'Putin shouldn't have a veto': TD says triple lock debated must avoid misinformation
Fine Gael TD Catherine Callaghan has said the current debate over changes to Ireland's triple lock needs to be grounded in facts and not misinformation.
Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security.
Advertisement
Ms Callaghan, a TD for Carlow-Kilkenny and a former member of the Defence Forces who served in Lebanon, has said that under the current triple lock system, countries like Russia and leaders like Vladamir Putin have the power to veto Ireland's participation in peacekeeping.
'We don't believe that Putin or others should have a veto on whether our troops can be deployed on peacekeeping missions.
'Currently members of the UN Security Council bind Ireland's hands on peacekeeping missions, when these are decisions that should be made by our Government and the Dáil."
Ms Callaghan pointed to the fact that no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014.
Advertisement
"This has meant that Irish peacekeepers have in some instances been delayed from engaging in missions to disrupt human smuggling and trafficking and maritime drug seizure operations," she added.
'This shows the absolute need to reform the UN Security Council which Ireland will continue to push for, but with that unlikely in the immediate future, we need to act in our own interests as an independent country in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter.
'In recent days, I have heard opponents of the proposals currently being examined by the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security claim the UN General Assembly can approve peacekeeping missions and there is no need for a green light from the UN Security Council.
'But this is simply not the reality of how the system has worked over the last seven decades. While the General Assembly can make recommendations about deployments, it cannot compel countries to act.
Advertisement
'Only once in history has the General Assembly invoked a Resolution to recommend a peacekeeping operation - and that was nearly 70 years ago when it established the first UN Emergency Force in the Middle East in 1956."
Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security.
Ms Callaghan added: 'The context back then was absolutely unique where it had the consent of the parties involved - Egypt, France, Israel, and the UK - and the recommendation was in line with the priorities of four of the permanent members of the Security Council.
'The reality for the last nearly 70 years has been that every Defence Forces peacekeeping deployment has only ever taken place on the basis of a Security Council mandate. This underscores the rationale for removing the Putin veto."
Ireland
Neutrality 'completely unaffected' by triple lock...
Read More
She said removing the triple lock has "nothing whatsoever to do with military neutrality".
Advertisement
'We value our neutrality and we are remaining militarily neutral. Ireland was militarily neutral for decades before the advent of the term 'triple lock' around the time of the Nice and Lisbon Treaty debates and it will continue to be neutral if these changes are passed through the Oireachtas and become law.'
In an interview with
BreakingNews.ie
in April, Minister of State Neale Richmond said: "Ireland's triple lock mechanism for deploying troops abroad is an archaic tool that is hindering our ability to be a global force for good whilst surrendering our sovereign decision making to the veto powers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
"Given a UN mandate can be vetoed by any of the five permanent Security Council members, we are effectively giving the likes of Russia and China a veto of where and when we send our own troops."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and ‘we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning
RUSSIA is already at war with Britain, an author of the Government's defence review has warned. Fiona Hill, who was the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump 's first term, delivered the stark warning of the threat posed by Vladimir Putin. 4 4 4 She said: 'We are in pretty big trouble. "Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't anticipated.' Ms Hill said Moscow has been ' menacing the UK in various different ways ' for years, including poisonings and assassinations on British soil, carrying out cyber attacks and cutting sea cables. In her grim alert, the Kremlin expert said: 'Russia is at war with us.' And she warned that Britain can no longer rely on US military might to protect itself from enemy states. Ms Hill co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review, which warned the UK is facing its biggest threats since the Cold War — and set out plans to urgently build more bombs and guns to arm ourselves. Her comments came as Russian missiles blitzed Kharkiv, killing three people and injuring at least 22, including a six-week-old baby and a 14-year-old girl. The eastern Ukrainian city was struck by 48 drones, two missiles and five glider bombs as part of a huge, countrywide bombardment by Putin in retaliation for last week's Spider Web attack on his nuclear bombers. PM Sir Keir Starmer used an article in last week's Sun on Sunday to deliver his starkest warning yet of the danger of war. Putting the nation on a war footing, he said Britain must prepare to 'sight and win' against our enemies. New footage of Op Spiderweb shows drone blitzing Putin's burning aircraft 4
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
No more leprechaun economics: Ireland's tax swindle is finally ending
Donald Trump has sent Ireland to the naughty step. Once the altar boy of American commerce, Dublin now finds itself blacklisted alongside China, Germany and Vietnam, each a prime candidate for tariffs and sanctions. The offence? Running a surplus with the United States. On the face of it, the complaint seems petty. One country sells more than it buys. So what? But Ireland's problem, like the others on Trump's list, is that its surplus rests on a creed that has fallen out of favour. As offshoring hollowed out Middle America, the old Clinton mantra 'It's the economy, stupid' has begun to sound rather less clever than it once did. That, at least, is the mood in Trump's Washington. And judging by his campaign-trail fixation with the word tariff, many Americans agree: a reckoning is overdue. Ireland offers a particularly inviting target. Its surplus owes less to tangible exports than to tax gymnastics. A pill is made in Ireland for 50 cents, sold to a sister company (also in Ireland) for €10, and then shipped to the global market at the same price. The profit is booked in Dublin, while tax collectors elsewhere are left out of pocket. The trick doesn't stop there. Intellectual property is shifted to Irish subsidiaries, global sales are routed through Irish entities, and profits vanish into low or no-tax jurisdictions. Together, these sleights of hand form what we're invited to call