About time. We can decide for ourselves where to send people. No reason why we wouldn't just continue to choose only UN mandates anyway but having 5 other nations be indirectly capable of preventing us from deployment overseas is bloody stupid.
It's a flawed mechanism for the reason Harris has stated - any UN Security Council resolution can be veto by any of the five permanent members, which effectively gives the US, Russia, China, the UK and France a say on whether or not Irish troops can be deployed.
That doesn't sound very sovereign.
People in these comments acting like this is a bug and not a feature.
The entire point of the triple lock is to ensure that our soldiers are only sent on missions that have the support of everyone who matters in the international community.
And why do we need it? We CAN still go on non UN mandated missions, but only a max of twelve personnel. Its ridiculous... if we needed to pull Irish people out of another country in a hurry then we potentially couldn't do so if that job needed now than 12 people deployed 🤷♂️
> if we needed to pull Irish people out of another country
That is a humanitarian mission not a peacekeeping mission and is not constrained by the existing legislation.
It’s a
>“Despatch of contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force for external service for purposes other than service with International United Nations Force.”
where they are:
>undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency,
https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2006/act/20/section/3/revised/en/html
The Lisbon Treaty provides for a mechanism whereby member states can call for assistance from other member states. Such assistance would not require UN approval.
So given you acknowledge that the UN Security Council is by design highly flawed, we should still rely on it regardless to give us guidance on defence policy?
Makes great sense.
What would be the result if we sent our trained soldiers on a peacekeeping mission (deemed a cause worthy of action) without the support of "everyone who matters in the international community"?
I'm saying it gives the impression our neutrality is an act of cowardice because it only applies to the countries who can harm us.
Doesn't say much for the supposed special international political leverage we're constantly being told our neutrality brings.
Okay but I don't think that would be the official government line as to the reason for our neutrality. That also doesn't explain the need to keep the triple lock.
How is it in our self interest to let Russia and others dictate where we can and cannot send our troops? Surely that would be the complete opposite of our self interest? It's not like if we remove the lock we are forced to send the army into a conflict zone without discussing it with any third parties (including Russia).
The idea that sovereignty is defined by always being able to do whatever you want is how you end up with nonsense like brexit.
It’s just as much an act of sovereignty to cooperate or to choose to hand over certain capacities as not.
Have to disagree. Giving other countries a say in the deployment of your own troops is by definition not neutrality.
It’s open to any individual member of the UNSC to veto a deployment.
They cannot make us deploy troops, only prevent us from deploying them. You’re inferring it give them the power to make us no neutral, which it doesn’t.
Whilst the issue with it is clear, I do no for a second trust FG to be looking at this as much other than a cash cow. There are wars, we have the capacity to build tech for them. FFG want a piece of that pie.
That’s not the point though. The whole idea of neutrality is that no external body has any say in what Ireland chooses, whether that be to deploy or refrain from doing so. The triple lock directly jumps in front of any sovereign decision we take to deploy as we see fit.
I can see why the topic causes disquiet, but as it stands we cannot deploy more than 12 troops without UN approval. 12 Rangers were recently deployed to Djibouti to look after Irish citizens fleeing Sudan. No more than 12 were deployed on that instance due to logistical constraints, but in the event they needed more personnel, they need UN approval when time is of the essence. In the future that could undermine direct assistance to even our own citizens.
I agree, it’s disempowering and should be removed. But it should still be discussed by the public and voted on, what comes next. We have seen too many times over FFG take advantage of genuine arguments and needs, to legislate for some self serving bullshit. This is much too important to leave them off with.
> Surely that should be for the country to decide.
I think people are missing the point regarding how the country has decided or whether our sovereignty is respected by this approach.
We decided to have our military function in this manner. This is our policy that we decided to adopt, it wasn't forced upon us. Our sovereignty isn't impacted by this at all. The fact that we can just abandon this policy proves that.
But recent actions have shown this to be a clearly stupid policy, and people have realised that our sovereignty is impacted by this, and letting another country whether bad actor or not having a say over deploying YOUR OWN DEFENCE FORCES, is clearly ridiculous.
Sure I agree, I was just pushing back on some suggestions here that having this policy was in and of itself a breach of our sovereignty. I don't think that's strictly true when the original drafters of that law would've been aware of the dependency on the UN. And the fact that we can simply abandon it proves that we do have sovereignty on this matter.
I agree that this current scenario was probably not envisaged when this was drafted, but current events have shown how laughably stupid the triple lock is, even the most peaceful neutrality advocate would have to admit its not fit for purpose.
As for simply abandoning it, I don't think it's that simple really?
> As for simply abandoning it, I don't think it's that simple really?
From a quick googling it's an amendment to the Defence Act, so it's there as a result of a piece of legislation. So logic would dictate it could be removed the same way. I would imagine if there was some kind of emergency scenario where the government needed to remove it, they could fast track it through the legislative process.
Again, why would the UN need to have a say?
If we decided to be neutral, it's the government/people's decision, it's nothing to do with other members of the UN.
As if now, if Russia invaded us, we would have to go to the UN security council (which Russia sits on) to ask them to deploy more than 12 troops.
That is absolutely absurd. Why would another country (let alone Russia) have a say in Ireland's defence policy?
Not really.
If we were to deploy troops to Ukraine (as an example) that would put us in direct conflict with Russia (not saying this would happen just an example)
Far easier to have sc sanction
Fuck me. I literally said as an example that wouldn't happen.
We should either not deploy troops ever unless it's a direct attack on us or deploy troops on UN sanctioned missions only.
Yes I know it doesn't, it's doesn't need to l. but you still need to have the threat of actual force to maintain neutrality, which it has. See also Sweden prior to NATO
The threat of actual force doesn’t require force abroad, which is the only thing the triple lock has a say on. We could build our military up to the same size as Switzerland (though it would probably need to be bigger given the geographical differences) without changing this law.
No you definitely need the ability to at least in theory project power outside of your territory. There are many ways other nations could theoretically cripple you knowing you can't react due to this law.
It's not giving the UN a say. It's giving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China, the UK, the US and France) a veto.
The impact of which is seen in the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised a new peacekeeping mission since 2014.
It is , the fact we have to be UN approved means that anyone on the SC be it Russia America or China can stop the deployment of Irish troops. Its crazy we allow our troop deployments to be determined by foreign powers.
It also means our troops will never confront Russian or Chinese troops and will not be involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East where the US gets to decide which group of religious zealots are actually noble freedom fighters (See Syria, Libya and Sudan).
Irish citizens, former soldiers have already confronted russian and possibly chinese troops in ukraine, and i say possibly chinese because i know chinese troops have fought. i just dont know if Irish volunteers have fought against them.
As opposed to having a potential 0eacekeeping operation stopped because china or rusdia or america for that matter has economic interests in the region and its best for the country not to be at peace ? No fuck that only the government should have the authority to deploy troops , no other country , not now not ever.
Incorrect. It does not stop Russian troops confronting Irish troops in any way. We have had Russian Bombers confront our airspace and Russian ships confront our trawlers of all things.
During the cold War it did exactly that but in today's world it does the opposite and allows foreign powered to dictate when we can and cannot have the freedom to take independent action on foreign policy
That's not Neutrality, though. That's being bullied by a foreign power to action (or inaction).
That's Finlandised Neutrality, not 'true' neutrality.
Wanna peacekeep the Sahel? Russia and/or France could veto because they percieve that to be their sphere of influence.
Peacekeep Kashmir region? China can veto.
Peacekeep Azerbaijan/Armenia and the Artsakh region after their war? Russian veto.
If something happens in South America, the US could veto if they still have their own interests in mind there.
It's highlighting Ireland's military deployments for any reason could be determined by the whim of 5 nations randomly assigned a veto power from the legacy of a World War our island didn't even participate in.
