Diplomatic responses to major breaches by state players is a little like the black card in Gaelic games. It’s a sanction but is more gestural than punitive.
Look at two such incidents in our recent history. In 2010, it emerged a team of Israeli Mossad agents who murdered a Hamas figure in the Gulf states had used false Irish passports.
In 2011, Russian spies who had been “sleepers” in the United States were also disclosed to be holding Irish passports. Yes, false ones.
Ireland’s response in both instances was to expel a diplomat from each embassy. As painful, really, as a gnat bite on an elephant’s hide.
Yesterday saw a really impressive global response to the nerve-agent attack in Salisbury on the Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
More than 100 diplomats were expelled yesterday from the United States, from the EU and (later) from Australia, all in solidarity with the UK government. It's our lead story today.
We were one of the 11 EU states not part of the action. That came as a bit of a surprise. In a sense, the Government was caught on the hop yesterday and was a little late to the game.
Perhaps the security assessment that was ordered by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar last week had not been completed in time. Perhaps the Government felt more comfortable giving the decision the imprimatur of Cabinet today, even though it is not required.
In any instance, it would be a deep shock if at least one Russian official is not sent home from the Dublin embassy today. Anything short of expulsion, given what happened around the rest of the world yesterday, would send out very poor signals about Ireland’s solidarity with the United Kingdom.
Given the small size of our country, Russia has a very well staffed embassy - with 17 officials (there are an estimated 8,000 Russian passport holders in Ireland), compared to only five Irish diplomats in Moscow. Any expulsion from Dublin will be reciprocated - which would have implications for consular services in Russia.
That said, expect a big gesture from the Government to offer support to our closest neighbour and ally.
Personal journey or U-turn?
Simon Coveney’s dramatic conversion on the abortion issue has led to him being embraced by one side and shunned by the other.
Mr Coveney has said his support for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is contingent on new additions to the draft legislation, which will be discussed by Cabinet today. They include strict medical supervision, a defined cooling period and an absolute ban on late-term abortions.
Sarah Bardon has a lot of detail on the draft legislation that Minister for Health Simon Harris will bring to Cabinet today.
She writes: “However, some restrictions will be imposed including an obligation on medical professionals to outline the woman’s options in a non-impartial manner.
“The woman must consent to the termination being carried out and the medical practitioner must certify that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks.”
She also reports there are divided views among Fine Gael TDs and Senators about Coveney’s U-turn.
In the Irish Examiner, a spokesman for Coveney insists one of the safeguards the Tánaiste will introduce is a new rule that will prevent any future changes in abortion law (if this draft Bill becomes law) without a two-thirds majority of the Oireachtas.
That could work both ways and would almost guarantee that no restricting of abortion laws could ever happen if it were decided the new laws had become too permissive in practice. Moreover, is requiring a two-thirds majority for legislative change constitutional?
