Latest news with #TheLateDebate
RTÉ News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
What is Ireland's 'Triple Lock' and why is it in the news again?
Analysis: For 65 years the 'Triple Lock' has determined when Irish solders are sent abroad, but new legislation could change how it works The Government has proposed new legislation that will change how Ireland decides to send soldiers abroad to serve on international peacekeeping missions. The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025 will remove the Triple Lock when the Defence Forces are serving as part of an international force. But what is the 'Triple Lock' is, how does it compare to other countries' approach to sending troops abroad, and what are the arguments for and against changing the policy? What is the triple lock? The 'Triple Lock' describes how Ireland decides to send Defence Forces Personnel overseas to serve as part of peace keeping or peace enforcement operations. It involves UN approval, a decision by Government and a vote in the Dáil. The term 'Triple Lock' does not appear in any legislation but does adequately describe the legal process used to allow Irish overseas missions since the passage of the Defence Act (1960). Why do we have it? When Ireland first sent Irish soldiers abroad as part of the UN observation mission in Lebanon in 1958, the Government did so without a vote in the Dáíl based on the assumption that it had the legal authority to do so. Following this, the Defence Act (1960) put in place the requirements we now call the 'Triple Lock'. Later changes to the Act in 1993 extended the type of possible missions to 'peace enforcement' rather than just 'peace keeping' and the 2006 Amendment updated the language on UN authorisation and outlined the other circumstances when troops could be deployed for training, consular protection etc. The 2006 Amendment also clarified the necessity for a government decision in the process of authorising a deployment. From RTÉ Radio 1's The Late Debate, Why is the government proposing changes to the Triple Lock? How has it worked? Since 1958, Ireland has had a continuous presence on UN authorised missions. On no occasion was Dáil approval withheld for a mission. Since 1990, Ireland has engaged in 14 international missions but only three times was a formal vote held. In each case, approval of participation was granted by the Dáil. In 2003, the EU launched its first overseas military mission, EUFOR Concordia in what was then known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ireland was unable to participate as China vetoed the UNSC resolution approving the mission. How does it compare to how other countries make decisions on sending troops abroad? Ireland is not unique in requiring parliamentary approval for an international deployment. 14 other EU member states have similar requirements. In most cases, approval is granted, however there have been some notable exceptions. Both votes on deployment to Iraq were only narrowly passed in Denmark. In the UK, David Cameron's Conservative government lost a vote on deployment to Syria in 2013 and Barack Obama lost a similar vote on Libya in the House of Representatives in 2011. Ireland is unusual in two ways. One is that most countries have time limits on approvals. In other words, a mandate is granted for a specific period and then subject to review either on an annual basis (e.g. Spain) or on a mission specific basis (e.g Germany). Ireland on the other hand has no formal mechanism for the Dáil to review a decision to deploy troops on an international mission or indeed bring them home, for example the UNIFIL deployment in 1978 was only voted on once, although that deployment remained in place until 2001. Similarly, the decision to withdraw participation from the UN observer mission in the Golan Heights (UNDOF) was made by the Government without a vote. Secondly, Ireland is unique in requiring UN approval for a deployment. No other country has formally limited their decision making in this way, though in practice Austria has only deployed on external missions with UN approval. Germany on the other hand restricts deployments abroad to participation in collective security arrangements such as UN or NATO operations. Why is the government proposing to change it? The government is proposing to make two changes to the existing approach to Ireland's deployment. They want to remove the requirement for UN approval and to increase the number of troops that can be deployed without a Dáil vote from 12 to 50. The argument the government have put forward is based on their concern that as the UN Security Council (UNSC) has become more dysfunctional, Ireland should not be held back by the permanent members of the UNSC. They cite as evidence that no new mandate has been approved by the Security Council since 2014 and the increasing tensions at the Security Council for mandate renewals of existing missions. For example, EUFOR Althea, which Ireland has participated in since its deployment in 2004, is currently operating under an annually renewed mandate. Russia has become increasingly critical of the mission and may veto a future renewal. The mission would likely continue with the consent of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina but in the absence of a UNSC mandate, Ireland would be forced to withdraw. What are the arguments against changing it? Opposition to the change has focussed on two aspects. One is that they reject the idea that the UNSC is a constraint on Ireland's participation in peacekeeping missions. They argue that following the 2006 amendment to the Defence Act, a UN General Assembly resolution would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Triple Lock. They also point out that in practical terms, EUFOR Concordia remains the only example of Ireland being unable to participate in an international mission due to the absence of a UN resolution and therefore the Government's concerns about this are overstated. Secondly, the issue is framed in terms of Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. The argument is that the UN element of the Triple Lock ensures that Ireland cannot take part in other foreign military adventures such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and that removing the UN requirement is a step towards ending Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Though it is worth noting that a change to the triple lock would have no effect on the Constitutional provision that prohibits Ireland from joining a 'Common European Defence'. The opponents to change also hold that a UN mandate, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for Ireland to participate in international missions. Sinn Féín have supported Ireland's participation in UNIFIL but opposed other deployments. Likewise, both Labour and the Green party have voted in favour of deployments but have opposed specific missions such as the missions in Chad and Mali. Aontú and the Social Democrats have also opposed specific missions even when a UNSC mandate was in place. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, The history of Irish neutrality with historian and Professor of Modern Irish History at UCD Diarmuid Ferriter How will the government decide on future peacekeeping missions? The governments proposal is to remove the UN element of the 'Triple Lock'. However the proposed bill still requires the deployment as part of an International Force to "operate for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter." The definition of 'International force' in the bill refers to the UN, the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), the EU and "any other regional arrangement or body that operates in a manner consistent with the UN charter and international law." The proposed bill also clarifies that the Government can replace troops serving on an international mission that has been approved by the Dáil without a further vote. As we debate the future of Ireland's approach to deployments we might be best served by increasing the formal role of the Dáil in mission oversight after deployment, by requiring regular renewals of mandates and engagement with the mission command with the relevant Dáil committee on Defence. This would empower both government and opposition to ensure that Ireland's participation in international missions complies with Irish law, foreign policy and values.