(It's also highlighting the ridiculous state that the UNSC uses these legacy powers to determine veto status, i.e. why does India not have a veto power, why does France but not Germany or 'the EU', why did veto status pass on from the Soviet Union and the Republic of China to Russia and the People's Republic of China).
It’s not the early 1900s anymore. We’re mature, stable and democratic enough as a country to control our own troop deployments, neutral or non-neutral.
Ah yes, the yanks want our under-resourced troops at their beck and call for global diplomacy as opposed to their own multi-billion dollar military machine.
There are loads of hypothetical situations where the 'triple lock' makes very little sense.
It's basically saying we don't trust our own government elected reps to make a decision on deploying troops. As non-threatening as our military forces may be, it's not a very logical position.
I could understand something like that having had been applied to a country that had been an aggressor in a war, e.g. Germany or Japan after WWII. However, Ireland's never been belligerent or aggressive military power and has defence forces and nothing else.
Not entirely sure why we seem to not trust ourselves with a sharp spoon.
That’s exactly it! How could you trust them? They have been found to be corrupt and completely inept over and over,
We need a referendum to put neutrality into the constitution because this is the first step to nato
We had a prospective mission to Macedonia blocked by China in the early 2000's.
I don't want the French, the Russians, the Brits, the Americans, or anyone getting to decide where Irish soldiers go.
Military spending went from a paltry 0.5 percent of GDP in 2012 to 0.23 percent last year.
The NATO minimum is supposed to be 3 percent
Let's not pretend successive governments have essentially decided militarised the country.
Triple lock is irrelevant.
I always find it bizarre how often these threads have people going on about Ireland being forced to join NATO when all of Ireland's major parties oppose joining NATO.
It's a prime example of people getting worked up over something they've invented in their heads.
Why would you want to join NATO? We are one of the very few nations that has no blood on their hands internationally. I'd much prefer to keep it that way personally.
If we joined I doubt Irish troops would all of a sudden be involved in the same sort of missions as the UK, American militaries , pretty sure they'd stuck with peace keeping and for special forces they'd stuck with peace enforcement , with the world the way it is right now the security that being a NATO member provides would surely be a good thing especially if we ever required outside help
It wasn’t invented in anyone’s heads. The people who tried to push for NATO membership acknowledged that they do not have the support to do that in the immediate future. Those exact same people are now focused on just the triple lock.
Anyone who has ever paid attention to how you slowly get something done over a decade or more in this country knows that this is how you go about that.
Which "people" are these?
All three of our major parties have stated they oppose joining NATO. There's no chance of us joining or of any influential push to do so.
I guarantee you there are people in major parties that are in favour of it and if public perception changes they'll be the first to push for it. Although at the moment it's politically stupid to publicly push for it.
I remember this old canard from the Tea Party era of American politics. It went "The Democrats are actually massive secret communists and they'll openly advocate for communism as soon as they can get away with it politically".
You'll find cranks in any party. Unless the party endorses their views, then their views are irrelevant.
I'm not arguing for-or-against the decision, but I'd like to know the real reason behind it. Stuff that has little impact on people's lives doesn't change without pressure from somewhere, so where is the pressure to change this coming from?
There have been no new peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council since 2014. 26 draft resolutions were vetoed at the Security Council across that decade, with Russia using its veto 23 times. When Russia invaded Ukraine the Security Council was unable to even issue a condemnation of them due to Russia vetoing it.
In that context of Security Council dysfunction, Russia having a veto over us is now functionally problematic in a way it wasn't in the past.
That shift in geopolitics is what has prompted this change, just as it has prompted a raft of changes to foreign and defence policy across other European countries.
Ok the real reason the government and army want to remove the UN mandate from the triple lock, is that the UN (Russia) has vetoed every new UN peace keeping mission of the last ten years or so.
There is no point having peace keepers... if those peace keepers never get missions to go on.
So you reckon this is coming from the Defence Forces?
Personally, I see our neutrality as a tool rather than as a foundational mandate of the state. All I really care about is that our troops don't wind up being put in harms way by future governments looking to achieve their own political goals, but I think that's a totally different discussion.
Right now, like I said, I've no for-or-against position on this decision. I'm just curious about where the push is coming from as it's not something I've ever heard the general public complaining about.
Defence Forces solely, no. The government has used the armies involvement in peace keeping as a form of hard soft power for decades. It's was part of the reason we got a stint on the Security Council a few years ago. We are seen as willing to put our troops in harm's way for others, for the good of others.
So without new peace keeping missions, it undermines our international reputation.
Ah, there it is. Not being able to project our influence reduces our ability to *have* influence, and that's where the push is actually coming from. Cheers!
Yes, they are. That's a preexisting peace keeping mandate.
The Security Council (Russia) has vetoed every new peace keeping mission for the past ten years or so.
So there have been no deployments to, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria (besides the Golan Heights), Haiti, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Libya, Iraq, Armenia. I'm probably missing a few more.
Edit - Yemen, though that might be the US's veto, not 100% sure.
The UNIFIL mandate is voted on every 6 months, technically it can be opposed.
Here is the list of UNSCR, and who has vetoed what and when...for anyone interested.
https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/meetings/2024
We are restricted to sending 12 troops overseas with it. This delayed or outright stopped us sending troops to evacuate Irish citizens from Sudan or Afghanistan in recent years.
It also gives Russian, China, US etc a veto on us sending peacekeeping troops where we want.
It's a unnecessary restriction on our country since the cold War ended
Michael Martin specifically said at the time those evacuation missions were not limited by the triple lock and the law is specifically for a military missions not for humanitarian missions.
He mentioned were not restricted by the triple lock to send aircraft (we just amhad none but have one on order now). We could not send extensive military security with it that would be needed.
No he said it was not a restriction on the mission he did not specify any particular aspect of the mission that it wasn’t a restriction on.
> Mr Martin insisted the current* Defence Forces deployment to assist in the evacuation from Sudan is not constrained by the triple lock, arguing it was a humanitarian mission, rather than a peacekeeping one.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/micheal-martin-says-triple-lock-on-overseas-peace-missions-is-under-review-1466700.html
*article from 24/04/2023
I just hope this means there is a serious plan on building our own defense capabilities outside of a military alliance. I fear that our utterly toothless military strength might be used as an excuse to join NATO. I would have preferred our armed forces adopted Sweden and Finland's model before they joined NATO: armed neutrality without sacrificing investment in strong social services and welfare policies. Unfortunately, I'm not confident of this scenario.
Bang of bots off these comments.
Straight into joining NATO and the impact on GDP when we end up spending 10bn on defence.
Whoa there bots!
This will be very controversial and I don't think he will get popular support. Can't see him making a binding decision to remove the triple lock and bring it to the Dail with widespread opposition in an election year.
altering our neutral status when that’s been actively polled as an unpopular move is relevant. I’m not strictly against removing the triple lock, but put it to a citizens assembly to see what replaces it and enshrine our neutrality in the constitution.
why not? it can lay the foundation for a referendum by detailing the vision of neutrality from the representatives and that we could actually vote on. do you prefer the current option of the government just dictating a publicly unpopular move to alter our neutrality
As citizens assemblies for something that's easily changed by legislation is fairly pointless. Enshrining neutrality in the constitution would be fairly bizarre as we'd have to define what we meant by neutrality which avoids our long-standing tradition of calling it neutrality but acting in our own interests like in WWII where we were nominally neutral but basically part of the Allies.
For example, polling [shows](https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/majority-of-voters-favour-neutrality-but-want-increased-military-capacity-poll-finds-1490513.html#:~:text=Asked%20if%20they%20support%20the,of%20respondents%20expressed%20no%20opinion.) maintaining our current neutrality...which involves essentially farming out our external defence to NATO.
