a lead by making a firm offer of 360 Irish soldiers (roughly the same number as we send to UNIFIL in Lebanon, whose mission will end at the end of next year) to a European 'reassurance force' to help guarantee and police any ceasefire in Ukraine? It's a daunting prospect, and I am full of foreboding. But I believe it's the right thing to do.
1 'Fretting about the triple lock seems ridiculous now', Irish Times, 6 December
2 Conor Gallagher, 'Who protects Irish skies? The secret air defence deal that dates back to the Cold War', Irish Times, 8 May 2023
3 'Only Europe can save Ukraine from Putin and Trump - but will it?', Guardian, 6 December
Stormont's minister for copy and paste
Sam McBride, Belfast Telegraph, December 27th, 2025
One of the greatest dangers of AI is that it gradually rots human intellect; that it makes us so dependent on machines that our capacity for sophisticated thought dwindles through disuse.
But machines aren't always necessary for this retrenchment in human progress. Just look at Stormont.
Since devolution returned, one minister has relied on a single phrase to dismiss legitimate questions about myriad decisions she has taken.
That minister is Sinn Fein's Liz Kimmins and the phrase is “underfunding and austerity by the British Government”. I decided to establish just how often the lazily inaccurate phrase has been dumped out by the Infrastructure Minister.
After examining Assembly records, the answer is that this one minister has used those words 132 times this year alone — and that's just in response to written Assembly questions.
In the Gospel according to The LizBot, almost whatever the question, 'British austerity' is the answer. It's pathetic, but it's also revelatory about how Sinn Fein governs, and how Stormont works. Sinn Fein and the DUP have long been highly centralised parties. That in one respect can be a strength, giving them a clearer sense of what they're doing than in rivals where power is dispersed more widely.
But Kimmins' time as Infrastructure Minister is an example of when ultra-centralisation dulls the brain.
The phrase seems to first have started being used liberally while John O'Dowd was Infrastructure Minister, but Kimmins has adopted it even more enthusiastically.
When Alliance MLA Kellie Armstrong recently asked Kimmins why her department spells the picturesque Ards peninsula village Cloughey in multiple ways on road signs, Kimmins told her that there were “several older directional signs that use the spelling Cloghy” but “my department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to underfunding and austerity by the British Government and limited budget resources mean we must prioritise our interventions to those locations deemed most in need”.
PR prioritised over investment
To blame the Brits for not sending enough money to pay for a road sign is preposterous when the Executive has been able to find £5m to pay press officers since devolution returned last year, when it spends tens of thousands putting up ministers in five-star hotels, and can find the cash to fly PR photographers around the world with ministers.
But Kimmins has churned out this answer in response to questions about all sorts of decisions, whether the sums involved are massive or miniscule. What about expanding park and ride capacity in North Down, DUP MLA Peter Martin wondered. Kimmins told him that “due to underfunding and austerity” the available funding “must be prioritised accordingly”.
The irony of her answer was that she went on to set out multiple park and ride enhancements in North Down, which clearly hadn't been stopped by the supposedly Scrooge-like Treasury funding.
When will Meadowbrook Park in Newry be resurfaced, SDLP MLA Justin McNulty queried. Forget about it any time soon, it seems. Kimmins said: “My department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to underfunding and austerity by the British Government.
“While there are many roads that would benefit from investment, including Meadowbrook Park, Newry, due to limited budget resources, resurfacing work is taken forward through the prioritisation of those deemed most in need for intervention.”
This particular answer is a copy and paste response, repeated word for word in reply to multiple questions from MLAs about roads in poor repair, with just the name of the road altered each time.
What about an improved parking scheme in Hillview Avenue in Cloughfern, DUP MLA Phillip Brett asked. Nope: “Austerity by the British Government”.
Why is Northern Ireland spending so much less on public transport than England, Scotland or Wales, asked SDLP MLA Daniel McCrossan. It's the Brits' fault, apparently — they didn't send Stormont enough money.
Why does DfI now not consider moss on pavements as a defect, asked SDLP MLA Sinéad McLaughlin. “Austerity by the British Government,” obviously.
Why can't the minister repair defaced Londonderry road signs, DUP MLA Alan Robinson asked. You can guess the answer.
