Latest news with #SeánLemass
Irish Examiner
06-08-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Kevin Cullinane: Ireland once planned boldly. At another crossroads, State must do so again
'A prosperous society is one which plans for the future, not one which lives only for today.' There was a time when Ireland dared to dream big and, more importantly, to plan big. From the moment the fledgling State emerged from the shadow of empire, it understood that survival and success would depend not just on grit but on vision. Strategic thinking wasn't a luxury, it was a necessity. Take the Ardnacrusha hydroelectric power station. In the 1920s, this engineering marvel on the River Shannon was nothing short of audacious. The State took roughly 20% of the national budget and spent it on the hydroelectric scheme in Co Clare. Built in partnership with Siemens, it provided 80% of the country's electricity at a time when most rural homes still relied on candles. It was a statement of intent: Ireland would not be left behind. Then came the ESB, a national utility that brought light to the land and symbolised the State's commitment to modernity. Under the stewardship of leaders such as Seán Lemass, Ireland began to think in decades — not election cycles. Lemass understood that infrastructure was destiny. Under the stewardship of leaders such as Seán Lemass, Ireland began to think in decades — not election cycles. He championed industrialisation, education reform, and the creation of semi-state companies that would lay the foundations for future prosperity. Our airports and ports followed suit. Dublin, Cork, and Shannon under Aer Rianta, the jewel in the crown of semi-state companies, became gateways to the world, not just for people but for ideas, trade, and opportunity. The foresight in the 1960s and '70s to preserve land at Dublin Airport for a future parallel runway, delivered on time and within budget in 2022, was a textbook example of strategic master-planning. So too was the reconstruction of Cork Airport's main runway during the pandemic. At a time when others might have paused, we pressed ahead with investment in critical strategic infrastructure, with the long-term dividend for Ireland in mind. This is what strategic thinking looks like. It's not always headline-chasing. It's not always universally popular. But it delivers. The next 50 to 100 years will demand the same pioneering spirit that built Ardnacrusha, the same resolve that laid runways in peacetime and pandemic alike. With the announcement of the National Development Plan, Ireland stands at another crossroads. We know what is possible when the State thinks long-term. The Government has committed €3.5bn to EirGrid for the development of Ireland's electricity grid infrastructure, an essential step in delivering Ireland's renewable energy targets and preparing for a decarbonised, electrified future. Uisce Éireann will receive €4.5bn between now and 2030, in an effort to build out projects supporting the Government's target of 300,000 new homes and large-scale water infrastructure. There is €2bn put aside to progress the construction of Dublin's MetroLink. DAA also has ambitious plans to continue investing in infrastructure and sustainability projects at Dublin and Cork airports, without State funding, once planning permissions are granted. We must fund Ireland's future. We must plan it. Above all, we must have the courage to make decisions and accelerate delivery. As Ireland's population grows by nearly a third in 20 years, the urgency of infrastructure planning becomes even more critical. Planning must move faster. Infrastructure must be future-proofed. Ambition must return to the heart of our national conversation. If we don't think strategically, we will fall behind. But if we do, if we channel the spirit of Lemass, the vision of Ardnacrusha, and the competence of our people, we can build an Ireland that is not just ready for the future but is leading it. The ambition is clear; delivery will be the test. Kevin Cullinane is deputy director of communications at DAA
Irish Examiner
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
