Ireland doesn’t have a prime minister. Leo Varadkar is the Taoiseach. Sure it’d be less clear if the AP used the correct term but I don’t think that’s any reason to not use the actual term for his office.
It’s a gray area because Ireland is an English speaking country but Taoiseach is not an English term.
It’s normal practice otherwise for the press to translate non-English titles into their English equivalents, hence why we have English news articles about General Secretary Xi Jinping instead of Xi Jinping Zong Shuji.
It’s less of a grey area because Ireland is a predominantly English-speaking country. The official name for his office in both English and Irish is Taoiseach. This is in contrast to the President of Ireland, whose official title in English is ‘President’.
I’m British and we never refer to Varadkar as the prime minister. Any news coverage here refers to him, correctly, as the Taoiseach.
EDIT: And this is coming from the country who, regrettably, are the reason why Ireland now has to be so careful to maintain their ancient language after centuries of us trying to eradicate their native culture.
In general I get that and my instinct was similarly that it was strange not to use the word. I’d use Taoiseach for Varadkar in a way I wouldn’t use the native language word for other world leaders, because I think of Ireland as a primarily English-speaking country and that’s the word they still use whilst otherwise speaking in English.
But then again, I can also see that British readers like you and I who follow current affairs are going to be a lot more familiar with the term Taoiseach (or, in Calamity Truss’s case, the ‘Tea Sock’) given it’s the country next door and so hugely intertwined with British politics. I could name every Taoiseach in the last quarter century just by virtue of how much those individuals have featured in UK news - through the peace process, the financial crisis and then Brexit. I couldn’t do that for the leaders of any other foreign country of Ireland’s size. So I think it’s not unreasonable to assume the average US or other reader might not not know what a Taoiseach is.
Thanks for your input. Maybe non-Brits won’t understand that I’m not trying to be elitist. It’s just that, as far as I can remember, even in our shit-tier tabloids, he’s called the Taoiseach. Sure, it’s confusing the first time but I don’t think it’s the hardest thing to pick up from context. Prime Minister immediately smacks like a mistake or a lack of care.
I think the best thing would be maybe refer to him as PM in the headline (if there’s no better alternative) but then as Taoiseach in the article.
They’re writing for a global audience, and most people in the world simply wouldn’t know what they’re talking about if they referred to the taoiseach as taoiseach. It’s no different from referring to the Spanish President of the Government (the actual title of the office) as the Spanish prime minister, yes, that’s not technically the correct term but using language most people will immediately understand and understand correctly is generally considered to be more important.
I understand their justification and I assume both the author and their editors are aware of the real term. However, before I noticed that this was from the AP, I assumed this story was from a less-prestigious source because referring to Varadkar as a PM felt like a mistake akin to if someone referred to Rishi Sunak as a ‘President’ (as the Spanish use it) or ‘Chancellor’ (as the Germans use it). I wouldn’t have even commented upon it if this was the Daily Mail or such but I’d have assumed the Associated Press would respect their audience enough to understand the word with context and perhaps a short disclaimer.
I think you’re overestimating the familiarity most people, even generally politically literate people, outside of Ireland and the UK have with Ireland and Irish politics.
Completely agree. It’s also a word that you cannot infer the importance of the post or their responsibilities. With things like Chancellor, Supreme Overlord, Premier, etc.
I’m not expecting people to know. I’m expecting the AP to educate their readers.
Taoiseach is irish for chieftain but also the office is called that of the taoiseach in our constitution, so it would work as an English word in a sentence.
Opponents argued that the wording of the changes was poorly thought out — an argument that appeared to have gained traction in the final days of the campaign. Voters said they were confused by the questions and others said they feared changes would lead to unintended consequences.
I wonder how many people rejected the wording vs how many want to keep the status quo.
I voted yes on the family one and no on the care one.
While I thought the wording for the family one was very poorly thought out, I felt it was important to change the current wording to reflect what we all see around non traditional families and consider them a family.
The care one was an easy no for me. It stank of the state trying to wash it’s hands of the burden of care it currently has.
Edit: news here is saying there was a decent protest vote on the family one. The care one got slapped down hard. Last figure I saw was around 75% but that was early.
deleted by creator
I always find Ireland a little baffling. Woke companies are sending jobs there like crazy but they appear to be socially conservative.
Yet every Irish person I’ve met seemed fairly moderate.
Is the country really this openly socially conservative ?
Woke companies are sending jobs there like crazy
Not sure about the “woke” bit, but Ireland is a tax haven.
You will see many tech companies are laying off in America and hiring the same job in America.
Some had policies that if you lived in a red state they’d relocate you because of abortion rights.
Yet they have zero shits moving you to Ireland.
Not at all, the problem is there was no clear wording around what this referendum was trying to change.
There were fears that this could lead to the government washing their hands of providing care to people who need it.
When the top legal figures in Ireland were debating the impact this change to the constitution would have it clearly wasn’t ready to be put to the public.
Some context:
Yeah the wording was awful. I’d go one further… The state was trying to wash it’s hands of caring for the elderly and got told to go and fuck itself with a large protest vote on the family question (which I actually thought would pass and I expect a rerun of it in the future with better wording).
Varadkar let the mask slip in advance of polling on the care one. All very well for him given he’s rich.
