Letters to the Editor: We can’t rely on US and UK to protect us
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said that we must rely on the EU, Britain, and the US to defend us against the threat of Russia. Picture: Mark Stedman
I refer to the extraordinary recent statement by our Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, that we must rely on the EU, Britain, and the US to defend us against the threat of Russia.
I find this risible in a number of respects.
Russia has militarily, economically, and politically exhausted itself in its illegal invasion of Ukraine in pursuit of Putin’s colonial ambitions on his smaller neighbours.
When Ukraine became independent over 30 years ago, in exchange for returning its nuclear arsenal to the Russian Federation, its territorial integrity was guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum signed by three countries — the Russian Federation, Britain, and the US.
What did Britain and the US do when Russia crossed into Crimea and subsequently into Donbas? Absolutely nothing.
Our Government recently acknowledged that Israeli action in Gaza was genocide — but who were the main suppliers of weapons to Israel? The US and Britain.
But their complicity goes much further than that.
These are the two countries that we wish to call on for protection from Russia? Bear in mind that the US has been threatening Canada, Panama, and Greenland recently as well.
Instead of slavishly following the line of a former empire and the leading current empire, the focus of Irish foreign policy should be on UN reform, following the outstanding leadership shown by Frank Aiken when he was our foreign minister.
The UN Security Council must have its powers reduced to an advisory role, firstly with the elimination of permanent membership, the rotation of membership to all states in the UN General Assembly, and the elimination of the veto.
This must be combined with the major power of decision-making going to the General Assembly. The main focus must be on the elimination of nuclear weapons by all states who hold them on a mutually declining basis and the reduction of conventional weapons.
This may seem utopian, but the alternative is apocalyptic — where it won’t matter whether you are within or without someone’s nuclear umbrella.
Our so-called triple lock should be within General Assembly powers. This idealism forms the spine of the charter of the UN, which has fallen into disrepute.
There are plenty of practical steps we could take to show we are serious about this. We need to trim the personnel in all the major embassies here, which we can take as a given are riddled with spies because of our strategic location and naivety. We should not allow any military planes to cross our airspace or land at our airports.
We are the second-largest customer of Israeli goods (whose prime minister is subject to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity) — that must stop.
We should not let the Irish Open be held in Doonbeg. Under no circumstances should Donald Trump be invited to address the joint Houses of the Oireachtas.
My bet is that no Irish government has the guts or moral principles to do any of this.
There are many other countries who would join us in such endeavours. We could show leadership as a small nation. If someone doesn’t begin the process, our children or their children will pay a horrific price.
Dan Jorgensen, the European commissioner for energy and housing, has stated that at present in the EU there are 1m people who are homeless, 75m living in overcrowded accommodation, and 45m who cannot afford to heat their homes.
While the EU gives funding towards housing as a rule, it does not interfere with the housing markets of member states. This will have to change given that the housing crisis is causing social unrest.
In Ireland, house prices are now passing the asking price of the Celtic Tiger years, while rents have increased 98%.
One or two other EU countries have exceeded this rise.
In 2023, nearly 9% of the EU population spent 40% of their disposable income on housing.
When it comes to Denmark, it is 15%; in Germany, it’s 13%.
One thing that favours some mainland European countries is co-operative housing, which has been in place for decades.
In Ireland, we seem to be going down the disgraced Celtic Tiger housing market path, with developers talking of “starter homes” instead of two-, three-, or four-bed apartment complexes for families with lifetime secure tenancies and a stable effective management structure in place, as in the tried and tested co-operative housing of some European countries.
Recent commentary, including Mick Clifford’s article ‘Mild, moderate, or severe? Proposed regulations for therapists proving explosive’ ( , October 20), misunderstands the purpose and nature of Coru’s forthcoming regulation of counsellors and psychotherapists.
Currently, there are no legally binding standards for entry to either profession. Anyone can practise as a counsellor or psychotherapist without any training.
This poses risks for the public, which Coru’s regulations will address through clear, enforceable standards.
The new regulations will not, as stated, make it illegal for counsellors to work with complex cases.
Nor will any professional be required to categorise clients as “mild”, “moderate”, or “severe”.
Any suggestion that counsellors could face prosecution is wrong and unfounded.
The distinction between counselling and psychotherapy simply reflects the decision to recognise both roles as two separate professions, with different education requirements.
It is not a hierarchy of value.
Like all health and social care professionals, when regulated by Coru, counsellors and psychotherapists will be expected to work within their competence and refer clients when appropriate.
I recently wrote to the health minister and Coru, expressing my concerns about the unacceptable and unsafe standards Coru has published to regulate psychotherapy and counselling.
There are many issues with the standards, but the one I highlight in particular is terrifying.
Both of the responses I received, which were word-for-word copies, refer to keeping the public safe from risks “…to the people who rely on psychotherapy services, many of whom are vulnerable or at a vulnerable stage of life”.
I was quoted in the , along with the Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, which represents 6,000 psychotherapists and counsellors, on October 6 regarding this issue.
Coru gave a similar response in that article. I would like to elaborate on this point.
In my psychotherapy practice, I work with, and specialise in, the area of suicide.
I have published research on the same and am currently undertaking my PhD focusing on the topic.
Internationally recognised best practices state it is harmful and may lead to lives lost if a therapist attempts to rank a client’s “suicide risk”.
Coru’s standards include a requirement for therapists to rank mental health challenges.
Coru claims to keep the public safe, yet its current attempt will do the very opposite.
This is proven in research and practice across the globe.
I shudder at the thought of lives lost if these standards are not rolled back.
It is imperative that the standards are put to a genuine consultation that addresses this and all other issues that will lead to poorly trained future therapists.
As a keen observer of the presidential election from afar, I have been astounded to read the list of excuses Catherine Connolly’s opponents say she could have used not to have represented a bank as a barrister.
It seems not to have bothered any involved that to put forward any one of those excuses would have been to tell a lie.
I still remember my catechism: “A lie is always sinful, and nothing can excuse it.”
Lowering speed limits in urban and built-up areas is a welcome dose of common sense and simple physics.
Mass (size of vehicle) multiplied by acceleration (speed) equals force (the impact of hard metal on soft human bodies).
Slow and steady vehicle movements will make it so much easier and nicer to choose to walk, scoot, or cycle to the local shop, school, work, and pitch with my young son. And I’ll still be able to drive.
Swapping the convenience of a few seconds’ faster drive for fewer crashes is a brilliant trade-off.