Sometimes the excuse is thrown in so randomly that it makes no sense. The SDLP leader of the Opposition, Matthew O'Toole, asked Kimmins if she was considering traffic calming measures around the Carryduff roundabout.
Kimmins began by trotting out the copied and pasted line about “underfunding and austerity by the British Government” but then went on to say it would make no sense to put speed humps on an arterial route carrying 20,000 vehicles a day.
So, if there would never be speed humps on such a route regardless of what her budget was, what is the relevance of how much money she's been given?
Similarly, DUP MLA Trevor Clarke asked if public petitions are given any weight in the decision about whether to install a pedestrian crossing.
This clearly relates to quite a technical question around policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “underfunding” — yet the same line was given to him.
Indeed, for reasons unknown, that section of the answer was put in bold. Perhaps that's because someone had quite literally copied and pasted it but forgotten to change the formatting.
Even Sinn Fein MLAs can't get more inventive answers. Sinn Fein's North Antrim MLA Philip McGuigan asked about installing footpaths in Rasharkin to connect the GAA grounds and other parts of the village.
“Underfunding and austerity by the British Government…” You know the rest.
The most infamous of these excuses was in relation to her failure to pedestrianise Hill Street, the pretty cobbled street at the heart of Belfast's Cathedral Quarter, which is blighted by cars.
For years — long before Kimmins' arrival — the department has failed to put up bollards to block cars, despite widespread support for the move.
In April, Kimmins said: “At present a cost estimate has not been completed, however, anticipated costs are likely to be in the region of £5,000… the impact of over 14 years of underfunding and austerity by the British Government has left the department experiencing significant staff shortages, this has meant that work is limited and can only proceed on the basis of prioritisation.”
After that prompted derision, eventually Kimmins did find the money to pedestrianise the street, but it was done so incompetently that there are still no bollards blocking entry to the street or enforcement of the new rules.
Lazy and Impotent
As a result, cars continue to trundle down the one-lane street amid Christmas revellers, in a symbol of Stormont's impotence.
While Kimmins is by far the most extreme example of this mantra, others in Sinn Fein have also adopted it, sometimes in ways which are nonsensical.
Last month, First Minister Michelle O'Neill told the Assembly chamber: “When we look at our public services in the north, which have been starved for so many years because of austerity decisions taken in London and are on their knees, we see that we need to continue to do what we can to improve things.”
The logic of that sentence is baffling. If Northern Ireland's public services are being wrecked by “British austerity” and Stormont can't do anything beyond a copied and pasted complaint, then what is the point of the government Sinn Fein leads?
Even for a party which aspires to a united Ireland that hope is — at the most optimistic — years away.
In the meantime, offering nothing beyond complaints is ultimately unsustainable.
One of the most pitiful elements of how many Stormont ministers govern is their attempt to claim personal credit for anything popular, while washing their hands of anything remotely controversial.
Last week, Kimmins' department issued a press release whose headline screamed: 'KIMMINS PROVIDES OVER £30M TO IMPROVE OUR ROADS'.
This money — which mostly came from the big bad Treasury in London — is something she claims she “provided”.
In Sinn Fein's world, any time they spend money in Stormont, the praise should go to Sinn Fein; any time they decide not to spend money, the blame should go to the dastardly Brits.
One of the many problems with this simplistic logic is that it is eroding Kimmins' ability to make persuasive arguments, which used to be a central element of democratic political debate.
In September, she said: “The reality is that the budget is nowhere near enough for me to do everything that needs to be done.” This involves basic financial illiteracy. No government minister anywhere finds themselves with the money “to do everything that needs to be done”.
Grown-up government involves ministers making decisions about priorities, taking responsibility for those decisions and deciding what to cut or what to tax in order to raise more money for spending.
Even if these claims about “British austerity” were true, they would be tiresome. Yet they're nowhere near being true.
Figures from the Fiscal Council show that Stormont's spending has risen 61% since 2017. It is now spending more than £32bn a year — more money than any Stormont administration has ever had to spend in the history of Northern Ireland.
Inflation has only risen by about 35% since 2017, meaning that almost half of the increase is quite simply Stormont getting and spending more money.
Kimmins' DfI has seen its budget soar over this period, surging from £791m to £1.4bn.
