Defence and Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Brian Stanley

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— Irish Neutrality has been central to the sovereignty and independence of the State, that it was first enunciated by Theobald Wolfe Tone and upheld by successive generations;

— despite being a small country, our neutrality has enabled Ireland to play a positive role in international affairs;

— the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960 encompassed neutrality and the requirement known as the "Triple Lock" which means that deployment of Defence Force overseas requires the authorisation of the United Nations (UN), Government and the Dáil;

— the Triple Lock is central to the policy of neutrality;

— the failure of the first referendums to have the Nice and Lisbon Treaties passed was due to concerns by the electorate on neutrality;

— to assuage those concerns, the Triple Lock and Neutrality were enshrined in solemn National Declarations that were attached to both treaties;

— the two treaties were only endorsed by the electorate in second referendums due to these solemn national declarations and guarantees included in them;

— any move by Government to overturn these commitments without a referendum would be a denial of democracy;

— successive opinion polls have demonstrated that the majority of the electorate want our policy of neutrality retained;

— being neutral does not in any way inhibit increasing the capacity and capabilities of the Defence Forces; and

— currently there is no upper limit on the number of Defence Force personnel that can be deployed for the purpose of overseas humanitarian issues;

calls on the Government to:

— uphold the policy of Neutrality and the Triple Lock as set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960 and the solemn national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon Treaties;

— recognise that these commitments regarding the Triple Lock and Neutrality can only be changed or amended by a majority of the electorate in a referendum;

— recognise that the triple lock and neutrality are intrinsically linked;

— strengthen the States policy of Neutrality by bringing forward a referendum to enshrine neutrality in the constitution;

— work with other neutral and non-aligned countries to reform and re-establish the primacy of the UN as the forum to uphold international law and for resolving international disputes and conflicts;

— abide by the principal of multilateralism and not allow the State to be become part of any regional military alliance; and

— halt plans to progress the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025 and the provisions in it to abolish the Triple Lock and Neutrality.

Where is the Minister for Defence?

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I am taking this today.

Deputy Brian Stanley

No disrespect to you-----

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I know.

Deputy Brian Stanley

-----but the Minister for Defence should be here. There is legislation planned to go before the Dáil to abolish the triple lock and, we contend, to abolish neutrality. The fact the Minister is not here is an absolute disgrace. It shows total disrespect for the Parliament.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

The Minister is coming. I am taking the first slot and then the Minister will be in later.

Deputy Brian Stanley

That is okay.

The whole issue of Irish neutrality has been central to our sovereignty as a State. As a member of the national defence and security committee, I am more concerned about what is happening now then I was in the past.

Despite being a small country, our neutrality has enabled Ireland to play a positive role in international affairs from the 1950s and 1960s to the present day. The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 encompassed neutrality and the requirement known as the triple lock, which means the Defence Forces cannot be deployed overseas without the authorisation of the UN, the Government and the Dáil. The triple lock has been central to neutrality, despite denials from the Government. The failure of the first referendums on the Nice and Lisbon treaties showed how important it is to the Irish people. Initially, they were not passed due to concerns about neutrality. To assuage those concerns, the triple lock and neutrality were enshrined in solemn national declarations that were attached to both treaties and they were only successful on the second occasion because of that.

Any move by the Government to abolish or undermine those commitments is a denial of democracy and, I believe, is open to a legal challenge. On top of that, I say to Deputy Murnane O'Connor as a Fianna Fáil Minister of State that successive opinion polls have demonstrated that the vast majority of Irish people, despite all the propaganda that is being shoved down their necks, support retaining the policy of neutrality. The policy of neutrality does not inhibit or stop the Government or State from increasing the capacity and capabilities of the Defence Forces, or from modernising them. The triple lock does not restrict the number of Defence Forces personnel that can be deployed overseas, despite propaganda to the contrary, for the purposes of rescue and humanitarian or emergency missions without a UN mandate. The Minister confirmed that publicly in the committee to me recently.