the Irish economic miracle – a miracle that, by one estimate, deprives other countries of nearly $20 billion a year in tax revenue. The question being asked in Washington is: who benefits? Ireland, clearly. One in every eight euros of its tax revenue now comes from US firms. That's a fivefold increase since 2010, driven by Ireland's famously 'competitive' tax regime. It accounts for a large slice of a €150 billion bilateral surplus. When Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin visited the Oval Office in March, Trump put it plainly: 'We do have a massive deficit with Ireland, because Ireland was very smart. They took our pharmaceutical companies away.' It's hard to argue with the logic. Ireland has been undeniably clever at attracting American capital. Spending it is another matter. Much of the money sits on Irish books without generating the economic activity one might expect. The state's coffers may be overflowing, but the windfall is narrowly concentrated. Public spending, as ever, has been handled with something shy of brilliance. From roads and hospitals to housing and energy, the services most visible to the public have seen little improvement, despite years of surging revenues. Meanwhile, resources have been channelled into more headline-friendly ventures: a €350,000 bike shed outside parliament; a vast new hospital project already among Europe's most expensive; and billions annually to accommodate asylum applicants – most of whom, the government has conceded, are economic migrants. The miracle, it seems, left little room for prudence. As every lottery winner learns, easy money tends to breed excess. But with full coffers, Ireland could afford to paper over the cracks. Meanwhile, American tech and pharma giants have flourished. Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer and others have routed billions through Ireland, to the delight of shareholders and pension funds. If Trump moves to close loopholes or impose tariffs, these are the interests he'll have to console ahead of the midterms. The losers, predictably, are the American workers left behind by the long, slow flight of industry and tax revenue. Worse off still are the countries quietly drained by Ireland's magic act. The sums involved are vast. The structures that move them are so complex they can feel impossibly abstract. But the consequences are not. According to modelling by the Universities of St Andrews and Leicester, this tax loss has deprived more than 100,000 children of school attendance and some 1.1 million people of access to basic sanitation. Quibble with the methods if you like, but the core truth is hard to deny: when profits are rerouted, people are short-changed. Not that Dublin seems overly troubled. Only last month, Ireland's Taoiseach declared: 'Ireland earns its living from an open and fair approach to world trade.' The most pious nations often turn out to be the most artful. Ireland rarely misses a chance to sermonise on Gaza, climate justice, or whichever cause currently allows it to cast itself as Europe's moral compass. But as La Rochefoucauld noted, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. And by that measure, Ireland has paid handsomely.
BreakingNews.ie
4 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
'Putin shouldn't have a veto': TD says triple lock debated must avoid misinformation
Fine Gael TD Catherine Callaghan has said the current debate over changes to Ireland's triple lock needs to be grounded in facts and not misinformation. Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security. Advertisement Ms Callaghan, a TD for Carlow-Kilkenny and a former member of the Defence Forces who served in Lebanon, has said that under the current triple lock system, countries like Russia and leaders like Vladamir Putin have the power to veto Ireland's participation in peacekeeping. 'We don't believe that Putin or others should have a veto on whether our troops can be deployed on peacekeeping missions. 'Currently members of the UN Security Council bind Ireland's hands on peacekeeping missions, when these are decisions that should be made by our Government and the Dáil." Ms Callaghan pointed to the fact that no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. Advertisement "This has meant that Irish peacekeepers have in some instances been delayed from engaging in missions to disrupt human smuggling and trafficking and maritime drug seizure operations," she added. 'This shows the absolute need to reform the UN Security Council which Ireland will continue to push for, but with that unlikely in the immediate future, we need to act in our own interests as an independent country in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter. 'In recent days, I have heard opponents of the proposals currently being examined by the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security claim the UN General Assembly can approve peacekeeping missions and there is no need for a green light from the UN Security Council. 'But this is simply not the reality of how the system has worked over the last seven decades. While the General Assembly can make recommendations about deployments, it cannot compel countries to act. Advertisement 'Only once in history has the General Assembly invoked a Resolution to recommend a peacekeeping operation - and that was nearly 70 years ago when it established the first UN Emergency Force in the Middle East in 1956." Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security. Ms Callaghan added: 'The context back then was absolutely unique where it had the consent of the parties involved - Egypt, France, Israel, and the UK - and the recommendation was in line with the priorities of four of the permanent members of the Security Council. 'The reality for the last nearly 70 years has been that every Defence Forces peacekeeping deployment has only ever taken place on the basis of a Security Council mandate. This underscores the rationale for removing the Putin veto." Ireland Neutrality 'completely unaffected' by triple lock... Read More She said removing the triple lock has "nothing whatsoever to do with military neutrality". Advertisement 'We value our neutrality and we are remaining militarily neutral. Ireland was militarily neutral for decades before the advent of the term 'triple lock' around the time of the Nice and Lisbon Treaty debates and it will continue to be neutral if these changes are passed through the Oireachtas and become law.' In an interview with in April, Minister of State Neale Richmond said: "Ireland's triple lock mechanism for deploying troops abroad is an archaic tool that is hindering our ability to be a global force for good whilst surrendering our sovereign decision making to the veto powers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "Given a UN mandate can be vetoed by any of the five permanent Security Council members, we are effectively giving the likes of Russia and China a veto of where and when we send our own troops."
