Referendum needed on plans to ditch the triple lock

Sir, – The controversial plan to ditch the triple lock continues unabated (“ Jaded rhetoric and trite stereotypes about neutrality are inflaming triple lock debate ”, October 29th). Maybe the “jaded rhetoric and trite stereotyping” would greatly diminish if the focus were on why the Government has dismissed all calls for a referendum. I suspect the reason is that the argument being used to remove it would very quickly drain away under the scrutiny of a referendum campaign.

According to UN records, the five permanent members have only used a veto to block a peacekeeping mission on six occasions since 1946 with Ireland impacted on a single occasion when China used its veto to block the renewal of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force in Macedonia (1999) . In some cases, the veto was well-intended and a compromise was reached. If the Government is similarly well-intended in this regard, they would surely seek a full review of the veto system and work with other UN members to have it updated.

The reason the veto arrangement was included in the charter was to ensure the five most powerful countries would become members. The UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, collapsed largely because it lacked the binding participation of the world’s most powerful nations. What could be driving most concern is the tenacity being employed by the Government to remove what many believe is a vital safety net and protection of our neutrality – especially when we are suffering from many other very serious social problems that seem to attract far less diligence.

The discord this issue has created makes a referendum vital to ensure the people’s will, and not that of powerful individuals, is served. – Yours, etc, Jim O’Sullivan, Rathedmond, Sligo.