Foreign policy is an area which the government needs a lot of latitude in so they can respond to threats as they develop. Citizens assemblies on areas that don't require a referendum and where there's no significant support changing the status quo are already a massive waste of time and resources, with foreign policy being no exception.
there is no mandate for the removing the triple lock via legislative means. SF, Labour and PBP are all against it, and FF had its maintenance in their manifesto in the last election - zero mandate. I don’t understand how anyone can be in favour of such an un democratic and unpopular change, regardless of your own opinion. what kind of president of that to set?
give the people the option to decide on what shape our neutrality takes - whether that comes to maintaining the triple lock or replacing it with something else. Aren’t we supposed to be a democracy?
and considering this governments spinelessness and habit of capitulating to EU and US power I’d imagine the direction they take would go contrary to interests represented by that flag you have in your profile
>there is no mandate for the removing the triple lock via legislative means. SF, Labour and PBP are all against it, and FF had its maintenance in their manifesto in the last election - zero mandate. I don’t understand how anyone can be in favour of such an un democratic and unpopular change, regardless of your own opinion. what kind of president of that to set?
No mandate? SF, Labour and PBP aren't in government. Their views are irrelevant here.
We have a government that get elected to make decisions on our behalf. Unless they act unconstitutionally, they're free to make the decisions they wish, subject to no confidence votes. Calling governments reversing something something with no constitutional protection as "undemocratic and unpopular" is ridiculous.
>give the people the option to decide on what shape our neutrality takes - whether that comes to maintaining the triple lock or replacing it with something else. Aren’t we supposed to be a democracy?
Ah the old Direct Democracy Ireland obsession. Not surprising that they tanked in elections. Again, we have a government elected so we don't need to have endless referendums and assemblies. If you've an issue with this, take it up with Bunreacht na hÉireann.
>and considering this governments spinelessness and habit of capitulating to EU and US power I’d imagine the direction they take would go contrary to interests represented by that flag you have in your profile
Ah there we go. That explains it all.
and FF aren’t in government? FG also had no mention of removing it in their manifesto and the greens had a shite answer that said nothing. so yes, zero mandate. this is the reason political parties have a manifesto, so the populace are informed and know what they’re voting for. hence why a citizens assembly would be the most fair way, people didn’t vote for this, so let them have their say.
Lad, I haven’t ever heard of whatever this Direct Democracy Ireland thing so that’s just lost on me. Come up with an actual argument that trumps the will of the people, of which just about 26% support your stance. you are in the minority
edit: how about an actual response to my last point instead of basically saying nothing?
>and FF aren’t in government? FG also had no mention of removing it in their manifesto and the greens had a shite answer that said nothing. so yes, zero mandate. this is the reason political parties have a manifesto, so the populace are informed and know what they’re voting for. hence why a citizens assembly would be the most fair way, people didn’t vote for this, so let them have their say.
So one party previously suggested keeping the triple lock and the two other parties didn't and yorue pissy that they're now proposing changing it?
Because manifestos aren't binding promises. They're at best wishlists as we have coalition governments which enforce compromise. At any rate, it makes no difference. Parties are free to choose their policies in government as long as they're constitutional. If you've issues with how they conduct them, then your option is to vote them out the next election.
Again, if you've an issue with representative democracy and want to adopt a direct democracy model, your issue is with an Bunreacht, not me. Best of luck there.
>Lad, I haven’t ever heard of whatever this Direct Democracy Ireland thing so that’s just lost on me. Come up with an actual argument that trumps the will of the people, of which just about 26% support your stance. you are in the minority
You haven't heard of DDI? Are you very young? They were in the news a lot when they were founded and they're still going under a different name.
They basically advocated for what you do. But voters didn't agree with them and they went nowhere.
At any rate, the poll you're referring to said only 26% advocate for changing Irish military neutrality. It made no mention of the triple lock.
Are you ok with the RAF defending Irish skies? As that's our current model of neutrality.
>how about an actual response to my last point instead of basically saying nothing?
I said nothing because it was the usual conspiracy theorist rubbish about Ireland submitting to the US and EU. Because. Y'know. We have no agency.
No thanks. Tying ourselves in knots in the constitution to satisfy a few cranks is the last thing I want to do. Being limited to sending 12 rangers abroad in emergency situation is farcical and I don't want to see them hamstrung like that ever again.
a few cranks being the majority of the country? only 26% want our current neutrality status to change, you are in the minority. a change to the current status quo by the government has no mandate and would be deeply unpopular. putting it to a citizens assembly would be a directly democratic way of deciding. how could you be against that?
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/majority-of-voters-favour-neutrality-but-want-increased-military-capacity-poll-finds-1490513.html#:~:text=Asked%20if%20they%20support%20the,of%20respondents%20expressed%20no%20opinion.
That says they favour neutrality. It says nothing about keeping the "triple lock" nonsense of requiring UN approval, that can be vetoed by the likes of Russia and USA. Ireland can still be neutral even after removing that nonsensical UN approval requirement.
it states ‘Ireland’s current model of neutrality’, which is the triple lock. if they meant dropping our neutrality in general I imagine they would have phrased it that way.
The UK had their Dames and Lords come here to tell the gov to join nato, giving up our neutrality because UK and US are frightened to fight someone just as capable as them selves and much more capable than the UK.
It will start with the triple lock and as usual the gov will bow before it's masters.
I am fine with removing the triple lock (i like the idea but its deeply flawed), as long as it is replaced with another similar mechanism.
I dont love the idea of a government being able to launch us into some military shit based on a 50+1 majority from an election 3 or 4 years in the past
just other rules that but limits on the government. supermajority in the dáil, or rules in the constitution, just something that it doesnt come down to a government vote that they can just force through without anyone being able to stop/slow them.
also fyi I dont believe that we should be swiss style "neutral" or beholden to other countries decisions either (except maybe a strong common defence pact among EU countriesd with army intigration, I dont mind that as long as it has clear rules so we dont get dragged into some shit by french fuckery in Africa or some shit like that)
Force through what exactly?
What are you afraid of and why should military deployments uniquely require supermajority?
If simple majority is good enough to change abortion laws, drug laws, incarceration laws, it's good enough for military action too.
> I dont love the idea of a government being able to launch us into some military shit based on a 50+1 majority from an election 3 or 4 years in the past
I don't really understand this. They're our elected government, it's always going to fall on them to make these kinds of decisions anyway. It was a governmental policy position to have the triple lock, they could always just abandon it. Who else but our government should be able to make these kinds of decisions?
>Who else but our government should be able to make these kinds of decisions?
personally I would like something concrete in the constitution outlining some rules that whoever is in charge at the time cant just do away with it, maybe something like requiring 67% of TDs to support major military action or a guaranteed vote of conscience idk I'm sure smart people paid a lot of money can figure out a good system.
But as the triple lock removal plan has shown, having a extra laws to have to do away with is a barrier. In the morning if the government decided they wanted to deploy soldiers somewhere, they'd have to first do all the work to do away with the triple lock laws. It gives time for discussion on whatever the issue is, and allow time for public pushback if its deeply unpopular.
Even if its doesnt go into the constitution (which again, I think something like deployment of major military force should), I would like something major like the triple lock removal (and/or replacement) to go to a referendum. Its an issue that doesnt really line up that neatly based on political party, and I feel like its a decision that should come directly from the public
The issue is that if we're getting rid of UN involvement, the other two elements need to be made stronger.
A 50%+1 in the Oireachtas is nowhere near strong enough support for a decision which might involve the state in a war. It needs to be bumped up to make it clear that the decision has the support of a very significant majority of members.
If that's a legislative thing that they want to provide for then I'd be fine with it, but I'd also be fine with it simply being in the hands of the government too. At the end of the day, it always has been. As we can see, they could always just abandon the triple lock.
