Did President Michael D Higgins cross a line with his neutrality remarks? You bet he did

There are two issues tied up in the current controversy raging around the President and the Government’s plans for the future of Irish neutrality.

One is debatable: has the Government stacked the forthcoming discussions about the future of defence and security policy, including neutrality, with the intention of changing that policy in the future? There is likely to be much more hot air about this in the coming days.

The other is not really debatable: has the President stepped beyond the customary bounds of his office to become involved in policy debate with the Government? You bet he has. And, there is consternation among politicians and officials about it.

[ Who is Louise Richardson, the Waterford-born academic President Higgins has apologised to? ]

First, neutrality. The Government has repeatedly indicated that it is considering changes to the legal architecture of neutrality, specifically by dismantling the so-called triple lock, which means that significant Irish troop deployments overseas can only be made with the backing of a UN security council resolution. As the five permanent members of that body have a veto on such motions, this effectively grants Russia and China – as well as the US, UK and France – a role in important Irish foreign policy decisions.

Ireland receives just €11.6m in EU defence grants despite contributing many times that amount to fund

---

Ireland ‘scrutinising’ Russian diplomats’ visa applications amid spying concerns

---

Varadkar attends ‘Davos for Defence’ for first time to discuss neutrality and push for Gaza ceasefire

---

Legislation to get rid of triple lock being drawn up ‘without delay’, Tánaiste tells Dáil

---

The Government has also repeatedly said that it is not changing the policy of neutrality, though. In a way, it doesn’t have to: Irish neutrality has meant whatever the Government of the day wanted it to mean. And, anyway, the forthcoming forums on foreign policy, starting on Thursday, are about much more than that – they are about the role, if any, Ireland wants to play in neighbourhood security and defence policy.

The President may have a point that the panels are full of people who think that that increased defence co-operation is a good idea. There is a fair bit of muttering around Government about that. There is certainly not many people who have been warning, as the President previously did, of the destruction of Irish neutrality for decades. It is quite another matter, however, to assert that there is a “drift” into Nato when it is in direct contradiction of the assurances of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, among others.

Which brings us to the second point, about the President crossing the line into political debate. On previous occasions, such as when he was critical of austerity a decade ago, it was possible for the President and his defenders to argue that he was referring not to specific Irish Government policies but of a more general European approach and of an economic doctrine, rather than a governing programme.

There is no room for such ambiguity here. The President has been sharply critical of a specific Government initiative and warned against a particular policy direction. This is, as several current and former officials and politicians attested, entirely new territory. He is, multiple sources attested, a long way off the reservation with this one.

The presidency is universally regarded as being “above politics” – to the extent that the rules of the Dáil prohibit dragging the Office of the President into any political debates in the chamber. That is likely to be tested this week. The reasons for it is that the President – by virtue of his position above politics – is reckoned to be unable to answer back. Far from not answering back, the President has gone looking for a row.

[ Gerard Howlin: President Higgins should withdraw all of his remarks ]

It is universally accepted within Government that this is a deliberate challenge, a wilful overstepping of the line that Presidents by law and convention have not previously crossed. That line is fairly clear: Presidents do not get involved in politics and they certainly do not comment on Government policies. In return, politicians do not criticise the President.

Despite his apology today to forum chair, Louise Richardson, for comments which his spokesman said were “a throwaway remark” (which, really, the President does not get to make), leading figures in Government believe that his intervention in the debate is a deliberate and intentional crossing of the line.

“He didn’t so much as go up to the line as launch a blitzkrieg across it,” said one former senior official.

“I think it’s a sign of how strongly he feels about this,” says one official who knows him well.

Áras an Uachtaráin declined to discuss the issue.

And those who agree with him, support him strongly. “He is our elected president and I’m sure he is acting out of genuine conviction and concern that neutrality is being threatened,” says Richard Boyd-Barrett. “I commend him.” Political opponents of the Government are lining up behind him, further bringing the Office into politics, into the realms of political contest and contention. The views of the President are now the central point of political debate.

[ President Michael D Higgins apologises to Prof Louise Richardson for ‘throwaway remark’ ]

The controversy is unlikely to die down soon. It will certainly be raised in the Dáil and the forums are due to start on Thursday. Some people who know him think the President might return to the fray. They reckon he is thinking about his legacy and has more to say.

The redrawing of the boundaries between the presidency and politics may not be over yet.