I turn to the issue of the United Nations. There has been a lot of misinformation suggesting that only the Security Council can veto peacekeeping missions. Of course, the General Assembly can do it as well and there is precedent here. Ireland would not have got a rotating seat on the Security Council six or seven years ago but for the fact we are neutral. One of the lobbying points to convince developing countries to support us at the General Assembly was exactly the fact we were neutral. I remember being told that when going to Geneva with a Fianna Fáil TD and a Fine Gael TD.

A false impression has been created by the militarists in the media and the Government parties about the Security Council deadlock. It is not permanently deadlocked. Between 2020 and 2024, 264 resolutions out of a total of 284 were passed with no veto being exercised.

In relation to the restrictions on more than 12 members, they do not apply in the cases of humanitarian disaster, rescue or emergency mission, etc. There are 11 active peacekeeping missions - including one in Kosovo, which members of the committee will be visiting in a few weeks' time - where Irish peacekeepers are. Only one has been vetoed by the UN Security Council. That was proposed in 1999 for Macedonia and was vetoed by China over a dispute to do with Taiwan. Ireland has been participating since 1958 in peacekeeping missions and Irish troops and peacekeepers have been held in high regard.

It is appropriate that I raise the issue of the Fianna Fáil position. It is not my primary concern. The main reason I am concerned about neutrality is that, as a left republican, I find what is happening scandalous. Grassroots people in Fianna Fáil are saying this to me. The Minister of State lives in Laois, the same as I do, and I am sure she is hearing it. Éamon Ó Cuív, former Fianna Fáil Minister, said at the weekend it is interesting we have a President, Catherine Connolly, who got elected on her positions on neutrality, the triple lock, the North and an teanga Gaeilge.

He said they used to be Fianna Fáil's core policies. That is what he said. Deputy Willie O'Dea, no lesser a figure than a former Minister for Defence, has been writing about the possibility of scraping the triple lock on neutrality. He said that Fianna Fáil abandoning its support for the United Nations is a Fine Gael doctrine, not a Fianna Fáil one. That is not Brian Stanley saying it but it is Deputy Willie O'Dea.

I want go back to the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Successive commitments were given by government at the time. Solemn national commitments were given. Solemn national declarations were enshrined and attached to both treaties. On the first occasion, those two treaties failed to get past the electorate in this State because of concerns over neutrality. They were rejected on the first occasion. Neutrality, the triple lock and UN approval for peacekeeping missions were central to that.

It is worthwhile quoting those declarations again. The following declaration was attached to the Nice treaty. It states that Ireland was not bound by any mutual defence commitment and that

The Government of Ireland have made a firm commitment to the people of Ireland, solemnized in this Declaration, that a referendum will be held in Ireland on the adoption of any such decision and on any future Treaty which would involve Ireland departing from its traditional policy of military neutrality.

It also states that deployment of Irish Defence Forces overseas requires the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, the agreement of the Government and the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law. That is what the Fianna Fáil Government put into it at the time.

The Treaty of Lisbon states that in line with its traditional policy of military neutrality, Ireland is not bound by any mutual defence commitment but, of course, we are abolishing the triple lock to be part of a regional military alliance. It also refers to the adoption of any such decision applicable to Ireland and states that this requirement will not be affected should Ireland ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. It goes on the reiterate, as in the case of the Nice treaty, that the authorisation of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the Dáil and the Government are required in accordance with Irish law. They are two solemn national declarations. They were not just made by government but by the Irish people and on behalf of the Irish people.

Are we going to uphold them? We hear the word "sovereignty" being bandied about and that we need to get rid of the triple lock because it will make us more sovereign but they were sovereign decisions of the people. Are Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael going to trample over that? The Government talks about it but these were sovereign decisions. Were Micheál Martin and his fellow Fianna Fáil Ministers just kidding us on two occasions in the noughties? Were they just codding the electorate?

