‘Daddy' Trump meets Nato, while defence, trade and Gaza dominate EU summit
Pat Leahy and Cormac McQuinn join Jack Horgan-Jones to look back on the week in politics:
US President
Donald Trump
was the main attraction at a landmark Nato summit on Wednesday with
Nato secretary general Mark Rutte
calling him 'Daddy' during their press conference. Trump got what he came for with Nato member states agreeing to an increase of
5 per cent of GDP in defence spending
.
Over at the EU leaders summit on Thursday, defence spending was also high on the agenda with Ireland backing the
EU's €150bn defence plan
.
The war in Gaza was highlighted too with
Taoiseach Micheál Martin
unable to comprehend how Europe doesn't seem capable of putting any pressure on Israel to stop it. And with Trump's tariffs pause set to end on July 9th, Ireland and other EU countries will be forgiven for looking at India and China as greater trading partners.
Do policy interventions like reviewing RPZs compensate for
the delayed release of the Government's housing plan
? The document won't be published until after the summer.
Presidential candidates are still pretty thin on the ground with
Fine Gael's Seán Kelly
saying he 'could do a lot' as president but stopped short of declaring he actually will enter the race.
Plus, the panel picks their favourite Irish Times pieces of the week:
The endurance test that
Irish concert-goers
have to go through is worth it, Democratic mayoral primary
Zohran Mamdani
shocks as New York swelters, and
Jaws and its Irish connection
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
How are fluctuating oil prices affecting motorists at the pumps?
Motorists are feeling the pinch at the pumps this month, as both petrol and diesel prices are rising. While the month-on-month changes are relatively minor, they still add financial pressure especially for those commuting regularly and long-distance drivers. Several factors are driving these price hikes including rising global oil costs, domestic tax policies, and the seasonal surge in summer travel. Electric Vehicle (EV) charging prices, however, remain stable, continuing to offer a reliable alternative. Higher when the price of oil goes up it can directly increase the cost of producing electricity. And in Ireland, many power plants rely on oil and gas to generate electricity. According to AA Ireland's figures, fuel prices in Ireland have been steadily climbing in recent months, with petrol costing €1.80 per litre and diesel costing €1.77 per litre during the months of February, March and April. A fuel price drop in May saw petrol down to an average of €1.76 per litre, down 4 cents, while diesel fell to an average of €1.68 per litre, down 9 cents. But this month saw increases creeping up again with petrol now costing an average of €1.77 per litre, up 1 cent since May and diesel has risen to an average of €1.69 per litre, up 1 cent month-on-month. Wholesale oil prices have been fluctuating wildly in recent months, particularly in June when the Israel-Iran conflict broke out. Global benchmark Brent futures went from a high of $75.47 a barrel on April 2 to a four-year low of $58.40 on April 9. It saw another low on May 5 but since then Brent has been trending higher, reaching $70.40 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran. The Israeli attacks and the subsequent US bombings saw crude spike to a five-month high of $81.40 a barrel on June 23, before the risk premium evaporated with a ceasefire deal announced by US President Donald Trump. Oil prices rose on Friday (June 27) though they were set for their steepest weekly decline since March 2023, as the absence of significant supply disruption from the Iran-Israel conflict saw any risk premium evaporate. The cost of petrol, diesel and home heating are increasing here as fuel retailers in Ireland are responding to international costs that are outside their control. Industry group Fuels for Ireland, the representative body for the liquid fuels sector, is warning that recent increases are putting renewed pressure on households and businesses. CEO of Fuels for Ireland, Kevin McPartlan warns how fuel is taxed is a matter for national policy. "When fuel prices go up, so does the State's tax take automatically, that may be fiscally efficient, but it can be economically and socially regressive," said Mr McPartlan. "This underlines the urgent need for a comprehensive review of how fuel for heating and transport is taxed." How is the price at the pump formed? The price of petrol and diesel is a combination of global and local factors. Crude oil is