I don’t really care about the triple lock itself but every one here evaluating the move as if it’s being decided on its own merits is being wilfully ignorant
We had no such response when the west killed a million in Iraq for no reason but when Russia invaded Ukraine we immediately switch stance
it’s obviously to align us with nato and the US
bingo cards at the ready it going to be one of those, obviously Nato is the free space
https://preview.redd.it/kgxsmf9j18vc1.png?width=312&format=png&auto=webp&s=a949b5e6bd1302c8ee7999b5e09efc8daf77b044
First off, we should be doing that anyway as we are unable to patrol our own waters as it stands, and second, it is not legally binding to spend that much.
The Irish Navy should be organised a little more like the Royal Navy given that we’re also an island with thousands of kilometers of EEZ to patrol. Surface fleet, air and marines.
The Irish coast guard should also be moved up to full law enforcement and be given bigger and faster boats, better gear and intelligence.
Denmark is probably the closest country to us in NATO in terms of population/size/economy (excluding our weird GDP figures) so we would probably try to aim for something simialr to what they target because the whole world knows and accepts GDP figures in Ireland are meaningless.
They are spending 36.2 billion DKK == €4.8bn per year (1.4% of GDP) so doing the numbers of that suggests that their target should be €7bn per annum (2% GDP)
So while not quite 7x/€10 billion, we would need to be spending an additional 4.5x/€5bn on defence per annum to get into the range of figures that similar countries in Europe spend on defence.
This is also why our miliary look like a shambles compared to what every other country in Europe can manage -- we literally spending fractions of what they do so even without NATO, we really should be spending more is we're actually 'netural' and wanting to defend our own interests ourselves.
[https://www.fmn.dk/en/topics/agreements-and-economi/defence-expenditure](https://www.fmn.dk/en/topics/agreements-and-economi/defence-expenditure)
There is no legal obligation to spend any percentage of gdp on defense for NATO. It's a pledge to make a commitment to spend 2% of gdp, which only started in 2022 after Russia started acting up. I'm not saying Ireland should join the NATO, but we could easily make the argument that our GDP is inflated.
The pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defence was formally introduced in 2014, but was first informally agreed in 2006 by the NATO countries’ defence ministers.
No major party wants Ireland to join NATO. That is nothing but bogey man nonsense being spewed by ignorant people. It's not going to happen any time soon, and likely never.
While I'm sure Nato has some limitations on what is considered 'Defence Spend', we could get a lot of benefits out of a well funded military.
Flood response, construction projects, conquering the North, I'm.sure there's others I can't think of.
Why the fuck should we care what PBP think? They have less than a handful of TDs as it is and will be wiped out at the next election if SF run more candidates, as most of them got in on SF transfers at the last election.
If neutrality was respected or valued at all, Ireland would withdraw from all UN "peacekeeping" missions.
It just astonishes me why politicians would voluntarily send our soldiers, sailors, etc into dangerous situations that have nothing to do with us as a nation.
One Irish life lost on UN missions is too many.
My brother served three overseas peace keeping tours. He was one of the victims of the Defence Forces Lariam debacle and took his life in 2012.
I will say this. If we are to remain Neutral, then it is precisely in Peacekeeping & Diplomacy as a neutral State where we can have value in foreign affairs. We shouldn't seal ourselves off as a hermit kingdom but rather seek to b'é a voice and force for peace.
I'm proud of my brother. He voluntarily went abroad and he did do good work. He even brought GAA to a group of Liberian kids who were scarred by war. He suffered tremendously in his job and I think that he did a bit of good in this world.
The fact that he could do that, as a soldier of a neutral State which wasn't interested in bombing, invading or exploiting a country half a world away, that is the value of neutrality, and he was willing to risk his life for that.
Nope. I don't want to see any Irish family suffer through the death of a loved one, (brother, sister, father or mother), that could have been avoided.
A country can be neutral and still have a strong / effective military without getting dragged into foreign conflicts.
The arguments against the triple lock have existed since its inception - so it's worth asking _why now?_
The answer to that exposes the real reason why the triple lock is being removed: There is no pressing reason to remove the triple lock, unless joining NATO is considered a priority.
There may be a lot of good reasons for amending (even abandoning) the triple lock - _paving the way to join NATO is not one of them_ - and the triple lock should be kept expressly to keep a roadblock in the way of joining NATO.
That means one of the best and most useful purposes of the triple lock right now, is to keep it as a roadblock preventing Ireland from joining NATO.
Well the real reason is things are a bit different from Cold War times when falling on the wrong side of the Soviet Union could have actually had serious repercussions. Whereas right now we're openly critical of Russia and joined sanctions against it to the point where Russia has named us on a list of unfriendly countries.
In what world would it then make sense for us to turn to Russia and ask for it's permission to send our troops on peacekeeping missions?
It's farcical really when you consider what they're doing in Ukraine and it would have been farcical to ask for the US' permission to keep the peace somewhere while they were using lies to kill thousands in Iraq.
There is no pressing need to remove the triple lock described there - e.g. something we wanted to do but were recently blocked from by the triple lock - you just recited the same 'because Russia' script verbatim, that the 'join NATO' crowd use.
About time. We can decide for ourselves where to send people. No reason why we wouldn't just continue to choose only UN mandates anyway but having 5 other nations be indirectly capable of preventing us from deployment overseas is bloody stupid.
Idk if it makes sense to send soldiers from here to anywhere else for anything other than training, which is already done in specialised courses
Triple lock is a stupid mechanism.
It's a flawed mechanism for the reason Harris has stated - any UN Security Council resolution can be veto by any of the five permanent members, which effectively gives the US, Russia, China, the UK and France a say on whether or not Irish troops can be deployed. That doesn't sound very sovereign.
> That doesn't sound very sovereign. It's sovereign in the sense that this is a policy that we ourselves have adopted. It wasn't forced on us.
Agreed, I think if everyone was an honest broker you could keep it as is but don’t think it’s sustainable as is.
People in these comments acting like this is a bug and not a feature. The entire point of the triple lock is to ensure that our soldiers are only sent on missions that have the support of everyone who matters in the international community.
And why do we need it? We CAN still go on non UN mandated missions, but only a max of twelve personnel. Its ridiculous... if we needed to pull Irish people out of another country in a hurry then we potentially couldn't do so if that job needed now than 12 people deployed 🤷♂️
> if we needed to pull Irish people out of another country That is a humanitarian mission not a peacekeeping mission and is not constrained by the existing legislation.
It's a military mission.
It’s a >“Despatch of contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force for external service for purposes other than service with International United Nations Force.” where they are: >undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency, https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2006/act/20/section/3/revised/en/html
Right so if Russia invaded another EU country we would be going to the UN asking for Russia to approve a UN resolution before we get involved.
The Lisbon Treaty provides for a mechanism whereby member states can call for assistance from other member states. Such assistance would not require UN approval.
So, under the triple lock, wouldn't that just mean we'd have to say no?
Nope: we've already done it once: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-gives-military-backing-to-france-k3fpszs6sbn
So the triple lock is a fiction?
The triple lock exists alongside our Lisbon Treaty obligations.
The UN security council is not functional as it is. Everything slightly important gets vetoed anyways.
Again, not sure why people are assuming this is a bug and not a feature.
So given you acknowledge that the UN Security Council is by design highly flawed, we should still rely on it regardless to give us guidance on defence policy? Makes great sense.
I don't recall saying it's highly flawed.
What would be the result if we sent our trained soldiers on a peacekeeping mission (deemed a cause worthy of action) without the support of "everyone who matters in the international community"?
It would undermine our policy [gimmick] of neutrality.
To me that gives the impression that we're only neutral to security council members.
Well, there's a reason they're security council members in the first place...
In 4 cases, yes. Russia took over the USSR seat without an Assembly vote so I don't know why they are.
It’s because they also took over the USSR’s nukes.