I remember campaigning during those referendums on both treaties. Successive opinion polls have clearly demonstrated that the majority of people support neutrality. Is the Government going to turn democracy and the will of the people on its head? That is the question for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

The Government will deny that a referendum is needed to abolish the triple lock. I am asking it to respect the will of the people and to put its proposal to the people if it is going to abolish the triple lock. The Government's proposal will shred the triple lock and shred neutrality. If it has any respect for the electorate, it will do that.

There is also the denial of the fact that the triple lock and neutrality are linked. The Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael spokespersons continue to deny this but I remind them that if Irish troops were deployed on a mission as part of a regional force under the command of other countries, particularly larger countries like Germany, without UN Security Council or General Assembly approval, then they could find themselves in a combat situation possibly in eastern Ukraine against Russia and so on. Of course, if they become embroiled in military combat, they are exposed to attack. Those people who have served overseas and have been involved in some of this will always say that after the first military engagement, no one can predict what is going to happen when a battalion or regiment of troops are deployed. It is unpredictable.

The key message here is that the Government is getting ready to abandon multilateralism and resolving disputes under the UN through dialogue and diplomacy. The argument about the changed world order is another great one that is pulled out. This has been trotted out by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as justification for getting rid of the triple lock as not being fit for purpose. What does this mean? Does it mean that the Government does not believe in the UN? Is the UN not fit for purpose and should we just get rid of it?

Of course, the UN needs to be upgraded and reformed. There are also scare stories about Russian advances. The Russians have not got as far as Kharkiv yet. We have not seen any evidence of them wanting to invade Dublin just yet, and I do not foresee it any time in the near future. Four drones were flown near Howth Head on the flight path to Dublin Airport as part of the conditioning process to excite people and worry people, so we would abandon neutrality.

There is talk that due to the level of international conflict, we should ditch the UN and join with the militarists in Europe headed by Germany. It is nonsense. We should instead be adding to efforts to enhance the UN and work with other non-aligned states to reform it. We should work with others to re-establish the primacy of multilateralism for resolving disputes.

The triple lock was central to the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, which was brought in by a Fianna Fáil Minister. That was at the height of the Cold War, so it is important that neutrality and the triple lock are maintained.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Stanley as an rún seo a mholadh inniu. Neutrality has served this country well for generations. It keeps us focused on peace, diplomacy and humanitarian leadership, not on military alliances. Neutrality is not about standing aside. It about standing firmly for peace, international law and human rights. Our military neutrality gives Ireland credibility on the global stage as a voice for dialogue, conflict resolution and humanitarian action. With this in mind, we should be investing in peacebuilding, climate action and public services, not drifting towards the increase militarisation we are seeing in Europe and across the globe.

Neutrality reflects the values of many Irish people: independence, solidarity and a commitment to peaceful international engagement. The Government has now proposed the removal of the triple lock authorisation for foreign military activities which has a direct implication on that core ideal of impartiality in military deployments. The Government's proposals risk changing the way that we, as a State, engage with peacekeeping efforts and it will erode our credibility as a neutral voice in conflict scenarios.

Ireland has a positive and, in many ways, a unique voice in international peacekeeping efforts as a post-colonial nation within the EU and one that has avoided being tied to military blocs or to great-power politics. That unique perspective is one that is worth defending.

We must also try to avoid any effort to elide the difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Peacekeeping means the deployment of the minimal multilateral force necessary with the agreement of all sides to a dispute with a mandate to provide a security presence to protect civilian life, to prevent a conflict from escalating further and to create space to build the peace through humanitarian aid and peacebuilding programmes.

Peace enforcement, on the other hand, is the deployment of a force without the specific consent of the parties to a conflict and which uses a coercive military force to impose a cessation in fighting between two or more parties. We should not allow Government proposals around neutrality to confuse these two types of intervention. Ireland's commitment to peacekeeping is in line with the values of the UN Charter and it gives us credibility on issues of peace.

