Referendum sul Triple Lock non necessario, dice Tánaiste

Because it’s unwinnable

I’m predicting a future headline: Tánaiste not necessary, say Irish voters 

They held a referendum to change a few words in the constitution for apparently no reason other than to modernise the text….they can hold one for the triple lock

I 100% agree. It’s not needed.

Time to get rid of the Triple Lock altogether.

The Irish are grown ups, we should be able to say where we send our troops without Russia or America telling us what to do.

PBP and Sinn Féin love calling for an aul referendum.

Right to housing, right to water, IMF bailout.

They’re always looking for referendums on complex topics that have nothing to do with the constitution, because they know it goes down well with their core, “They’re only fat cats lining their own pockets, they don’t listen to the ordinary wurker” demographic.

Well, it’s never been a constitutional provision and wasn’t introduced by a referendum to put in a constitutional amendment – it’s just legislation, so it wouldn’t necessitate a referendum.

Personally, I can’t really see how it impacts Ireland’s neutrality tbh. Our naturally is something we should be defining ourselves. What we’ve done is outsource the concept of neutrality to the UN Security Council, which includes the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as permanent members, so effectively we can’t deploy peacekeeping missions to anything that any of those disagree with – so we would have our hands tied in any assistance to peacekeeping in Ukraine, Gaza / Palestine, etc that was for example coordinated by the EU and not sanctioned by the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.

I mean what are we saying in the triple lock? It’s not as if without tying ourselves to the UNSC that Ireland’s somehow going to go off as some warmongering state. Do we seriously not trust the Oireachtas to make decisions on neutrality or to have a moral sense of what that concept means?

I mean, how exactly can or is Ireland neutral in the Russia vs Ukraine conflict? Are we going to sit with our lips sealed claiming saying “careful now!” when it comes to Israel / Palestine ? We adopt positions of military neutrality in the sense of not going to war with anyone, but we often adopt very vocal and highly moral positions on conflicts, and there’s nothing negative about that – It’s been very positive and we’ve often been a strong voice on a lot of issues over the years where many other countries stayed silent.

Swiss and formerly the way Finnish neutrality used to operate under “Finlandisation” often took it to real technocratic and diplomatic extremes – where they’ll just refuse to comment on topics at all due to the constraints they were under.

I just find the whole debate a bit buckpassing and comes down to an unwillingness to tease out what Irish neutrality actually means. It seems to me we can’t define it and that it’s highly subjective, and that we’ve outsourced our moral compass on the issue as a copout to avoid debate and politicians having to think about hard moral dilemmas – you can just cite the UNSC instead.

Paul Murphy is a twat

Bizzare how attitudes surrounding Neutrality in Ireland operate. Why is this even a question.

Irish Neutrality emerged out of WW2 and DeValeras ego mixed in with a bit of historical baggage. Couldn’t back the Nazis coz they were obviously bad, but couldnt back the Brits coz they were the Brits…so….Neutrality

Thats it, not set in stone, not a consitutional issue, just an antique Fianna Fail gov. policy that somehow became pure habit and nothing more

Any election/referendum by the govt will be rejected due to serious dissatisfaction with govt performance

Technically not required but why would we ever want to get rid of the triple lock system.

Just look back at the Iraq war and all the small eu nations that were dragged into that abomination.

Like putting wheels on a tomato, technically possible, extremely time consuming but ultimately pointless.