the main driver which is then influenced by costs such as refining and distribution, taxes, and retailer margins. In Ireland fuel taxes include excise duty, carbon tax and VAT, this means if you take AA Ireland's price for petrol in June of €1.77 per litre, then more than one euro is going to the government due to these levies. Brent crude prices are constantly shifting, when a refiner buys crude oil at a certain price on a certain day, they must refine it and transport it onwards. So as an input cost into the pump prices, there is a lag of about two weeks on crude prices when you see the trend where Brent goes up and down, and when the pump price is up and down. Exchange rate fluctuations can also affect the price in local currencies as refined fuels are often sold in US dollars. Crude price two weeks ago at the start of the Israel Iran conflict were going up, and that impact is still being felt now. But wholesale prices have flattened again as the ceasefire is seeing prices decline and are expected to stabilise. "What you would hope and expect now is pump prices have begun to fall already and over the next couple of days that fall will continue as people get new deliveries in," said Mr McPartlin. "They'll have bought at a lower wholesale price, and it seems to have levelled out, or there hasn't been any dramatic change in the last 24 hours (Friday 27)". What is Brent crude? Brent crude is a specific type of light, sweet crude oil which can be easily refined into petrol and diesel. The price of Brent crude is a major benchmark for the purchase of oil worldwide, so it can influence the price of other crude oils and refined products worldwide. It is the benchmark used for the light oil market in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Higher energy costs can make many goods more expensive across the world. Ireland imports 100% of its fuel needs and is therefore fully exposed to global markets. What are can motorists expect for the coming months? It is impossible to say. No one could have predicted the US bombing Iran, the ensuing ceasefire, the doubts over the ceasefire and the wild excesses it would cause on wholesale prices. But traders always factor risk into the market, whenever there is any uncertainty the wholesale prices go up straight away. Markets are reacting to risk, not just reality, with the speculative effect driving up prices, even in the absence of supply shortages. In Ireland even If all the storage tanks were completely full, they would hold around enough fuel for 10 days, but not all tanks are full at any one time. There is a reliance on ship deliveries and stocks are constantly running down. "It's never the case that people are sitting on high levels of stocks, we run on a just in time delivery basis throughout the supply chain," said Mr McPartlan. He is cautiously optimistic that the fear or concern the important shipping route The Strait of Hormuz would be closed is diminishing, and if that continues then wholesale markets will reflect that in prices. However, this expectation of some kind of stability for now is no indication of what could lie ahead. "To suggest what's going to happen weeks from now in a market which is really very dynamic would be foolish in the extreme," said Mr McPartlan. What could be done to ease costs for consumers? Fuels for Ireland said Irish motorists pay more tax on fuel than any other EU Member State, and Ireland has a higher dependency on oil than all but one of them. They are calling on the Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe to establish a group of experts to review how fuel for heating and transport is taxed. "Price volatility is largely and overwhelmingly a result of global events over which we have very little influence," said Mr McPartlan "The one thing that we do have control over in this country is the taxation." Fuels for Ireland is proposing the group would include representatives from the fuel industry, environmental experts, economists, consumer groups including different demographics and people from rural areas. The aim, according to Mr McPartlan, is to achieve shared objectives of making sure the state gets a fair return on tax from fuels, that renewable and sustainable options are supported and that they don't make it unaffordable for people. "We think that all of those different interest groups, all the stakeholders could buy into that as a model for a conversation, we're hoping the Minister will do that and that he will make some changes in time for budget 2026." Mr McPartlan said the Minister has agreed to meet with them, and they are waiting to set a date.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Why new homes may not get planning in Dublin after 2028