This does not mean being ignorant to the reality of the current geopolitical dynamic which has led to a paralysed UN Security Council. We must enunciate a visible alternative as a State. The solution is not to engage in partisan or ad hoc efforts to administer the UN framework as that way lies the Trump Administration's Board of Peace which is little more than an authoritarian vanity project. We should instead work with like-minded neutral states within the UN framework.

Deputy Charles Ward

I thank Deputy Stanley and his staff for bringing forward this motion in defence of neutrality. Maintaining our neutrality has never been more important. From Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan to the escalating tensions in Iran and the wider Middle East conflict, we are facing an era of overlapping conflict, instability, displacement and humanitarian crisis. Millions of people are being affected by war, famine, instability and devastating consequences that extend far beyond borders. Rather than becoming desensitised, now more than ever we must stand in solidarity with the communities impacted by conflict and support all efforts towards peace and resolution. At a time of growing instability, our voice is more important than ever. Our longstanding experience of conflict resolution can play a vital role. As a country we have the experience and skills to offer peace building, diplomacy and dialogue. At a time of deep division, these are the qualities that are most needed. However, we can only play this role from a position of neutrality where our voices remain credible, independent and focused on peace. Neutrality fosters trust. The importance of this cannot be underestimated. I cannot understand why Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are so keen to undermine our neutrality, particularly in recent years. What do they think can be achieved by this? Nothing, as it will not help us in any way.

A military approach has repeatedly failed to deliver lasting peace in many of the world's conflict zones. It has done nothing but deepen divisions and cause further suffering. We can honestly say that increased military intervention and increased defence spending in the EU and on an international level has brought no closure to conflicts - absolutely nothing. It is clear that many interventions have contributed to further escalations of human suffering, prolonged conflict and diverted focus away from the most important issues of diplomatic solutions and productive dialogue. I am not convinced that the countries staging such interventions are motivated by peace or humanitarian concerns. Strategic interests, economic priorities or outrageous displays of power often shape international responses in conflict. Why would we want to play a part in this? We would threaten our reputation as a neutral country by being involved in this. It is much better to be a peace builder. We have nothing to offer in terms of military power but we can offer much more than other countries can. Our strengths have always been peacekeeping and speaking out against injustice and oppression, not military might. This is something we should be proud of.

Maintaining our neutrality does not mean that we remain silent or condone the atrocities occurring across the world. Neutrality should not be mistaken for indifference. We must continue to stand firmly for human rights, international law and protection of innocent people while doing everything within our power to sanction the countries that are against human rights. The Minister of State has the opportunity to do the right thing tonight by voting in favour of Deputy Boyd Barrett's Sanctions against the State of Israel Bill 2025. Sanctions are important measures in holding these perpetrators accountable. They have a far more meaningful impact than abandoning our neutrality would have. If we keep on going the way we are going, we are heading for an almighty dark era in our country. Abandoning our neutrality only serves to facilitate wars. It does nothing to support victims.

We always have been and always will be outspoken on international matters. As a country, we have always cared deeply for colonised and displaced people across the world. People in Ireland have always been most vocal, particularly when we are supporting Gaza. We absolutely can hold our neutrality while also standing for human rights and dignity. The Government likes to tell us that this is not the case in one way or another. The Irish people have long valued and supported policies of neutrality. Recent polls show that 71% of people think Irish neutrality should be added to the Constitution. We should start to listen to people. We can start listening to people tonight by supporting the Sanctions against the State of Israel Bill 2025 tonight.

