The Irish Times view on the triple lock debate: more heat than light

The heated exchanges in the Dáil this week over changes to the triple lock reflected the fact that this is an issue on which clear blue water exists between Government and Opposition. The sometimes bitter accusations and counter-accusations, particularly between Taoiseach Micheál Martin and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, revealed once more how each side believes the other to be acting in bad faith.

Opponents of the change have some justification for their belief that it is being rushed, with debate guillotined at under four hours. The triple lock, which requires that any overseas deployment of more than 12 Defence Forces members be approved by the Dáil, the Government and the UN Security Council, codified a long-standing policy and became a key reassurance to voters whose concerns had contributed to the initial defeat of two EU treaty referendums. The Government’s argument that geopolitical change has made the Security Council veto an unacceptable constraint on Irish sovereignty has considerable merit, but it is easy to portray the amendment as reneging on promises made to those voters, or as a first step towards Nato membership. The Opposition parties also know they have popular opinion on their side. A recent Irish Times poll found 44 per cent of voters wanted the triple lock retained, against 34 per cent who favoured its removal.

There is a certain absurdity in the fact that people who argued a quarter of a century ago that the triple lock was a guarantee of Irish neutrality now say it is no such thing, while those who argued then that it was no safeguard at all now say it is essential. If nothing else, that goes some way to supporting the Government’s assertion that we now live in a different era. And public opinion is less settled on this issue, with more than a fifth of voters undecided, than on the core question of preserving neutrality, which more than two-thirds support.

There is also something incongruous about a country which has conspicuously failed to invest in the minimum requirements for its own defence engaging in disputation over notional military adventures overseas.

The Government is correct, however, that it is no longer sustainable for the final say over Irish participation in peacekeeping missions to rest with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump or Xi Jinping.

In a multipolar world where threats emerge without warning, decisions on security and defence belong with the Dáil and the government of the day. Public attachment to neutrality remains steadfast, but how it is expressed in policy is a matter for parliament. The amendment will pass, despite some unease on Government backbenches. If a calmer debate on those policies followed, that would be very welcome.