Inviting scrutiny of this by drawing attention to how much money this Executive is getting and how poorly it is being spent is, from Sinn Fein's perspective, unwise. It's also a huge tactical error. If Sinn Fein is this predictable, its opponents can play it at its own game.
Politics of the absurd
If almost any question draws the answer “British austerity”, they can ask questions which expose the absurdity of that position.
The reality is that Stormont ministers have the power to raise more money if they want to spend more money. They have deliberately chosen not to do so.
Indeed, Kimmins recently rejected mutualising NI Water as one of the ways in which it might be given the money to upgrade the sewerage system to prevent raw sewage being flushed into Lough Neagh and to enable house-building to resume across much of Northern Ireland where the sewers are at capacity.
Responding to a recent report by the Fiscal Council, that set out the mess in which NI Water has been left, Kimmins said “I welcome the report”, but went on to say: “While the report points to water charging through privatisation or rates increases, I have been clear that I will not implement any measures that will lead to household water charges on already hard-pressed families.”
That's her right as minister, but it carries consequences. It's not the fault of “British austerity” that NI Water doesn't have enough money; it's the fault of a Stormont Executive, which has consciously decided to underfund it.
More broadly, the Executive is now deliberately overspending its budget by hundreds of millions of pounds, with no plan as to how it will ever repay the debt.
On Monday, Ulster University's senior economist Esmond Birnie, who sits on the Fiscal Council, likened the Executive's approach to budgeting to an irresponsible individual maxing out their credit cards before Christmas.
He said: “There is a danger that Belfast breaching the normal rules has become accepted as standard operating procedure... reliance on overspend as a policy is dangerous, because it shifts a problem into the future and fails to solve that problem.”
I asked DfI how Kimmins could believe that a 56% increase in her department's budget since 2017 is austerity, and why she had voted for a budget which didn't raise lots more money from the wealthy who could pay more tax.
In response, DfI said: “Year after year, the budget provided by the British Government has been far short of what is required to support the delivery of front-line services and growth in the north.
"In fact, even the British Government has recognised that the north has been historically underfunded. It has decimated public services, including through staffing levels.
“The Executive prioritises the majority of its funding to the health service. The minister is committed to ensuring that people are at the heart of funding decisions, and that we do all that we can with our limited budgets to deliver services through efficiencies and innovation.”
Gerry Kelly named as ‘dominant figure’ in IRA by Garda security document
MARK HENNESSY, Ireland and Britain Editor, Irish Times, December 27th, 2025
Senior Sinn Féin figure Gerry Kelly was identified by An Garda Síochána as “the most dominant figure” within the IRA leadership in 1996, a letter to the Department of Justice reveals.
The letter was written by Noel Conroy, who then served as a Garda assistant commissioner, and who later went on to head the Criminal Assets Bureau, before serving as commissioner between 2003 and 2007.
“The current PIRA [Provisional IRA] strategy continues to be dominated and controlled by the leadership of Gerry Kelly, Belfast; Brian Keenan, Belfast; Martin McGuinness, Derry; Pat Doherty, Donegal; and Thomas “Slab” Murphy, Louth,” wrote Conroy in a two-page letter on the IRA’s activities on May 21st 1996 to secretary general of the Department of Justice Tim Dalton.
“Gerry Kelly is emerging as the most dominant figure within this group.
“Martin Ferris is also emerging as highly influential in formulating strategy and is consulted and advised by the northern leadership on all major issues,” Mr Conroy, who then headed the Garda’s crime and security branch, stated.
The IRA had called a ceasefire in 1994 in the context of peace negotiations involving the Irish and British governments. It was broken in early 1996 by a bombing in London’s Docklands, at South Quay near Canary Wharf. After the resumption of its violent campaign, the IRA declared a second ceasefire in July 1997.
Kelly, now the MLA for North Belfast, was jailed for being a member of an IRA group that carried out a series of car bombings in London in 1973.
A declassified British government file released earlier this year claimed he was involved in a reorganisation of the IRA in 1996. He said the information in the file was “not true”. He told the Belfast Telegraph that he was “not a member of the Irish Republican Army in the mid-1990s, but I was a member of Sinn Féin’s negotiations team throughout the talks process leading up to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and afterwards”.