Deputy Brian Stanley

Hear, hear.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Aindrias Moynihan)

Tá leasú le cur chun cinn. I call on the Minister of State to move the Government's amendment. Tá deich nóiméad aici.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— the Government reiterates Ireland's longstanding policy of military neutrality;

— Ireland's policy of military neutrality is characterised by non-membership of military alliances, or common or mutual defence arrangements and this policy choice has been practised by successive Governments since the Second World War;

— the Government reaffirms its commitment to this policy and reiterates that it has no plans to either join a military alliance or enter into a mutual defence arrangement;

— in light of the above commitment, the Government does not believe a national referendum on enshrining neutrality into the Irish Constitution is necessary; and

— amending the Triple Lock legislation in relation to the deployment of our Defence Forces to peacekeeping missions will have no impact on this policy of military neutrality, and that no other European Union Member State, including other neutral Member States, allow permanent Security Council members to bind their hands in the way that the Triple Lock effectively does for Ireland;

recognises:

— Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality, and our strong tradition of participation in international peace support and crisis management operations over many decades;

— that members of Ireland's Defence Forces continue to contribute bravely to peacekeeping and crisis management efforts, particularly in the Middle East, as well as elsewhere in the world;

— that the multilateral system remains our strongest protection and the State's most important security asset;

— that Ireland's contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, and work for human rights and development, and our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, are internationally renowned;

— nevertheless, as a highly globalised country, Ireland cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events; and

— the importance of parliamentary safeguards and national oversight in ensuring Irish military deployments are in line with our policy of military neutrality, and that they are decided solely by the elected sovereign representatives of the people of Ireland; and

acknowledges that:

— the Government is committed to supporting the global multilateral system, to vocally defend international law, particularly international humanitarian law, and human rights;

— in common with other partners in Europe, Ireland finds itself in an increasingly contested, dynamic and volatile international security environment, marked by violence and conflict in our immediate neighbourhood, including Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa;

— Ireland, therefore, should not find itself unable to respond to peace support and crisis management operations that align with the United Nations (UN) Charter and International Law, due to a veto by permanent member(s) of the UN Security Council; and

— this legislation will remove the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions regarding our participation in an International Force and will also allow for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas in other overseas roles such as the crisis management evacuation of Irish citizens.".

I thank everyone for raising this issue today. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy McEntee. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important matters raised in this motion. At a time when excellence and the longstanding work of our Defence Forces in UNIFIL has been at the forefront of the public's mind, given the deterioration of the security landscape in the Middle East region and particularly in Lebanon, it is appreciated that we debate how we deploy our Defence Forces overseas.

I acknowledge all our Defence Forces personnel who are currently serving overseas. I am mindful of the sacrifices they and their families make in serving their country and the interests of peace. Members may be aware that the rotation of our Defence Forces battalion in Lebanon is currently ongoing and expected to be completed by next week. I fully recognise the strong public interest and the deep attachment to Ireland's military neutrality as well as the strength of feeling around this issue. I acknowledge that there are concerns and in some cases misunderstandings about the impact that proposed amendments to the Defence Acts may have on that policy of military neutrality. This includes changes to the provision commonly referred to as the triple lock. However, the Private Members' motion today misrepresents both by linking the proposed reform of the triple lock with Ireland's policy of neutrality and the amendment of domestic legislation with the need for a referendum on the issue.

I would like to outline what we mean when we talk about Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. This policy choice has been practised by successive Governments since the Second World War. The Government has clarified this on many occasions in the past. I am happy to put it on the record again today that we have no plans to alter this policy. Indeed, the Government made this explicitly clear by including a commitment to preserving and protecting Ireland's policy of military neutrality in the programme for Government, as published last year. We did this because we know that Ireland's policy of military neutrality has long been an important strand of our independent foreign policy. This does not mean we can isolate ourselves from the international security environment we find ourselves in today. The changing global security context means we have to take our own security and our responsibility towards our like-minded partners more seriously than ever. For this reason, the Government is committed to broadening and deepening Ireland's international security engagement as well as our domestic efforts to ensure the security of our country.