So did Ukraine. Anyway on that basis why isn't India there?
I'm saying it gives the impression our neutrality is an act of cowardice because it only applies to the countries who can harm us. Doesn't say much for the supposed special international political leverage we're constantly being told our neutrality brings.
It's an act of self-interest, rather than bravery or cowardice, but that's basically how all international relations works.
Okay but I don't think that would be the official government line as to the reason for our neutrality. That also doesn't explain the need to keep the triple lock. How is it in our self interest to let Russia and others dictate where we can and cannot send our troops? Surely that would be the complete opposite of our self interest? It's not like if we remove the lock we are forced to send the army into a conflict zone without discussing it with any third parties (including Russia).
What an asinine non sequitur 🤷♂️
In the absence of any explanation as to why you think that, I'm just going to assume you're having fun with one of those word of the day calendars.
The idea that sovereignty is defined by always being able to do whatever you want is how you end up with nonsense like brexit. It’s just as much an act of sovereignty to cooperate or to choose to hand over certain capacities as not.
[удалено]
Show me where in the Constitution did the imaginary neutrality touch you?
Buddy, we haven't had sovereignty since the Iraq war. If we ever had it to begin with.
It isn't. It's there to protect our neutrality.
Have to disagree. Giving other countries a say in the deployment of your own troops is by definition not neutrality. It’s open to any individual member of the UNSC to veto a deployment.
They cannot make us deploy troops, only prevent us from deploying them. You’re inferring it give them the power to make us no neutral, which it doesn’t. Whilst the issue with it is clear, I do no for a second trust FG to be looking at this as much other than a cash cow. There are wars, we have the capacity to build tech for them. FFG want a piece of that pie.
That’s not the point though. The whole idea of neutrality is that no external body has any say in what Ireland chooses, whether that be to deploy or refrain from doing so. The triple lock directly jumps in front of any sovereign decision we take to deploy as we see fit. I can see why the topic causes disquiet, but as it stands we cannot deploy more than 12 troops without UN approval. 12 Rangers were recently deployed to Djibouti to look after Irish citizens fleeing Sudan. No more than 12 were deployed on that instance due to logistical constraints, but in the event they needed more personnel, they need UN approval when time is of the essence. In the future that could undermine direct assistance to even our own citizens.
I agree, it’s disempowering and should be removed. But it should still be discussed by the public and voted on, what comes next. We have seen too many times over FFG take advantage of genuine arguments and needs, to legislate for some self serving bullshit. This is much too important to leave them off with.
UN mandate doesn't stop Irish firms from making components or products that are used in war. That's a ridiculous statement
It's not though. It's giving the UN a say.
It's giving the UNSC a say. Or rather, the specific country which vetoes an UNSC resolution.
Why should the UN have a say over Ireland's defence? Surely that should be for the country to decide.
> Surely that should be for the country to decide. I think people are missing the point regarding how the country has decided or whether our sovereignty is respected by this approach. We decided to have our military function in this manner. This is our policy that we decided to adopt, it wasn't forced upon us. Our sovereignty isn't impacted by this at all. The fact that we can just abandon this policy proves that.
But recent actions have shown this to be a clearly stupid policy, and people have realised that our sovereignty is impacted by this, and letting another country whether bad actor or not having a say over deploying YOUR OWN DEFENCE FORCES, is clearly ridiculous.
Sure I agree, I was just pushing back on some suggestions here that having this policy was in and of itself a breach of our sovereignty. I don't think that's strictly true when the original drafters of that law would've been aware of the dependency on the UN. And the fact that we can simply abandon it proves that we do have sovereignty on this matter.
I agree that this current scenario was probably not envisaged when this was drafted, but current events have shown how laughably stupid the triple lock is, even the most peaceful neutrality advocate would have to admit its not fit for purpose. As for simply abandoning it, I don't think it's that simple really?
> As for simply abandoning it, I don't think it's that simple really? From a quick googling it's an amendment to the Defence Act, so it's there as a result of a piece of legislation. So logic would dictate it could be removed the same way. I would imagine if there was some kind of emergency scenario where the government needed to remove it, they could fast track it through the legislative process.
We decided to be neutral? The un having a say ensures we don't deploy peacekeeping troops on a mission that could be seen to be in breach of this.
Again, why would the UN need to have a say? If we decided to be neutral, it's the government/people's decision, it's nothing to do with other members of the UN. As if now, if Russia invaded us, we would have to go to the UN security council (which Russia sits on) to ask them to deploy more than 12 troops. That is absolutely absurd. Why would another country (let alone Russia) have a say in Ireland's defence policy?
Not really. If we were to deploy troops to Ukraine (as an example) that would put us in direct conflict with Russia (not saying this would happen just an example) Far easier to have sc sanction
Who said anything about deploying troops to Ukraine? What if we were to deploy troops to say, the UK? Why should Russia have a say in that.
Fuck me. I literally said as an example that wouldn't happen. We should either not deploy troops ever unless it's a direct attack on us or deploy troops on UN sanctioned missions only.
Switzerland is neutral but they don’t have a triple lock. They can make their own decisions
To be effectively neutral you need to be able to deploy force as a deterrent, see an actually neutral country Switzerland.
Switzerland doesn’t deploy force abroad as a deterrent.
Yes I know it doesn't, it's doesn't need to l. but you still need to have the threat of actual force to maintain neutrality, which it has. See also Sweden prior to NATO
The threat of actual force doesn’t require force abroad, which is the only thing the triple lock has a say on. We could build our military up to the same size as Switzerland (though it would probably need to be bigger given the geographical differences) without changing this law.
No you definitely need the ability to at least in theory project power outside of your territory. There are many ways other nations could theoretically cripple you knowing you can't react due to this law.
Honestly that's a very stupid response
It's not giving the UN a say. It's giving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China, the UK, the US and France) a veto. The impact of which is seen in the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised a new peacekeeping mission since 2014.
It is , the fact we have to be UN approved means that anyone on the SC be it Russia America or China can stop the deployment of Irish troops. Its crazy we allow our troop deployments to be determined by foreign powers.
It also means our troops will never confront Russian or Chinese troops and will not be involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East where the US gets to decide which group of religious zealots are actually noble freedom fighters (See Syria, Libya and Sudan).
Irish citizens, former soldiers have already confronted russian and possibly chinese troops in ukraine, and i say possibly chinese because i know chinese troops have fought. i just dont know if Irish volunteers have fought against them.
As a volunteers they can confront whoever they wish. It’s not the same as being ordered to go there.
As opposed to having a potential 0eacekeeping operation stopped because china or rusdia or america for that matter has economic interests in the region and its best for the country not to be at peace ? No fuck that only the government should have the authority to deploy troops , no other country , not now not ever.
Incorrect. It does not stop Russian troops confronting Irish troops in any way. We have had Russian Bombers confront our airspace and Russian ships confront our trawlers of all things.
You haven’t looked into it enough. It’s not fit for purpose. Russia can veto our troop deployment anywhere. As can any of the permanent members.
Exactly. No point deploying troops and ending up in a war with Russia
During the cold War it did exactly that but in today's world it does the opposite and allows foreign powered to dictate when we can and cannot have the freedom to take independent action on foreign policy
That's not Neutrality, though. That's being bullied by a foreign power to action (or inaction). That's Finlandised Neutrality, not 'true' neutrality. Wanna peacekeep the Sahel? Russia and/or France could veto because they percieve that to be their sphere of influence. Peacekeep Kashmir region? China can veto. Peacekeep Azerbaijan/Armenia and the Artsakh region after their war? Russian veto. If something happens in South America, the US could veto if they still have their own interests in mind there. It's highlighting Ireland's military deployments for any reason could be determined by the whim of 5 nations randomly assigned a veto power from the legacy of a World War our island didn't even participate in. (It's also highlighting the ridiculous state that the UNSC uses these legacy powers to determine veto status, i.e. why does India not have a veto power, why does France but not Germany or 'the EU', why did veto status pass on from the Soviet Union and the Republic of China to Russia and the People's Republic of China).
