Sir, – Conor Hogarty writes (Letters, March 4th) that the Government’s planned removal of Ireland’s “triple lock” is “indeed welcome and long overdue”.
The removal of the UN component of the “triple lock” will not result in a “double lock” or the “safety valve” of the requirement for government and Oireachtas approval for future overseas deployments.
In reality, it would lead to a situation where any future government could send Irish men and women, in unlimited numbers, to a conflict zone by simple government majority.
In such circumstances, I will be tabling amendments to any such legislation to demand that any Government vote on overseas deployments be a free vote with no whip. I will also campaign for the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the Dáil and Seanad in order to deploy Irish troops overseas in numbers exceeding the Government’s reportedly proposed threshold of 50 personnel.
‘My son is getting married in the summer, and the likelihood is that I’m going to be able to see that’
Oscars 2026: Will Hamnet with Paul Mescal and Jessie Buckley get a best picture nomination?
The welcome I received from Jennifer Johnston is something I will never forget
Is it true that women need more sleep each night than men?
No Irish TD or Senator should be whipped into sending our sons and daughters to unspecified current or future conflicts. To empower any future Irish government to do so by simple majority would represent in practical, de facto terms, a profound erosion of the protections to our militarily non-aligned neutral status.
In the current fast-moving and deteriorating security environment, there are now compelling ethical, political and diplomatic reasons for a referendum to clarify and protect Ireland’s sovereign neutral status. Such a referendum is not only necessary, it would also be “welcome and long overdue”. – Yours, etc,
Senator TOM CLONAN,
(Captain, retired),
Independent Senator,
University of Dublin Panel,
Leinster House,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Brendan Butler suggests that instead of being scrapped, the farcical “triple lock” should be reformed “by uncoupling it from a UN Security Council decision and linking it to a decision of the UN General Assembly” (Letters, March 3rd). This is already in fact the legal position.
The Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960, which originally established what is now called the “triple lock”, permits participation by the Irish Defence Forces in “an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations for the performance of duties of a police character”.
It has become fashionable for supporters of the “triple lock” to present the UN General Assembly as some kind of easy antidote to the paralysis of the Security Council, but this ignores the fact that the General Assembly is no less dysfunctional.
Despite the General Assembly having authority to establish peacekeeping operations under the UN Charter, for reasons of realpolitik it has only ever done so following the referral of the matter to it by the Security Council. The last time it established a peacekeeping force was in 1962 to oversee the transfer of Western New Guinea to Indonesian rule.
A further problem is that resolutions to establish a peacekeeping force require a two-thirds majority of the UN’s 193 members. If the General Assembly were to begin to flex its muscles, it wouldn’t be long before Russia and China would assemble their various vassalages and client states to muster a blocking minority of 66 votes, a task which would not be particularly difficult when you consider that 94 members either abstained or voted against the most recent resolution in support of Ukraine.
Ultimately, it is an affront to Irish sovereignty that gangster dictatorships like Russia or China, or the tiny republics of South America and Central Africa, should have even the slightest say in the deployment of Irish troops abroad, let alone a veto which trumps the decisions of the elected representatives of the Irish people in Dáil Éireann. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Ratification of the Nice and Lisbon Treaties required referendums, as clearly stated in the Seville Declarations, 2002, because those treaties involved amendments to the Constitution. The Nice Treaty resulted in the 26th Amendment (October 2002) and the Lisbon Treaty brought about the 28th Amendment (June 2009).
Both treaties were initially rejected by the Irish people on their first referendums. The Irish people rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 because of fears in relation to loss of our neutrality and fears that we would be brought into military alliance with Europe. The government responded to those fears with the triple lock, set out in the Seville Declarations, which, it assured us, would protect our neutrality and would prohibit military alliance with Europe. On foot of those guarantees from the government, the Irish people accepted the Nice Treaty on its second referendum in October 2002.
The Lisbon Treaty was rejected by the Irish people on its first referendum in 2008. On reassurances from the government that the triple lock and Seville Declarations continued to protect our neutrality and our non-military alliance, the Irish people accepted the Lisbon Treaty in October 2009.
Given that acceptance of the constitutional amendments made on foot of the Nice and Lisbon Treaties was conditional and dependent on the triple lock, any changes made to the triple lock must also be a constitutional matter and must also require a referendum.
For the Government to attempt any change to the triple lock without the consent of the people, by way of referendum, would not only be highly dishonourable, it would have very serious constitutional implications. – Yours, etc,
MARIAN NAUGHTON,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Do people seriously believe that ditching our country’s neutrality, beefing up our defences and, as some suggest, joining Nato will really make Ireland safer from attack? In a time of growing world tensions, our neutrality allows Ireland to promote peaceful dialogue and diplomacy.