We all have to acknowledge that the world as we know it has changed considerably. The international rules-based order is under significant strain and Ireland needs to adapt to this new reality. In a mature democracy like ours, it is important that we have a responsive and considered foreign policy, as we have had since the foundation of the State. This is solely the sovereign responsibility of the Irish people. For this reason, the Government does not support the proposal to hold a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. The policy of military neutrality has been a deliberate policy choice on the part of successive Governments since the Second World War. If passed, this motion would significantly restrict the Government's ability to exercise its policy-making authority with regard to the conduct of external relations as set out under Article 29 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Government has no plans to bring forward legislation to hold a constitutional referendum on neutrality.

We all recognise that the UN Security Council is not effectively fulfilling its primary role of maintaining global peace and security. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have a veto power which can prevent the adoption of resolutions by the Security Council, including those authorising peacekeeping mandates. In practice, even the threat of veto is often enough to halt Council action. Ireland has consistently opposed the use of the veto, as demonstrated during our most recent term on the Security Council from 2021 to 2022, when we witnessed its use on several critical issues. As evidenced by challenges encountered last summer in relation to the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate in southern Lebanon, the threat or use of the UN Security Council veto is a significant complicating factor in sustaining international peacekeeping operations. With particular regard to UNIFIL, the uncertainty caused by the possibility of a veto over negotiations of an extension to that mission's mandate last summer created a situation in which Ireland had to prepare a contingency plan for immediate withdrawal of Defence Forces personnel in the event that the mandate was not extended.

While the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate until the end of this year has allowed for the continued deployment of Irish personnel, the vulnerability remains.

Recent years have seen a trend towards an increase in the use of the veto. The veto was exercised eight times in 2024 and four times in 2025. Indeed, 2024 saw the largest number of vetoed resolutions since 1986. The impact of the threat of the veto on the work of the Security Council is more difficult to quantity but its influence on the council's deliberations is clear to any informed observer. The Government believes, therefore, that the legislation underpinning the overseas deployments of our Defence Forces needs to be amended to reflect the current realities in which we are living. This Government, as well as the previous Government, have been clear that we need a new process to replace the current system, which effectively allows permanent members of the Security Council to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement.

Conflict and insecurity are clearly evident and they are having a harrowing impact on communities across the world. Yet, no new UN peacekeeping or peace enforcement mission has been mandated since 2014. We need a mechanism where our elected representatives in the Government and the Dáil have the power to direct the dispatch of our Defence Forces overseas. The proposed changes to the legislation will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of the Defence Forces as part of an international force, such as the UN. If anything, a removal of the influence of an external organisation on Ireland's decision-making processes for dispatching military assets and personnel enhances our ability to make national and sovereign decisions on these key issues. Why would we wish to curtail our independent decision-making? Whose interests does that serve?

This is not in any shape or form an attempt to disengage from the UN. Ireland remains firmly committed to the UN, the UN Charter and UN peacekeeping operations. It is important to note that, under these legislative proposals, Ireland will make national decisions but, importantly, they will be in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Ireland has always taken an active approach to global challenges and made significant contributions to international peace and security. Partnership has always been at the heart of all our international engagement. We have always engaged constructively with our international partners in the UN and EU, and we are committed to continue to work closely with our fellow EU member states, through the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, to address the common challenges we face.

With regard to the next steps for proposed changes to the despatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas, a memorandum for Government seeking approval for the Bill will be brought to the Government shortly. Subject to that approval, the Bill will then be published and progressed through the Oireachtas.

The Government's countermotion reiterates our support for Ireland’s long-standing policy of military neutrality and our commitment to multilateralism. It reaffirms that the Government does not believe a referendum on the matter is either necessary or appropriate. At the same time, it reflects our desire for a modern, fit-for-purpose foreign, security and defence policy, in keeping with the challenges we face today. It underscores the importance of ensuring Irish military deployments are to missions that uphold the principles of the UN Charter and international law, in line with our policy of military neutrality, and that they are decided solely by the elected sovereign representatives of the people of Ireland. Ireland's security and defence policy will remain firmly grounded in military neutrality, complemented by our active and principled engagement within the European Union, the United Nations and other international forums.