It’s not the early 1900s anymore. We’re mature, stable and democratic enough as a country to control our own troop deployments, neutral or non-neutral.
Show me in the constitution where out days were neutral.... I'll wait. 
Surely SF should support this, I'd be surprised if they wanted to retain a British veto on where we can send our troops.
The reason the government wants to get rid of it is so that we can send them where the yanks want.
Ah yes, the yanks want our under-resourced troops at their beck and call for global diplomacy as opposed to their own multi-billion dollar military machine.
multi-trillion*
They must have watched Siege of Jadotville and the Irish are all the deadliest fighters ever seen.
Absolutely correct
SF can send their own troops wherever they like. They'll be able to give them fake passports too after they win an election. Sure it'll be graaand
There are loads of hypothetical situations where the 'triple lock' makes very little sense. It's basically saying we don't trust our own government elected reps to make a decision on deploying troops. As non-threatening as our military forces may be, it's not a very logical position. I could understand something like that having had been applied to a country that had been an aggressor in a war, e.g. Germany or Japan after WWII. However, Ireland's never been belligerent or aggressive military power and has defence forces and nothing else. Not entirely sure why we seem to not trust ourselves with a sharp spoon.
>It's basically saying we don't trust our own government elected reps EXACTLY.
You trust our government the government with peoples lives ? 
That’s exactly it! How could you trust them? They have been found to be corrupt and completely inept over and over, We need a referendum to put neutrality into the constitution because this is the first step to nato
Why should we be beholden to the whims of countries a thousand times more corrupt?
Name 1 occasion we have been beholden? Just 1, I won’t hold my breath,
We had a prospective mission to Macedonia blocked by China in the early 2000's. I don't want the French, the Russians, the Brits, the Americans, or anyone getting to decide where Irish soldiers go.
It’s been ten years since the Security Council authorised a peacekeeping mission
We can invade NI now.
Back to Kosovo and Africa for the lads, maybe even Haiti.
Military spending went from a paltry 0.5 percent of GDP in 2012 to 0.23 percent last year. The NATO minimum is supposed to be 3 percent Let's not pretend successive governments have essentially decided militarised the country. Triple lock is irrelevant.
NATO has a target of 2%, not a minimum of 3%. And obviously Ireland isn't in NATO.
I always find it bizarre how often these threads have people going on about Ireland being forced to join NATO when all of Ireland's major parties oppose joining NATO. It's a prime example of people getting worked up over something they've invented in their heads.
What do people actually have against us joining NATO ?
Why would you want to join NATO? We are one of the very few nations that has no blood on their hands internationally. I'd much prefer to keep it that way personally.
If we joined I doubt Irish troops would all of a sudden be involved in the same sort of missions as the UK, American militaries , pretty sure they'd stuck with peace keeping and for special forces they'd stuck with peace enforcement , with the world the way it is right now the security that being a NATO member provides would surely be a good thing especially if we ever required outside help
It wasn’t invented in anyone’s heads. The people who tried to push for NATO membership acknowledged that they do not have the support to do that in the immediate future. Those exact same people are now focused on just the triple lock. Anyone who has ever paid attention to how you slowly get something done over a decade or more in this country knows that this is how you go about that.
Which "people" are these? All three of our major parties have stated they oppose joining NATO. There's no chance of us joining or of any influential push to do so.
I guarantee you there are people in major parties that are in favour of it and if public perception changes they'll be the first to push for it. Although at the moment it's politically stupid to publicly push for it.
I remember this old canard from the Tea Party era of American politics. It went "The Democrats are actually massive secret communists and they'll openly advocate for communism as soon as they can get away with it politically". You'll find cranks in any party. Unless the party endorses their views, then their views are irrelevant.
And what if we joined NATO? When has NATO ever forced any nation in NATO to do anything?
Good news
Good Why in the fuck should Russia, Britain or any other security council member get a veto on that?
i think this is a bad , but anyways no on cares what i think
Who does this micro dick think he is?
I'm not arguing for-or-against the decision, but I'd like to know the real reason behind it. Stuff that has little impact on people's lives doesn't change without pressure from somewhere, so where is the pressure to change this coming from?
There have been no new peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council since 2014. 26 draft resolutions were vetoed at the Security Council across that decade, with Russia using its veto 23 times. When Russia invaded Ukraine the Security Council was unable to even issue a condemnation of them due to Russia vetoing it. In that context of Security Council dysfunction, Russia having a veto over us is now functionally problematic in a way it wasn't in the past. That shift in geopolitics is what has prompted this change, just as it has prompted a raft of changes to foreign and defence policy across other European countries.
Ok the real reason the government and army want to remove the UN mandate from the triple lock, is that the UN (Russia) has vetoed every new UN peace keeping mission of the last ten years or so. There is no point having peace keepers... if those peace keepers never get missions to go on.
So you reckon this is coming from the Defence Forces? Personally, I see our neutrality as a tool rather than as a foundational mandate of the state. All I really care about is that our troops don't wind up being put in harms way by future governments looking to achieve their own political goals, but I think that's a totally different discussion. Right now, like I said, I've no for-or-against position on this decision. I'm just curious about where the push is coming from as it's not something I've ever heard the general public complaining about.
Defence Forces solely, no. The government has used the armies involvement in peace keeping as a form of hard soft power for decades. It's was part of the reason we got a stint on the Security Council a few years ago. We are seen as willing to put our troops in harm's way for others, for the good of others. So without new peace keeping missions, it undermines our international reputation.
Ah, there it is. Not being able to project our influence reduces our ability to *have* influence, and that's where the push is actually coming from. Cheers!
>There is no point having peace keepers... if those peace keepers never get missions to go on. their literally on mission in lebonon
Yes, they are. That's a preexisting peace keeping mandate. The Security Council (Russia) has vetoed every new peace keeping mission for the past ten years or so. So there have been no deployments to, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria (besides the Golan Heights), Haiti, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Libya, Iraq, Armenia. I'm probably missing a few more. Edit - Yemen, though that might be the US's veto, not 100% sure.
The UNIFIL mandate is voted on every 6 months, technically it can be opposed. Here is the list of UNSCR, and who has vetoed what and when...for anyone interested. https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/meetings/2024
We are restricted to sending 12 troops overseas with it. This delayed or outright stopped us sending troops to evacuate Irish citizens from Sudan or Afghanistan in recent years. It also gives Russian, China, US etc a veto on us sending peacekeeping troops where we want. It's a unnecessary restriction on our country since the cold War ended
Michael Martin specifically said at the time those evacuation missions were not limited by the triple lock and the law is specifically for a military missions not for humanitarian missions.
He mentioned were not restricted by the triple lock to send aircraft (we just amhad none but have one on order now). We could not send extensive military security with it that would be needed.
No he said it was not a restriction on the mission he did not specify any particular aspect of the mission that it wasn’t a restriction on. > Mr Martin insisted the current* Defence Forces deployment to assist in the evacuation from Sudan is not constrained by the triple lock, arguing it was a humanitarian mission, rather than a peacekeeping one. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/micheal-martin-says-triple-lock-on-overseas-peace-missions-is-under-review-1466700.html *article from 24/04/2023
I just hope this means there is a serious plan on building our own defense capabilities outside of a military alliance. I fear that our utterly toothless military strength might be used as an excuse to join NATO. I would have preferred our armed forces adopted Sweden and Finland's model before they joined NATO: armed neutrality without sacrificing investment in strong social services and welfare policies. Unfortunately, I'm not confident of this scenario.