Irish Times
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
Colm Ó Mongáin brings a welcome buzz to Joe Duffy's Liveline
It's a phenomenon that often manifests itself as an irritating noise in the background, attracting complaints from people who hear it. So it seems fitting that Liveline (RTÉ Radio 1, weekdays) should be covering the nuisance caused by drones – game recognises game and all that. Though, as recounted on Monday's programme, the problem isn't the whirring intrusiveness of the remote-controlled mini aircraft so much as the surly attitude of the people operating them – an accusation that can't be levelled at Colm Ó Mongáin, its genial stand-in host. The presenter hears from Geraldine, who describes being discomfited by a drone while walking near her home in the Burren, in Co Clare: 'It sounded like a big mosquito.' She accordingly asked the man flying it from the ground to delete footage of her, only to be met by a profane term for excrement in a foreign tongue. The exact language is left unspecified, though Ó Mongáin coyly states that it's spoken by many tourists to the area. READ MORE The confrontation escalated, with the septuagenarian Geraldine tugging the anorak sleeve of the taller man, who then, she says, picked her up by the armpits and threw her on the ground, before taking off in a car with his companions. 'It knocked the stuffing out of me,' she says. Though Geraldine was unhurt, it's a shocking tale, the sort of experience that fits neatly into Liveline's default hell-in-a-handcart template. Under Ó Mongáin's stewardship, however, there are some welcome differences. The presenter, normally heard on Radio 1's nocturnal forum The Late Debate and his eponymous Saturday show, brings a lighter mood to proceedings than Joe Duffy. Rather than sigh with performative indignation, he is wryly curious, encouraging his hesitant caller to share her story while drolly describing the altercation as 'asymmetrical warfare'. Geraldine sounds more nonplussed than distressed, only appearing annoyed when other callers push back on her story. One contributor, Majella, suggests that Geraldine could be seen as the aggressor – 'You can't really afford to lay hands on anyone' – while Shay, a drone owner, says that people can't expect privacy when in public. Faced with this, Mongáin loses his touch, challenging Shay's assertion with an outlandish scenario that would make Duffy blush: 'What if someone's on the witness-protection programme, and they can't divulge why they want the footage deleted?' Normal service is fully resumed by Tuesday, with the drone discussion aimlessly dragging on. Jacinta, a Dubliner, brings vim to her complaints about neighbours getting food delivered by air – 'It's like a scene from Minority Report' – while Mark, a farmer, worries about drones startling livestock, adding that some high-flyers are 'out of the range of a shotgun'. Legitimate as these concerns may be, they don't translate into riveting radio. On Wednesday Ó Mongáin switches to more pressing matters: the Irish actor Pierce Brosnan's performance in the TV drama MobLand. 'There's been a lot of online sledging of Brosnan's Kerry accent,' the host says, signalling his intent to get in on the action. [ MobLand review: Pierce Brosnan's Irish accent is a horror for the ages. Forget licence to kill, this is more Darby O'Gill Opens in new window ] But even the usually reliable topic of shonky onscreen Irish accents fails to generate much heat. The nearest thing to contention comes when Ó Mongáin gently corrects a caller that Sean Connery's Soviet submarine captain in the film The Hunt for Red October isn't Russian but Lithuanian. He may not fly drones, but the host is clearly a bit of a trainspotter. Ó Mongáin finds his groove again, however: his laid-back style works to good effect during an unexpectedly absorbing discussion of the challenges of bringing a child with autism for a haircut. With Duffy's contract up for renewal this year, Ó Mongáin's likeable on-air persona will surely see him spoken of as a potential successor should Liveline's long-time host depart. (Katie Hannon's equally strong performances as Duffy's other regular sub would also put her in the frame.) It's only speculation, of course, but at least it creates some buzz around the show. When it comes to background noise, Kieran Cuddihy is all in favour of it, in certain settings anyway. The host of The Hard Shoulder (Newstalk, weekdays) talks to Henry McKean, the Newstalk reporter, about the decision by the singer David Gray to close the bar at his Dublin show to prevent audience chatter . 