Letters to the Editor: Ireland must retain the triple lock
President Michael D Higgins. A reader states: 'I support the retention of the triple lock for UN peacekeeping duties. A role for which our Defence Forces is respected by the UN for more than 70 years of service.' Picture: Niall Carson/PA
The triple lock was then brought in to assure the public our Defence Forces would continue to be sent for UN peacekeeping duties only. A second Nice referendum was passed by voters in 2002 by a 62% majority. The triple lock for our Defence Forces to be on UN duties involves a government decision, a Dáil vote (which, hopefully, represents the wishes of the people), and UN Security Council approval.
It protects our Defence Forces from the dangers of misuse of unilateral power over them.
The UN armed forces are called peacekeepers — a unique role for a country’s defence forces or army to be part of.
The triple lock is being debated again by a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael leadership in government — some of whom want to remove it. President Michael D Higgins is firmly against removing it.
Governments in the past did not show enough appreciation for our Defence Forces. Partners of military personnel had to campaign and stand at the Dáil gates for better wages for the army, navy, and military personnel.
I fear if the triple lock is removed, our Defence Forces may be sent to fight in other countries’ conflicts because some of our political leaders want to be part of the EU military club. Perhaps this is pressure from the EU. We are a neutral country when it comes to war.
I support the retention of the triple lock for UN peacekeeping duties. A role for which our Defence Forces is respected by the UN for more than 70 years of service.
There’s a lot of scaremongering and moral-grandstanding going on around the presidential election.
People have accused Catherine Connolly of being pro-Russian. You could just as easily accuse Fianna Fáil's and Fine Gael’s candidates of being pro-Israel, given their failure to pass a single sanction on Israel to punish it for its genocide and occupation.
Now some feel the odd need to defend Germany, and won’t vote for Connolly because she mentioned an arms buildup in Europe. I think that’s a selfish and foolhardy response, given that Germany has unabashedly and hypocritically supported bloodshed in Palestine while decrying it in Ukraine.
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are always keen to underline the “non-political” nature of the presidency — yet look how much more work Michael D Higgins has done for Ireland’s anti-genocide image (sadly still just an image) than the government has?
Heather Humphreys or Jim Gavin would surely not criticise their political parties’ failings to punish the crime of genocide if elected. That’s good enough reason to vote for Connolly.
I think this presidential election, like the last US election, is a poll on action against genocide. Unlike the US, we have an anti-genocide candidate, so we don’t have to withhold our votes.
We ask all candidates in the forthcoming presidential election: “Will you defend Ireland’s neutrality and keep the triple lock? Will you respond to letters concerning this and other matters?”
We ask because we wrote a letter to President Michael D Higgins. We decided to post a letter instead of sending an email. We bought the paper and envelope, a postage stamp costing €1.65, and went to post it at the post office. We waited and waited for a reply- but received not even an acknowledgement.
What does this mean? Did the letter arrive? If not, then where is it? Where are all the others letters that have been sent to the president? Did they receive replies?
Letter writing is one of the great arts. Surely these letters must contribute to the archives?
We thought that our letter was rather good. Believing that Mr Higgins’s legacy to us will be his statement that ‘it is not moral to be silent’, we asked what he had to say on Irish neutrality, the attempts to modify the triple lock that safeguards our neutrality, and on the increasing investment in Irish militarisation.
It’s said by all that the office of president is above politics. Yet one longstanding government party put the whip on its sitting TDs, senators, and councillors during the nomination process and another, through a spokesperson, indicated what would happen if any of their elected members nominated a candidate outside of that party. In effect politicising this constitutional process. Shame on our these two parties.
Well done to others who facilitated aspiring candidates even against the wishes of their party.
So what this means is that we have an election for an ‘above politics’ constitutional office being influenced by politicians who have a duty to uphold the Constitution, it’s mind boggling.
Perhaps the time is long overdue for change, not just of the constitutional process for presidential candidate selection but also of government. The electorate will have its say on the presidency, let’s hope the established political parties listen.
It’s all well and good the Government saying they won’t be giving one-off measures in the budget, but this is coming from ministers who don’t have to live on €244 per week. I’m laying down the gauntlet to these ministers to swap their salary for one month for that of a social welfare recipient, and then tell me that a decent raise is not needed?
I am on a disability allowance as I have a medical condition that should have been diagnosed a long time ago and now I am unable to work. I would like to see one government minister to take up the challenge and I’ll prove to them how hard it is to live on €244 per week
With the upcoming budget, my immediate thoughts are similar to those I experienced 12 months ago that related to the most vulnerable sector in our society, who are totally dependent on the provision of full-time care.
Like so many other people concerned with the above issue for many years I am conscious of the limited success we had since last year when the means-testing on eligibility for the carers' allowance was increased.
This proactive measure was taken in the context, that provision would be made over the following four budgets to incrementally increase the exemption so as to eliminate the means-testing on carers' allowance.
I hope the Government will follow the example set last year and remove a similar number of carers this year from having to be means-tested. It is only under such circumstances that the credibility of our politicians can have any worthwhile meaning for the carers of this country and even more importantly for those disabled people who are dependent on each of their carers for 24 hours every day.
Rory McIlroy’s claim (during one of his Ryder Cup interviews) that the USA ‘is the best country in the world’ surely takes sycophancy to new heights.
This is a country with a convicted felon for its president; a country whose military support for Israel empowers the Gaza genocide; a country with more than 10% of its population living in poverty; a country whose foreign policies has cost countless innocent lives in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, Central America, and Iraq; a country which has almost 50,000 gun-related deaths each year; a dysfunctional, divided country widely despised almost as much as Israel and Saudi Arabia are. So much for McIlroy’s ridiculous claim.