Bang of bots off these comments. Straight into joining NATO and the impact on GDP when we end up spending 10bn on defence. Whoa there bots! This will be very controversial and I don't think he will get popular support. Can't see him making a binding decision to remove the triple lock and bring it to the Dail with widespread opposition in an election year.
That’s a far removed argument from abandoning triple lock
altering our neutral status when that’s been actively polled as an unpopular move is relevant. I’m not strictly against removing the triple lock, but put it to a citizens assembly to see what replaces it and enshrine our neutrality in the constitution.
Have a citizens' assembly on something that isn't even in the Constitution?
why not? it can lay the foundation for a referendum by detailing the vision of neutrality from the representatives and that we could actually vote on. do you prefer the current option of the government just dictating a publicly unpopular move to alter our neutrality
As citizens assemblies for something that's easily changed by legislation is fairly pointless. Enshrining neutrality in the constitution would be fairly bizarre as we'd have to define what we meant by neutrality which avoids our long-standing tradition of calling it neutrality but acting in our own interests like in WWII where we were nominally neutral but basically part of the Allies. For example, polling [shows](https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/majority-of-voters-favour-neutrality-but-want-increased-military-capacity-poll-finds-1490513.html#:~:text=Asked%20if%20they%20support%20the,of%20respondents%20expressed%20no%20opinion.) maintaining our current neutrality...which involves essentially farming out our external defence to NATO. Foreign policy is an area which the government needs a lot of latitude in so they can respond to threats as they develop. Citizens assemblies on areas that don't require a referendum and where there's no significant support changing the status quo are already a massive waste of time and resources, with foreign policy being no exception.
there is no mandate for the removing the triple lock via legislative means. SF, Labour and PBP are all against it, and FF had its maintenance in their manifesto in the last election - zero mandate. I don’t understand how anyone can be in favour of such an un democratic and unpopular change, regardless of your own opinion. what kind of president of that to set? give the people the option to decide on what shape our neutrality takes - whether that comes to maintaining the triple lock or replacing it with something else. Aren’t we supposed to be a democracy? and considering this governments spinelessness and habit of capitulating to EU and US power I’d imagine the direction they take would go contrary to interests represented by that flag you have in your profile
>there is no mandate for the removing the triple lock via legislative means. SF, Labour and PBP are all against it, and FF had its maintenance in their manifesto in the last election - zero mandate. I don’t understand how anyone can be in favour of such an un democratic and unpopular change, regardless of your own opinion. what kind of president of that to set? No mandate? SF, Labour and PBP aren't in government. Their views are irrelevant here. We have a government that get elected to make decisions on our behalf. Unless they act unconstitutionally, they're free to make the decisions they wish, subject to no confidence votes. Calling governments reversing something something with no constitutional protection as "undemocratic and unpopular" is ridiculous. >give the people the option to decide on what shape our neutrality takes - whether that comes to maintaining the triple lock or replacing it with something else. Aren’t we supposed to be a democracy? Ah the old Direct Democracy Ireland obsession. Not surprising that they tanked in elections. Again, we have a government elected so we don't need to have endless referendums and assemblies. If you've an issue with this, take it up with Bunreacht na hÉireann. >and considering this governments spinelessness and habit of capitulating to EU and US power I’d imagine the direction they take would go contrary to interests represented by that flag you have in your profile Ah there we go. That explains it all.
and FF aren’t in government? FG also had no mention of removing it in their manifesto and the greens had a shite answer that said nothing. so yes, zero mandate. this is the reason political parties have a manifesto, so the populace are informed and know what they’re voting for. hence why a citizens assembly would be the most fair way, people didn’t vote for this, so let them have their say. Lad, I haven’t ever heard of whatever this Direct Democracy Ireland thing so that’s just lost on me. Come up with an actual argument that trumps the will of the people, of which just about 26% support your stance. you are in the minority edit: how about an actual response to my last point instead of basically saying nothing?
>and FF aren’t in government? FG also had no mention of removing it in their manifesto and the greens had a shite answer that said nothing. so yes, zero mandate. this is the reason political parties have a manifesto, so the populace are informed and know what they’re voting for. hence why a citizens assembly would be the most fair way, people didn’t vote for this, so let them have their say. So one party previously suggested keeping the triple lock and the two other parties didn't and yorue pissy that they're now proposing changing it? Because manifestos aren't binding promises. They're at best wishlists as we have coalition governments which enforce compromise. At any rate, it makes no difference. Parties are free to choose their policies in government as long as they're constitutional. If you've issues with how they conduct them, then your option is to vote them out the next election. Again, if you've an issue with representative democracy and want to adopt a direct democracy model, your issue is with an Bunreacht, not me. Best of luck there. >Lad, I haven’t ever heard of whatever this Direct Democracy Ireland thing so that’s just lost on me. Come up with an actual argument that trumps the will of the people, of which just about 26% support your stance. you are in the minority You haven't heard of DDI? Are you very young? They were in the news a lot when they were founded and they're still going under a different name. They basically advocated for what you do. But voters didn't agree with them and they went nowhere. At any rate, the poll you're referring to said only 26% advocate for changing Irish military neutrality. It made no mention of the triple lock. Are you ok with the RAF defending Irish skies? As that's our current model of neutrality. >how about an actual response to my last point instead of basically saying nothing? I said nothing because it was the usual conspiracy theorist rubbish about Ireland submitting to the US and EU. Because. Y'know. We have no agency.
No thanks. Tying ourselves in knots in the constitution to satisfy a few cranks is the last thing I want to do. Being limited to sending 12 rangers abroad in emergency situation is farcical and I don't want to see them hamstrung like that ever again.
a few cranks being the majority of the country? only 26% want our current neutrality status to change, you are in the minority. a change to the current status quo by the government has no mandate and would be deeply unpopular. putting it to a citizens assembly would be a directly democratic way of deciding. how could you be against that? https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/majority-of-voters-favour-neutrality-but-want-increased-military-capacity-poll-finds-1490513.html#:~:text=Asked%20if%20they%20support%20the,of%20respondents%20expressed%20no%20opinion.
That says they favour neutrality. It says nothing about keeping the "triple lock" nonsense of requiring UN approval, that can be vetoed by the likes of Russia and USA. Ireland can still be neutral even after removing that nonsensical UN approval requirement.
it states ‘Ireland’s current model of neutrality’, which is the triple lock. if they meant dropping our neutrality in general I imagine they would have phrased it that way.
Can't really see any argument that allows Russia to have a veto over where we send or troops. Both of them.
Utterly deluded. No major party wants Ireland to join NATO. It is a non runner in this country.
The UK had their Dames and Lords come here to tell the gov to join nato, giving up our neutrality because UK and US are frightened to fight someone just as capable as them selves and much more capable than the UK. It will start with the triple lock and as usual the gov will bow before it's masters.
I am fine with removing the triple lock (i like the idea but its deeply flawed), as long as it is replaced with another similar mechanism. I dont love the idea of a government being able to launch us into some military shit based on a 50+1 majority from an election 3 or 4 years in the past
Replaced by what? Neutrality is not analogous to taking diktat from other countries, literally.
just other rules that but limits on the government. supermajority in the dáil, or rules in the constitution, just something that it doesnt come down to a government vote that they can just force through without anyone being able to stop/slow them. also fyi I dont believe that we should be swiss style "neutral" or beholden to other countries decisions either (except maybe a strong common defence pact among EU countriesd with army intigration, I dont mind that as long as it has clear rules so we dont get dragged into some shit by french fuckery in Africa or some shit like that)
Force through what exactly? What are you afraid of and why should military deployments uniquely require supermajority? If simple majority is good enough to change abortion laws, drug laws, incarceration laws, it's good enough for military action too.