Unrest in rank and file
Doherty, Keenan, McGuinness, Ferris and Murphy were named by then DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson under Assembly parliamentary privilege as members of the IRA’s army council in 2001, citing a security document.
Doherty, McGuinness, Ferris and Murphy were further named by an informer at Murphy’s 1998 libel trial as having attended a “revolutionary council” meeting in 1983.
In the letter, Conroy notes that there was “growing dissatisfaction amongst many” members of Sinn Féin and the IRA about “the non-consultative attitude of the current leadership of both organisations”.
This feeling had “been brought to a new low” just days before Conroy’s letter was written when Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams offered a qualified acceptance of the Mitchell Principles, which demanded that all parties agree to exclusively peaceful means.
“This is particularly evident in the Cork/Kerry, Limerick and Dublin regions. The constitutionality of the decision within Sinn Féin on the Mitchell Principles is being questioned,” Mr Conroy wrote.
“However, the Adams leadership has the approval of the Ard Comhairle of [Sinn Féin]. There is a growing feeling at grassroots level that the leadership is out of touch.
“Indeed, there are cynical comments about their ‘infallibility’ being expressed. This feeling is more marked in the South with Northern Units being more supportive.
“There are threats to use a constitutional provision which would allow for the calling of an emergency ardfheis. This view is mainly being expressed in the Cork/Kerry area,” he told the head of the Department of Justice, noting that “threats of resignation” were being made.
Saying that “Headquarters” was dismissive, Conroy said the republican leadership had “promised further meetings” but “it is intended if possible to hold off until after the elections when the leadership hope that their stance will be vindicated”.
Elsewhere, officials gave Kelly considerable credit for his efforts in the late 1990s and early 2000s to prevent street disturbances in Republican districts.
In August 2003, Irish and British officials said he had done “trojan work” to ensure the marching season had not descended into violence.
State papers on ‘top man’ in Northern Bank heist
GRÁINNE NÍ AODHA. Irish News and Belfast Telegraph, December 27th, 2025
Northern Bank robbery ‘was not a solo run’
BRITISH officials feared the ‘top man’ behind the Northern Bank robbery in 2004 would be “clever enough to avoid getting arrested”.
They also agreed that the heist would not derail peace process efforts, which included the details of decommissioning, but added that “the republican movement had knocked up the price”.
The exchange about the impact of the high-profile robbery was made during a meeting of British and Irish officials at Downing Street on January 5 in 2005.
A memo where the two governments discussed the robbery of £26 million in cash stolen from the Belfast bank in December 2004 was released as part of the annual release of National Archives in Dublin.
Then Downing Street chief of staff Jonathan Powell said discussions about a bilateral deal were ruled out in the aftermath of the robbery, and a meeting with Gerry Adams in Dublin the next day would be called off.
Irish civil servant Michael Collins said the Irish side “shared the deep anxiety about the bank robbery” and said they would welcome any information the British side had gathered.
Mr Powell said that the British authorities were “pretty certain that it was the IRA” and that it was undertaken by people who were “very close to the Sinn Féin leadership”.
He said that while the PSNI hoped to be in a position to make arrests in the time ahead, he “feared that the ‘top man’ involved would be clever enough to avoid being arrested”.
He also expected that the DUP would “go on the rampage” once then PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde attributed responsibility.
“Powell feared that the robbery would have proceeded even if the deal had been done with the DUP,” the note states.
Mr Collins said that it was “almost incomprehensible” that planning for the heist was taking place while the Sinn Féin leadership was involved in negotiations.
“The assessment on the Irish side was that the IRA remains a unified organisation; the Northern Bank was not a solo run.”
The two sides noted that while there were “fissures” in the IRA ceasefire, they were no longer recruiting in the Republic, and the organisation was becoming a “more concentrated group of able people”.
Mr Powell also said that while the heist was a “serious set-back”, there was a need to keep the process going and then Prime Minister Tony Blair was “not prepared to give up on the process”.
“However, the republican movement had knocked up the price,” the note said.
“Something categoric on criminality would now have to be part of the deal.”
There were two outstanding issues, of criminality and the transparency dimension of decommissioning.
Mr Collins suggested that the two governments could “stand back” from transparency and a process of third party mediation or conciliation “might, over time, identify a way forward”.