'That sounds like a punishment,' Cuddihy says, chuckling. [ David Gray in Dublin review: huge singalong moments accompany vocal firepower of one man and his guitar Opens in new window ] His outrage only grows at the mention of trad musicians. 'They're always shushing people,' he says, gleefully decrying 'the ciúnas brigade' and 'trad-music Stasi' for curbing his rights: 'You should be able to talk down the back of the pub.' It's surely only a matter of time before Cuddihy's heartfelt free-speech absolutism attracts the support of Elon Musk. In truth, it's a good example of the host's capacity for exuberantly irreverent humour. He also knows when a joke has run its course and when to focus his attention on more serious matters, such as his interview with Jim O'Callaghan. The Minister for Justice is plugging his draft asylum law, aimed at speeding up the processing of international protection applicants' claims. The discussion covers legal and technical aspects in useful detail, but Cuddihy is at his most terrier-like when dealing with O'Callaghan's claim that most applications will be completed in three months. 'Why should people put any faith into that target?' the host asks, pointing to previous broken promises on housing and services. 'This isn't simply a target: it'll be a legal requirement,' his guest bullishly replies. 'But what if it doesn't work?' Cuddihy responds, pointing out the legal obligations of Ireland's climate-action legislation: 'Lo and behold, we blew straight past them.' O'Callaghan's monotone self-assurance remains unshaken, however. He sounds offended when his host wonders if the tougher new rules are 'the anti-migrant tail wagging the dog'. 'I think that's unfair,' the Minister says. Still, Cuddihy's question highlights the fact that the experience of migrants hardly features in O'Callaghan's pitch. It's more expedient to drone on. Moment of the week One of the worst atrocities of the Troubles is gut-wrenchingly revisited on Tuesday's Morning Ireland (RTÉ Radio 1, weekdays) when Audrey Carville talks to Alan Black , who was shot 18 times in the Kingsmill massacre of 1976, which saw his 10 fellow Protestant workmates murdered by a pseudonymous IRA unit. With a Police Ombudsman's report just published , Black is determined to get the truth about RUC collusion in the investigation – 'We know there was an informer involved' – and speaks about his survivor's guilt. [ Kingsmill massacre report: Watchdog identifies series of failings in investigation Opens in new window ] But his stoic tone changes as he remembers his 19-year-old apprentice, Robert Chambers, 'a happy-go-lucky young lad' killed in the massacre. 'My last memory of him was lying in the road, crying for his mammy, and him shot,' says Black, his voice slightly cracking. 'And then a gunman came over and just shot him in the head. That will stay with me until the day I die.' It sticks with the listener, too: the horrors of the Troubles should never be forgotten.
The Independent
26-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Opposition leaders to meet after Dail disorder
Opposition leaders are to meet on Wednesday morning after the Dail was disrupted over controversial speaking time changes. The opposition party representatives are to discuss their response to the disorder in the Dail, the Irish parliament's lower house. There were chaotic scenes of shouting, interruptions and allegations of misogyny on Tuesday as weeks of tension over the speaking rights row boiled over during Leaders' Questions. Ceann Comhairle Verona Murphy fielded interruptions and tried to continue Dail proceedings as opposition TDs took to their feet and objected to the government's proposals. She declared the order of business and changes to the standing orders passed before adjourning the Dail until after 9am on Wednesday. Speaking about the leaders' meeting, Green Party leader Roderic O'Gorman told The Late Debate they would discuss how the opposition would proceed, as well as the role of the Ceann Comhairle. In a statement on Tuesday, Taoiseach Micheal Martin accused the opposition of trying to bully and intimidate Ms Murphy and said it 'marked a new low' for the opposition. 'The prolonged barracking and the disgraceful lack of respect for the mandates of elected deputies was shocking in its intensity,' he said. He said the actions of opposition have been 'completely disproportionate over what is essentially an additional eight minutes of speaking time on two days in the Dail'. 'The opposition have not lost a single minute of their time or ability to hold government to account,' he said.