"The chain is only as strong as its weakest link." Eighteenth century philosopher Thomas Reid's quote could be applied to building houses in Dublin. That weak link is water. Local authorities in the capital will be unable to grant planning for new homes from 2028 onwards unless Uisce Éireann, formerly Irish Water, gets the green light for a massive new drainage scheme. For a city facing an acute housing crisis, that would be catastrophic. The Ringsend treatment plant in Dublin's south inner city is currently approaching maximum capacity. Other facilities are near or above their limits. If Dublin continues to build homes without additional wastewater capacity it risks polluting the sea around the capital, putting Ireland in breach of EU water standards affecting users of amenities such as beaches and swimming areas. If there is not sufficient water treatment, councils may have to turn down planning applications. Uisce Éireann's plan is called the Greater Dublin Drainage scheme. It would provide water treatment for half a million people in the capital and in parts of Meath and Kildare. It includes a 14km orbital sewer from Abbotstown which would connect a treatment plant in Clonsagh with an 11km outfall pipe running far out to sea north of Howth. But the project has been tied up in the planning process for seven years at a time when the housing crisis has worsened. A planning application was originally lodged for the scheme in 2018, it was subject to a judicial challenge in 2020, and due to one legal defect went back to An Coimisiún Pleanála in 2021. Uisce Éireann submitted further information last year and is still waiting for approval. This lengthy process was triggered by an appeal by one sea swimmer. The seven-year delay has seen costs for the project rise from €600m to €1.3bn. Even if the planning board gives permission for the drainage scheme, it could still be delayed again by another judicial review. If that happens, local authorities are unlikely to be able to give planning approval for new homes in many parts of north Dublin. This is an area where there are plans for significant numbers of new housing projects. Undoubtedly wastewater is the most acute issue facing Uisce Éireann. But the provision of water itself is a huge challenge too. Currently the River Liffey supplies 85% of the requirements for 1.7m people, and that is not viewed as sustainable. Uisce Éireann says the impact of climate change is already evident, and it will worsen. It says: "Extreme weather in the form of both droughts and intense rainfall will affect both the availability and quality of water." There are serious concerns about supplies for the capital and the midlands with residents in Mullingar already living with restrictions. The current sustainable production of water in the Greater Dublin Area is 620 million litres daily. In the week up to Sunday 22 June this year, the average usage was 635 million litres with storage in treated water reservoirs also used to meet demand. Supplies are very tight and there is little headroom for more housing with the population expected to grow by 25% by 2040. Uisce Éireann's plan is to use 2% of the water flowing from the River Shannon and pipe it to Dublin. It would be sourced from the Parteen Basin in Lough Derg which lies between Co Clare and Co Tipperary. Parteen is a reservoir which holds water used at the Ardnacrusha hydroelectric plant. The water would be treated nearby at Birdhill, Co Tipperary and transferred by gravity to a reservoir in south Dublin via a buried pipeline. This is not a new plan. The current iteration dates back to 1996. It has been agreed by the Government, and Uisce Éireann expects to submit a planning application at the end of this year. But there are objections to its environmental impact. The schemes to address water supplies and drainage to keep up with the demands for housing will require more money. Some €10.3bn has been allocated to Uisce Éireann for capital projects between now and 2029. The organisation says it requires a further €2bn. Next month the National Development Plan will be published by the Government and it is likely to address funding for Uisce Éireann. But even if the money is allocated, the organisation has a steep hill to climb if it is to make sufficient progress to meet growing requirements for more homes.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Bombs away - what happens in the aftermath of US attack on Iran?