British civil servant Jonathan Phillips was “sceptical a third party engagement would succeed”.
Mr Powell also said that the British would not demilitarise in return for IRA arms decommissioning, but would demilitarise “in a house-keeping way” as it wanted to scale back its presence in Northern Ireland.
“The British government was not really interested in decommissioning; its priority was ending paramilitary activity and criminality.”
This article is based on documents contained in the file labelled 2025/127/90 in the National Archives of Ireland.
Irish Govt felt 'let down' by bank job, Ahern told SF
RALPH RIEGEL, Belfast Telegraph, December 27th, 2025
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told Sinn Féin officials that the Irish government felt “let down” by the Northern Bank robbery.
The revelation came in papers released as part of the Irish State Papers.
One document from early 2005 included speaking notes for Mr Ahern as he prepared to meet with senior members of Sinn Féin. Just weeks earlier, on December 20, 2004, £26.5m was stolen from the Northern Bank on Donegall Square West in Belfast.
“I would be less than honest if I didn't say that I feel let down and the government feels let down by what has happened in the last few weeks,” the note advised.
“I'm not going to go in to all I know about the Northern Bank robbery. [The chief constable of the PSNI] Hugh Orde has attributed the bank robbery to the PIRA and, on the basis of the information I have available to me, I have no reason to dispute that assessment. The government doesn't believe for one moment the claims that Hugh Orde is blaming the PIRA because he has some political agenda.”
A separate note in the same file for Mr Ahern also referenced IRA criminality. “I'm not trying to criminalise the IRA. The fact that the IRA continue to commit crime is what criminalises them.”
Another briefing note involved Irish Department of Justice officials privately warning there was “no evidence” the Provisional IRA was “winding down” in a January 2005 overview note before meetings with Sinn Féin. The note said that between January 2003 and August 2004 at least 76 shootings and 72 assaults and paramilitary beatings had been linked to republican groups.
It said: “It continued to recruit, though in small numbers; to gather intelligence; and to engage in some relatively low-level training.”
The document also said the PIRA “continued to engage in significant amounts of smuggling”; and continued “to commit paramilitary shootings and assaults although at a lower number than before and without committing murder”.
Victims of paedophile priest express anger as diocese misses compensation deadline
JOHN BRESLIN, Irish News, December 27th, 2025
VICTIMS of a prolific sexual and physical abuser of boys have reacted with anger and frustration after a Catholic diocese missed its deadline to pay compensation.
The five victims of former school principal Malachy Finegan were due to be paid a total of just over £1m by the Diocese of Dromore by Monday.
After years of legal action and on the eve of trials, the diocese settled with the victims in September and October over abuse committed by Finegan, the one time principal of St Colman’s College in Newry who died in 2002.
In a letter to Archbishop Eamonn Martin, the administrator of the diocese, one of the victims said it was “with great sadness and dismay” the settlement agreed between the legal teams last September had not been sent “to close the legal aspect of this story.
“That is something, I respectfully suggest, could – and should – have been done in a timely fashion to meet the deadline that was agreed to,” the victim added.
The failure to do so has “added to my distress and pain”, the survivor, known as CA in court documents, said.
The man has been involved in the legal process for compensation for five years.
Another said he was “devastated” and “disgusted” by the latest delay in completing the legal proceedings, which is linked to a court application by the diocese around its “financial position”.
The diocese, which was contacted for comment, is believed to be seeking court guidance around whether it can use restricted trust funds to cover settlements.
According to its 2024 accounts, the diocese has reserve funds of more than £26m but claims the majority of that money is restricted and can only be used by individual parishes.
The unrestricted fund had a deficit totalling just under £5m at the end of 2024, according to the accounts. This, the diocese adds, is largely due to the payment of compensation and legal fees, which totalled £2.4m last year.
In a separate move, the diocese is attempting to sell off land to cover the costs of compensation linked to the abuse committed by Finegan and others.
The Bishop’s House and 27 acres of surrounding land in Newry was put on the market two years ago. Archbishop Martin confirmed last Friday the house has been sold but the acreage is still on the market.
In a letter to parishioners, Archbishop Martin added: “However, in order to remain fully compliant with its legal duties, the Diocese has requested direction from the High Court in this past week concerning its financial position.”