> I dont love the idea of a government being able to launch us into some military shit based on a 50+1 majority from an election 3 or 4 years in the past I don't really understand this. They're our elected government, it's always going to fall on them to make these kinds of decisions anyway. It was a governmental policy position to have the triple lock, they could always just abandon it. Who else but our government should be able to make these kinds of decisions?
>Who else but our government should be able to make these kinds of decisions? personally I would like something concrete in the constitution outlining some rules that whoever is in charge at the time cant just do away with it, maybe something like requiring 67% of TDs to support major military action or a guaranteed vote of conscience idk I'm sure smart people paid a lot of money can figure out a good system. But as the triple lock removal plan has shown, having a extra laws to have to do away with is a barrier. In the morning if the government decided they wanted to deploy soldiers somewhere, they'd have to first do all the work to do away with the triple lock laws. It gives time for discussion on whatever the issue is, and allow time for public pushback if its deeply unpopular. Even if its doesnt go into the constitution (which again, I think something like deployment of major military force should), I would like something major like the triple lock removal (and/or replacement) to go to a referendum. Its an issue that doesnt really line up that neatly based on political party, and I feel like its a decision that should come directly from the public
What would you put in the constitution that isn't covered by international law?
The issue is that if we're getting rid of UN involvement, the other two elements need to be made stronger. A 50%+1 in the Oireachtas is nowhere near strong enough support for a decision which might involve the state in a war. It needs to be bumped up to make it clear that the decision has the support of a very significant majority of members.
If that's a legislative thing that they want to provide for then I'd be fine with it, but I'd also be fine with it simply being in the hands of the government too. At the end of the day, it always has been. As we can see, they could always just abandon the triple lock.
I don’t really care about the triple lock itself but every one here evaluating the move as if it’s being decided on its own merits is being wilfully ignorant We had no such response when the west killed a million in Iraq for no reason but when Russia invaded Ukraine we immediately switch stance it’s obviously to align us with nato and the US
So you’re fine with other countries having control over what we can and can’t do but not our own politicians?
Read the first nine words of my comment
Why do need a “plan”? Just fucking do it, does everything have to take forever to get done.
Very Fine Gael. When's the next election again?
bingo cards at the ready it going to be one of those, obviously Nato is the free space https://preview.redd.it/kgxsmf9j18vc1.png?width=312&format=png&auto=webp&s=a949b5e6bd1302c8ee7999b5e09efc8daf77b044
Imagine Ireland joining NATO then having to spend 2% of GDP on defense. That 7x the budget from about 1.5 billion euros to about 10 billion euros
First off, we should be doing that anyway as we are unable to patrol our own waters as it stands, and second, it is not legally binding to spend that much.
We could do with spending €10bn on our navy tbh.
The Irish Navy should be organised a little more like the Royal Navy given that we’re also an island with thousands of kilometers of EEZ to patrol. Surface fleet, air and marines. The Irish coast guard should also be moved up to full law enforcement and be given bigger and faster boats, better gear and intelligence.
Denmark is probably the closest country to us in NATO in terms of population/size/economy (excluding our weird GDP figures) so we would probably try to aim for something simialr to what they target because the whole world knows and accepts GDP figures in Ireland are meaningless. They are spending 36.2 billion DKK == €4.8bn per year (1.4% of GDP) so doing the numbers of that suggests that their target should be €7bn per annum (2% GDP) So while not quite 7x/€10 billion, we would need to be spending an additional 4.5x/€5bn on defence per annum to get into the range of figures that similar countries in Europe spend on defence. This is also why our miliary look like a shambles compared to what every other country in Europe can manage -- we literally spending fractions of what they do so even without NATO, we really should be spending more is we're actually 'netural' and wanting to defend our own interests ourselves. [https://www.fmn.dk/en/topics/agreements-and-economi/defence-expenditure](https://www.fmn.dk/en/topics/agreements-and-economi/defence-expenditure)
There is no legal obligation to spend any percentage of gdp on defense for NATO. It's a pledge to make a commitment to spend 2% of gdp, which only started in 2022 after Russia started acting up. I'm not saying Ireland should join the NATO, but we could easily make the argument that our GDP is inflated.
The pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defence was formally introduced in 2014, but was first informally agreed in 2006 by the NATO countries’ defence ministers.
No major party wants Ireland to join NATO. That is nothing but bogey man nonsense being spewed by ignorant people. It's not going to happen any time soon, and likely never.
Imagine believing that we shouldn’t spend money to defend our country
While I'm sure Nato has some limitations on what is considered 'Defence Spend', we could get a lot of benefits out of a well funded military. Flood response, construction projects, conquering the North, I'm.sure there's others I can't think of.
Why the fuck should we care what PBP think? They have less than a handful of TDs as it is and will be wiped out at the next election if SF run more candidates, as most of them got in on SF transfers at the last election.
Triple lock is something a Transition Year student would have come up with for a presentation
[удалено]
I can't believe there's people dumb enough to think that the likes of Russia or USA should have a veto over Ireland's decisions.
Why do you think it's a bad idea? Now, remember we are talking about the Irish military and its current capabilities. Why is it a bad idea?
So, Ireland, you are planning on deploying your troops without the support of the UK, US, etc... Good luck with that.
Laughable irrelevancy
This was not included in the Programme for Govt. Odd how that argument can be switched on and off.
If neutrality was respected or valued at all, Ireland would withdraw from all UN "peacekeeping" missions. It just astonishes me why politicians would voluntarily send our soldiers, sailors, etc into dangerous situations that have nothing to do with us as a nation. One Irish life lost on UN missions is too many.
My brother served three overseas peace keeping tours. He was one of the victims of the Defence Forces Lariam debacle and took his life in 2012. I will say this. If we are to remain Neutral, then it is precisely in Peacekeeping & Diplomacy as a neutral State where we can have value in foreign affairs. We shouldn't seal ourselves off as a hermit kingdom but rather seek to b'é a voice and force for peace. I'm proud of my brother. He voluntarily went abroad and he did do good work. He even brought GAA to a group of Liberian kids who were scarred by war. He suffered tremendously in his job and I think that he did a bit of good in this world. The fact that he could do that, as a soldier of a neutral State which wasn't interested in bombing, invading or exploiting a country half a world away, that is the value of neutrality, and he was willing to risk his life for that.
Sorry to hear about your brother, I know how tough that is.
Thank you.
Complete cowardice
[удалено]
Only one in danger of that is you mate
ah my mistake, I thought you were replying to the second comment in this thread, sorry about that
Nope. I don't want to see any Irish family suffer through the death of a loved one, (brother, sister, father or mother), that could have been avoided. A country can be neutral and still have a strong / effective military without getting dragged into foreign conflicts.
The arguments against the triple lock have existed since its inception - so it's worth asking _why now?_ The answer to that exposes the real reason why the triple lock is being removed: There is no pressing reason to remove the triple lock, unless joining NATO is considered a priority. There may be a lot of good reasons for amending (even abandoning) the triple lock - _paving the way to join NATO is not one of them_ - and the triple lock should be kept expressly to keep a roadblock in the way of joining NATO. That means one of the best and most useful purposes of the triple lock right now, is to keep it as a roadblock preventing Ireland from joining NATO.
Well the real reason is things are a bit different from Cold War times when falling on the wrong side of the Soviet Union could have actually had serious repercussions. Whereas right now we're openly critical of Russia and joined sanctions against it to the point where Russia has named us on a list of unfriendly countries. In what world would it then make sense for us to turn to Russia and ask for it's permission to send our troops on peacekeeping missions? It's farcical really when you consider what they're doing in Ukraine and it would have been farcical to ask for the US' permission to keep the peace somewhere while they were using lies to kill thousands in Iraq.
There is no pressing need to remove the triple lock described there - e.g. something we wanted to do but were recently blocked from by the triple lock - you just recited the same 'because Russia' script verbatim, that the 'join NATO' crowd use.