You can actually understand why Donald Trump was a bit miffed about the public (i.e. media) reaction to last weekend's bombing raid on Iran. It actually was an astonishing feat of arms. Don't get me wrong - there absolutely is a need to critically review that operation, and the US media has mostly done the job it's supposed to: examine the official version, to see how public money is spent. And be in no doubt - this one cost billions. And academics and think tankers did what they are supposed to do: think deeply on the consequences of the action. The various intelligence services did what they are supposed to do too: coldly assess information that the public does not have access to and report the line to political bosses. Sometimes that stuff gets leaked - for all sorts of reasons. So yes, we'll do a little bit of critical analysis of our own later. But first - the mission. The details and the background are useful in assessing the usefulness or otherwise of the US intervention against Iran. Apparently, it's the first time the US has ever directly gone into battle on the Israeli side. That in itself is remarkable, all the more so as the president campaigned on the promise of not allowing the US to be dragged into foreign wars. Yet dragged in, it was. And rather rapidly. Lots of people in America pointed that out. And questioned the efficacy of the raid. That didn't please the president, who took it personally and his administration went on the offensive personally - targeting named reporters from a number of outlets, including CNN and Fox News. At the NATO summit on Wednesday, he posted 28 times on social media complaining about the coverage. He also accused the media of disrespecting the bomber crews and other military who took part and downplayed the difficulty of the operation (in fact the media coverage did neither, but hey). Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth went on the warpath on behalf of his boss, losing the last shreds of his coolness and composure at an ill-tempered press conference on Thursday, even denouncing a one-time colleague at Fox News by name (the reporter in question is a very highly-regarded 18-year veteran of the Pentagon beat). How was the mission was carried out? But back to the mission. The highlight of that news conference on Thursday was the presentation by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Dan Caine, who gave a lot more of the background to the mission. And it goes a long way to explain the presidential umbrage of the previous days. General Caine revealed that the bombing raid on Fordow was not something whistled up in a week by order of the Commander in Chief (let alone cogged from the plot of Top Gun: Maverick). It was in fact a hugely-costly, incredibly-complex operation that has been fifteen years in the making. He told us about the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a little-known annex of the Pentagon that is based in Fort Belvoir in North Virginia. Back in 2009 a DTRA officer was "brought into a vault at an undisclosed location and briefed on something going on in Iran", according to Genral Caine's account. "He was shown some photos and some highly classified intelligence on what looked like a major construction project in the mountains of Iran. He was tasked to study this facility, work with the intelligence community to understand it, and he was soon joined by an additional teammate." These two individuals immersed themselves in what is now known to the world at the Fordow nuclear facility. "For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow, a critical element of Iran's nuclear weapons program," General Caine said. "He watched the Iranians dig it out. He watched the construction, the weather, the discard material, the geology, the construction materials, where the materials came from. "He looked at the vent shaft, the exhaust shaft, the electrical systems, the environmental control systems—every nook, every crater, every piece of equipment going in, and every piece of equipment going out." Pretty soon they realised that the US didn't have a weapon capable of destroying such a facility. Which of course is the point of burying it deep under a mountain. So, the DTRA officers set about getting one that might do the job. Which is how the US ended up with the "Bunker Busters", the 13 tonne bombs also known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or the more prosaic official designation, GBU-57. General Caine revealed the MOP has been in development since 2004, but the Iran mission focused minds and sprang resources. The top military advisor to the President revealed the massive investment in developing the technology: "In the beginning of its development, we had so many PhDs working on the MOP program doing modeling and simulation that we were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States of America." "They tested it over and over again, tried different options, tried more after that. They accomplished hundreds of test shots and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose: kill this target at the time and place of our nation's choosing," the General said, and showed video of one of those tests. And that is the only video we have seen so far. A skeptical public is asking why haven't they seen video of the actual raid yet? No doubt the Pentagon wants to keep as much of its secrets as it can, at least until it thinks there is little an adversary can gain from its release (we are still not getting colour