Solicitor Claire McKeegan, of Phoenix Law, who is representing the five victims, said the survivors were put “through the ultimate stress of full trial preparation”.
“The case settled in September and agreed legally binding terms including time to pay expiring on Monday and yet again the survivors are let down,” Ms McKeegan said.
She added: “We would urge the church to do the right thing once and for all and keep to their commitments.”
Why I’m ashamed to be a member of the GAA
Croke Park has decided that the association should retain its links with Allianz despite opposition from many members
PATRICK MURPHY, Irish News, December 27th, 2025
I NEVER thought I would write this sentence, but I am ashamed to be a member of the GAA. In the mouth of Christmas, Croke Park decided that the organisation should retain its links with Allianz, a German multinational finance company which sponsors the GAA’s national leagues.
Earlier this year, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in occupied Palestine, Francesca Albanese, identified Allianz as among the global corporations which she said should be held accountable for “profiting from genocide in Gaza”.
She reported that through its subsidiary asset management firm Pimco, Allianz was a significant buyer of shares and bonds associated with the Israeli government.
The Irish Central Bank blocked approval for such bonds in September, because 70,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children, have been killed by that government.
The GAA’s decision was based on a report from what it called its ethics and integrity committee, specially created in September to examine the issue.
Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the principles of morality which guide behaviour. It has various sub-divisions, but it basically offers a framework for decision-making between right and wrong. Integrity is the commitment to adhere to those principles.
For 10 years I served as chair of a research ethics committee in the Department of Health. Its remit was to determine if proposals to carry out medical research were ethical, including clinical trials for new drugs. So I have some understanding of how an ethics committee operates.
Moral vacuum
With that knowledge and experience, I cannot find any ethical criteria on which the GAA’s committee based its recommendations, as summarised in a press statement.
The report is financial in nature, rather than ethical.
It claims that the GAA is ethically and legally bound to honour its contract with Allianz.
No: it is ethically bound not to honour a contract with Allianz, because it has financial links to a government led by a man whom Ireland would arrest for war crimes.
Yes, breaking the contract “could expose” the GAA to legal action, but would Allianz want details of its links with Israel exposed in court?
The committee claims that breaking the contract could damage the GAA’s reputation. That reputation is already damaged, because of its Allianz links.
For example, Francesca Albanese posted on X last weekend: “GAA, Irish largest sporting org. (once part of the resistance to British occupation) decided to maintain ties with Allianz, despite the latter’s dealings with Apartheid Israel. Placing profits above rights.”
Remarkably, the committee claimed that Allianz’s Irish branch was merely a “sibling or cousin company” of global Allianz and therefore not connected with the Israeli government.
Would the GAA now like to publish details of the Allianz corporation’s systems, structures and accountability network to support that claim? Failure to do so would be unethical.
Perhaps the most astonishing conclusion is that breaking the Allianz contract would make it “impossible to secure an alternative insurer that would not have similar links”.
Presumably they mean similar to Allianz’s links to Israel. However, the report denies such links exist, thereby defying logic as well as ethics.
These findings are effectively those of an accountancy committee. An ethics committee would have weighed financial implications against the moral considerations identified in the UN report. The report summary does not even mention Gaza.
GAA President Jarlath Burns defended the report. Replying to the point that almost 800 prominent GAA figures have signed an open letter asking the organisation to end its relationship with Allianz, he said, “800 might seem a lot. In the vast scheme of things, it’s 0.13% of our membership.”
He may not know that in 1916, the 1,500 people who took part in the Easter Rising represented about 0.049% of the population at that time.
They are the ones we honour today, not the British who described them as an unrepresentative minority.
In any case, nine counties, including the President’s own county, Armagh, oppose Allianz’s involvement in GAA sponsorship.
Finally, some might argue that opposing Allianz’s involvement in the GAA is part of some wider antisemitic campaign.
However, in May 1999, the World Jewish Congress won its case against several companies which had previously refused to pay out on insurance policies of Holocaust victims.
Allianz was among those sued because “it insured a number of concentration camps, including Auschwitz and Dachau”.
You see, ethics is not a matter of political opinion. It is a matter of morality.
That morality has been sidelined by the Croke Park hierarchy – and that’s why I am ashamed to be a member of the GAA.