Irish people have no need to apologise for our history of international peacekeeping and neutrality; we would be foolish to discard them. – Is mise,
TOMAS McBRIDE,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Sir, – While understanding Aidan Harte’s appeal to stop “prolonging the slaughter” from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that it is “Time to stop digging” (March 4th), it is imperative that a resolution of the conflict is based on a lasting settlement. This will involve Russian agreement to desist, and a European peacekeeping mission supported by an American commercial/security commitment. Anything less will only “prolong the slaughter”. – Yours, etc,
JOHN NAUGHTON,
Leopardstown,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – Donald Trump has not only aligned himself and his administration with Vladimir Putin and Russia but he has decided to implement punitive tariffs on his closest neighbours or allies that will further increase US isolation on a global scale.
Why should, as some would suggest, President Zelenskiy apologise to President Trump for standing up to bullies?
We in Europe must now fill the gap left by Mr Trump and increase our aid to Ukraine both economically and militarily.
We can no longer rely on Mr Trump and his administration to come to Europe’s or Ukraine’s aid. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTY GALLIGAN,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Sir, – Elizabeth Cullen’s criticism of military strength achieving peace (Letters, March 1st) appears rather innocent in light of recent international events.
In the three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, European countries massively decreased their defence expenditure and downsized their defence forces. They deluded themselves that the world had entered a new rules-based international order where international disputes could be settled peacefully through diplomacy.
Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022 gave Europe a dose of reality as they realised that Europe’s lack of a military deterrence only encouraged and emboldened Mr Putin.
Donald Trump’s insulting treatment of America’s allies and friends has given Europe another dose of reality as they realise that the US no longer has Europe’s back, and is an unreliable ally.
Mr Putin took advantage of Europe’s military weakness to invade Ukraine. And Mr Trump despises Europe’s military weakness and lack of investment in its own defence.
The Latin phrase “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (“If you want peace, prepare for war”) has never been more appropriate than now.
Europe has strong soft power in the European Union, but now needs the hard power of military strength as well to guarantee peace on our continent.
Europe is on its own and must look to its own resources to defend both itself, democracy, freedom and the international rule of law. – Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Criticism by opportunistic politicians to the Government policy of changing the so-called triple lock is ill-founded and irresponsible.
On March 17th, we celebrate our national day, yet we are content to allow our European neighbours to face up to a serious growing threat while we look on with our fingers crossed. – Yours, etc,
THOMAS MORRIS GORMALLY,
Rathangan,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – We keep hearing from our leaders that we must be on the right side of history.
I would suggest that future generations may well ask why did we mortgage their futures when it comes to funding battles that they feel have little or nothing to do with us.
There are many projects in this country that are unfunded and urgently need funding, and I would suggest that leaving our children a better transport system, hospitals, education and welfare services may leave us also on the right side of history. – Yours, etc,
ANTAINE O’DUIBHIR,
Dublin 6.
Tariffs and Trumponomics
Sir, – President Trump seems intent on pummelling both geopolitical stability and the global economy, for reasons that most of us find bizarre. Economically, he is going down a path with enormous tariffs that will lead to increasing consumer prices (higher inflation), slower economic growth, higher unemployment, trade wars, diplomatic tensions, lower investor confidence, higher business failure and declining consumer sentiment, in conjunction with general citizen unease. The new Trump tariffs are dramatically different from those applied in his first term; the scope and order of magnitude mean that the outcomes are very clear in economics, and hence the impact on people and markets.
High tariffs also result in major financial market disruption with increasing borrowing costs through increasing government bond yields caused by higher inflation and higher debt risk. The so-called bond vigilantes always have the final say on a country’s economic policies. In addition, Mr Trump’s beloved stock market will react badly to the trade damage, higher inflation, higher interest rates and general business uncertainty that Mr Trump generates with his trade war. Ultimately the only guardrails on this particular president of the United States will be the bond market and the stock market. Most people pay little or no attention to these financial markets, those who do will already know how this will proceed and what will ignite a change in Mr Trump’s plans. The only question is just how much damage will be caused before the policy reversal begins. It will likely be significant. – Yours, etc,
MARK MOHAN,
Dublin 15.
St Patrick’s Day in the White House
Sir, – I think our Taoiseach should go on the front foot when he meets President Trump. Forget Canada being the 51st state – we should offer to make the Unites States our 33rd county. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CURRAN,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.
Sir, – Micheál Martin’s best bet is to converse with Donald Trump as Gaeilge. – Yours, etc,
HELEN NOONAN,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Speaking truth to power? Being put to the test these days, isn’t it? – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH WOOD,
Douglas,
Cork.