images of past bombings, because the military likes to strip out details). But with pilots in following planes reporting explosions "as bright as daylight", no doubt the public would like to see it too. After all they paid for it. And judging by General Caine's backgrounder, it didn't come cheap. Estimated development cost of the MOP was about half a billion dollars, with another $400 million in production contracts. No wonder the US is reported to possess only 20 or 30 of these bunker busters. Now minus the 14 used last weekend. So, America has used either half or two thirds of its stash of bunker busters in just one raid. Then there is the cost of the flying bit. The B2 bombers flew a 37-hour round trip from an airbase in Missouri, pretty much in the middle of the US. And it's the hourly flying cost of planes that are the thing to watch. For the B2, the Pentagon reports it costs about $65,000 an hour. That works out about $2.4 million per bomber. And there were seven of them, so that's $16 million and change. "So, for technical brilliance in the art of aerial warfare, this mission was amazing." In all, there were 125 aircraft of different sorts on the raid, ranging from a fleet of refueling tankers (modified versions of big passenger planes) to F-35 fighters, which cost $42,000 per hour to operate. (President Trump also said the F-22, Americas most advanced fighter also took part: the plane, which is not available to any US allies, costs a reported $80,000 per hour to operate). General Caine said the analysts had identified two ventilation shafts at the Fordow site as being possible vulnerabilities that the bunker busters could use to get down to the underground factory where the Iranians are presumed to have operated centrifuges to enrich uranium. This immediately set off some movie-related memes, as people recalled the plot of Star Wars. In fact, it was closer to Top Gun Maverick: "miracle one and miracle two", blowing a concrete cover off the ventilation shafts, then dropping the munition down the shaft, with a fuse set to detonate up to 100 metres below ground. But unlike Top Gun, the bombers dropped not one, but five bunker busters down each of the two main ventilation shafts. That's five, 13 tonne, bombs, dropped from 13 kilometres up, entering a concrete tunnel a few metres wide. In two locations. Just think about that. For contrast, consider the World War Two-era B-17 "Flying Fortress", each of which carried about four tonnes of bombs, only 20% of which fell within 300 metres of their targets. So, for technical brilliance in the art of aerial warfare, this mission was amazing. That said, the key point of the criticism remains valid too: we don't know much about the impact of this mission on Iran's nuclear programme. Even behind closed doors briefings for Senators and Congressmen on Thursday by General Caine and the head of the CIA left us (and them) none the wiser. Party politics dominated the public comments afterwards: For Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, the raid has set back the Iranians by as little as three months: for Republican Senator Linsey Graham, its set the programme back many years. Only President Trump and his political acolytes are using the word "obliterated", which is not a term of art used by military or intelligence professionals to formally describe the kinetic effects of ordinance. What's next for Iran? Pete Hegseth, the Defence Secretary, was right when he said the only way to know for sure is to get out a shovel and dig at Fordow. Which the Iranians may well do. If they find their structural defences worked as planned, and protected their stockpile of uranium presumed to be stored there, then they could get back in the nuclear game relatively quickly - if only to develop a so called "dirty bomb" to spread radioactive dust around an enemy city, contaminating rather than destroying it. The big question for the Iranians is do they want to? Just as America has spent a fortune to incapacitate the Iranian nuclear programme, so too has Iran spent a much bigger fortune to start and sustain that programme. And to fortify it in underground sites like Fordow cost vast amounts of money (there is another site, in somewhere called by Western Intelligence "Pickaxe Mountain", where another suspicious underground facility was reportedly close to coming into use in recent weeks). On his recent trip to the Middle East, President Trump took time to contrast the discontents of ordinary Iranians with the apparently more lavish lives of the Arab nations on the south side of the Persian Gulf. While one oil rich state spent its liquid gold on nuclear weapons and funding proxy forces in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen - the other oil rich states behaved like oil rich states, and built glittering towers, bought football teams and tried to shift their economies (and their populations future prosperity) beyond oil and into new technologies. Mr Trump held out the prospect of a similar boost to lifestyles and aspirations for the Iranians - but only if they give up their nuclear ambitions and stop trying to subvert neighbouring states. He didn't call for regime change – no American officials have. But they must hope that ordinary Iranians, having witnessed forty years of the Islamic Republic's policy and billions of dollars in investments go up in smoke, will balk at the idea of just picking up and starting over with the same plan. "Tehran may be forced to accept negotiated restrictions on