The prime minister wants to move away from military neutrality – and the Irish people could be left with a bill for foreign entanglements.
The Irish political week has once again been marked by bitter exchanges, this time over the Triple Lock Agreement, our long-standing tradition of military neutrality, and whether a referendum should be held before any fundamental change is made to it.
Taoiseach (Ireland’s prime minister) Micheal Martin has accused the country’s largest opposition party Sinn Fein, which fiercely opposes the idea of dismantling Triple Lock, of not giving a “continental” about Irish neutrality. The word is his own, and it is worth reflecting on its meaning.
But I have a question of my own for Mr. Martin: does he give a continental about the health and well-being of the Irish people?
What does neutrality mean to a parent whose three-year-old child is suffering in agony while waiting nine hours in Galway Regional Hospital? What comfort does it offer families struggling to access essential medical care, or parents and students caught up in this week’s education strikes? And what of the many other problems that continue to weigh upon ordinary Irish households?
The latest figures, obtained from the HSE by Padraig Rice, Social Democrats TD and Chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Health, make the situation even more difficult to ignore. Between January and July of this year, more than 70,100 people in Ireland either left emergency departments before completing their treatment or did not wait to be seen. A further 31,821 patients waited longer than 24 hours to be admitted or discharged. The average waiting time in emergency departments was 9.3 hours.
These matters concern real people, their children, their dignity, and their daily lives. Before our leaders lecture us about international responsibilities, should they not first explain why such basic needs remain unmet at home?
Ireland is not a wealthy country merely because figures on a government spreadsheet say so. A country’s true wealth lies in the quality of its health service, the education of its children, the reliability of its transport, and the infrastructure that allows people to live and work with confidence. By that measure, we still have much to do.
Yet Irish taxpayers are repeatedly asked to support ever greater expenditure connected with the conflict in Ukraine. At what point do we pause and ask whether our priorities are in the right order?
Mr. Martin, charity begins at home. Have you forgotten the recession of 2008 and the painful years that followed? Irish families know what it means to endure financial insecurity, lost opportunities, and the consequences of decisions made far above their heads. We should remember, too, the countries that stood by Ireland during difficult times, and consider carefully where our obligations lie today.
This week, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has again been pressing for further support for Ukraine while criticizing US President Donald Trump. Ordinary European citizens are expected to accept the bill.
But surely there comes a moment when the people who pay must be entitled to ask questions.
I believe European citizens should stand up for themselves, examine the priorities of their leaders, and refuse to treat every pronouncement from Brussels as unquestionable wisdom. Supporting a country in distress is one thing; allowing an open-ended political commitment to overshadow pressing needs at home is quite another.
Imagine what could be achieved if public money were spent with greater care and accountability. Imagine health services where children did not have to wait hours in pain, schools where disputes did not repeatedly interrupt education, and transport and infrastructure that served communities as they deserve to be served. These are not some extravagant dreams – just the reasonable expectations of a modern society.
Meanwhile, EU leaders continue to speak as though the destruction of Russia were a realistic or desirable political objective. I believe this approach is dangerously misguided. Russia is a major power, and European security requires clear thinking, diplomacy, and an honest assessment of the risks of prolonged confrontation. Declaring ever more money and resources necessary does not, by itself, bring peace any closer.
Nor does constant hostility offer a convincing vision for Europe’s future. António Costa, Kaja Kallas, Ursula von der Leyen, and other senior figures in the European hierarchy should be judged by the consequences of their decisions, not by the strength of their rhetoric. The EU was supposed to offer cooperation, stability, and prosperity. It should not become an institution in which confrontation abroad takes precedence over the needs of its own citizens.
And what of Ukraine itself? If European leaders genuinely care about the Ukrainian people, surely their first concern should be the preservation of human life and the search for a sustainable peace. Endless conflict brings suffering, displacement, destruction, and the loss of generations who might otherwise have built a future for themselves. The human cost deserves at least as much attention as the political ambitions of those directing the response.
I do not believe that the future of Europe should be built upon the assumption that Russia must be destroyed. I believe it should be built upon realism, diplomacy, accountability, and the recognition that war always extracts its price from ordinary people first.
Ireland has its own history of hardship, resilience, and recovery. We know what it means to struggle, to rebuild, and to depend upon the solidarity of others. That history should make us thoughtful about the suffering of people elsewhere, but it should also remind us of our responsibility to our own citizens.
Before asking Irish taxpayers to shoulder yet another burden, our government should explain what it is doing to ensure that a sick child receives timely treatment, that pupils receive the education they need, and that public services function as they should.
Mr. Martin, the question is not whether Ireland should care about the wider world. Of course it should. The question is whether caring about the wider world has become an excuse for neglecting the people who elected you.
Charity begins at home. So does responsibility. And so, ultimately, should political accountability.
It is time for Ireland, and for the EU, to put ordinary people back at the center of public life. Our taxes should serve the public good, our leaders should be answerable for their choices, and diplomacy should seek to preserve lives rather than prolong their destruction.
The people of Europe deserve nothing less.