its nuclear programme." Of course, the most dangerous time for any repressive regime is when it starts to change, which inevitably means loosening its grip on society. Which may explain why Iran's supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is in no hurry to enter talks with the Americans on what happens next. President Trump would like to begin talks next month, presumably picking up where his envoy Steve Witkoff left off. Much as he might wish it, it probably won't turn out to be that easy. Amir Asmar, a former Middle East analyst for the US Department of Defence and now a scholar with the foreign policy think tank The Atlantic council, has outlined three scenarios for the Iranians, based on how much of their programme survived the Fordow raid. In the first scenario, if the Fordow complex and its cascade of centrifuges - the machines that enrich the uranium to weapons grade - are damaged and not functional, Tehran may be forced to accept negotiated restrictions on its nuclear programme. But if much of the machinery emerges unscathed, then in Asmar's view "nothing short of endangering the regime itself would cause Tehran's present leaders to permanently abandon decades of commitment to an indigenous nuclear programme". Hence his conclusion that a partially damaged Fordow will only trigger at best a pause – in both Iran's nuclear programme, and in Israel's efforts to smash it. Further attacks, he feels, would be inevitable, with or without US involvement. In a second scenario, Asmar posits the total destruction of Fordow, with none of its highly enriched uranium stock surviving. In this case he thinks the Iranian leaders would calculate they cannot benefit from holding out in nuclear talks because it would take many years (and tens of billions in oil revenues) to reconstitute the programme, and its ballistic weapons programme, which has also been badly smashed up. And as everybody is watching, any efforts to restart the programmes would probably be easily spotted and would probably lead to Israeli raids at the very least. He says compliance would require even more intrusive monitoring by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran considers withdrawing from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty That agency's head, Rafael Grossi, said the centrifuge machines at Fordow and elsewhere are "extremely vibration-sensitive", and given the huge explosive effects unleashed by the B2 Raid, "very significant damage is expected to have occurred". But Iran's parliament has already begun steps to end Iran's membership of the IAEA and prevent the inspections that come with it. Iran is also considering withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits signatories to not acquire nuclear weapons, and subjects them to IAEA inspection in return for access to nuclear technology for energy and other peaceful purposes. Although Iran's extensive development of nuclear facilities that go far beyond peaceful means suggest it was not adhering to the NPT anyway (enriching uranium to 60% is far beyond the needs of a nuclear energy programme), the treaty has other practical uses. It provided the legal justification necessary for the UN Security Council's sanctions on Iran. Without the NPT Iran's only legal barrier to developing a nuke would be Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against it. Iran could easily leave the NPT and develop a bomb without the prying eyes of the IAEA. "The long-term prospects for regional security and stability would be destroyed." Writing in The Atlantic magazine, Thomas Wright, who served as senior director of strategic planning at the National Security Council during the Biden Administration, claimed this was the main problem with the Presidents insistence that the Iranian nuclear programme had been "obliterated". "Trump could have managed that risk by telling the public that although the strikes appeared to have been successful, fully ascertaining their results would take time. "He could then have insisted on a week-long cease-fire for the purpose of concluding a diplomatic agreement with Iran - one that would have insisted on limits to Iran's nuclear programme and continued access for the IAEA, whose inspectors remain in Iran but have not been admitted into nuclear sites. "Given the likely damage done to the programme, he could have afforded to stop short of demanding full dismantlement and settled instead for strict limits on enrichment, as well as round-the-clock inspections with no expiration date. "But Trump took a very different path by declaring the problem fully solved and not using the moment of leverage to extract commitments from Tehran. Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem seem all but inevitable in the aftermath of this choice," he wrote. The danger of a half-done job - or worse, scarcely inflicting any damage at all - is that Iran's Supreme leader decides to go for broke, speeding up development of an A-Bomb and detonating one - to show adversaries Iran is in the nuclear club and deter future attackers. The long-term prospects for regional security and stability would be destroyed. From Gaza to Yemen, Kurdistan to Afghanistan the likelihood of a grand bargain to bring peace to this most troubled of regions would slip further away. This is precisely the opposite of what the attacks were intended to achieve. No wonder the effectiveness of the raid has been such a touchy subject for the President. There may be a ceasefire - but now what?