Our values and commitment to multilateralism, the rules-based international order and peace have not changed, but the global landscape has. We must be capable of adapting foreign and defence policy to meet these new realities. The Government's countermotion reflects that balance. It reaffirms our commitment to neutrality and multilateralism, makes clear that a referendum is neither necessary nor appropriate and underscores our determination to ensure that Ireland's foreign, security and defence policy is modern, effective and fit for purpose. In light of that, I call on the House to support the Government’s countermotion.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank Deputy Stanley for bringing forward this important motion on protecting our neutrality. As the Deputy's motion alludes to, the origin of Irish neutrality lies with Theobald Wolfe Tone, one of Ireland’s greatest revolutionaries. He developed the concept of Irish neutrality in 1790 in the context of a debate in the Irish Parliament about whether Ireland should, essentially, back Britain. It was obliged to back Britain in an impending war with Spain. Wolfe Tone argued that it was, essentially, a betrayal of our struggle for autonomy and against empire to be in any way a staging ground for empires in wars. That is where neutrality came from. That radical, anti-imperialist notion of neutrality was then taken forward by James Connolly, Pádraig Pearse and Constance Markievicz when they set up the Irish Neutrality League in 1914 when the First World War broke out. That was another war between empires in which people tried to argue that Ireland was obliged to support the British empire in an inter-imperialist slaughter that claimed the lives of 14 million people. Tens of thousands of working-class Irish people, who were economically conscripted, were slaughtered in that war. This proud, anti-imperialist tradition is integrally tied up with who we are as a country in opposing empires.

Do I trust the Irish Government with our neutrality? No, because it has already shredded it in doing exactly what Connolly, Markievicz, Pearse and Wolfe Tone did not want us to do, namely, become a staging ground for empires engaged in wars, most notably Shannon Airport. Millions of US troops transited through Shannon Airport while they prosecuted a criminal war in Iraq that claimed the lives of 1 million people. That was a war for oil, led by the US and the UK, that destabilised the whole Middle East. There would be no Al-Qaeda or half of these other groups were it not for that disastrous, criminal war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. We allowed millions of US troops to go through Shannon Airport because the Irish Government and the political establishment wanted to align themselves with the American empire.

That same American empire today, led by Donald Trump, is telling Europe that it must spend more on weapons. Donald Trump is goading. Should we listen to his goading that Europe has to militarise, play its part in NATO and spend more on weapons rather than health, housing and education? I say "No". Defending our neutrality means not listening to his goading or involving ourselves in a project of militarisation in Europe, which is alarmingly reminiscent of the build-up to previous world wars, with geopolitical jockeying and a militarisation of big powers across the globe as they try to carve out spheres of influence. We should not be involved in that.

The triple lock is precisely about ensuring that we do not get involved in wars where empires are clashing and that we do not take sides with empires. We oppose empire. Do I trust our Government when we look at current events? I want to speak up for the 14 Irish people upholding our tradition of neutrality on the Global Sumud Flotilla who have been kidnapped by Israel in international waters. Europe does nothing about this rogue state that is guilty of genocide, apartheid and flouting every bit of international law. It is now kidnapping Irish people and imprisoning them because they are trying to uphold international law. What does the Irish Government do with the Israeli state that is doing all of this? We have increased our trade with it. We approved €20 million in licences to export dual-use goods to the Israeli military that is carrying out genocide and kidnapping Irish citizens. I, therefore, do not trust the Government. The agenda is to get involved in a European militarisation project and align Ireland with the western empire that arms Israel and is up to its teeth in warmongering. After the disasters of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we should not trust the Government. We should hold onto the triple lock and retain that tradition of neutrality that goes back to our revolutionary, anti-imperialist roots.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I thank Deputy Stanley for this excellent and important motion. I will start with a quote from the Fianna Fáil Minister of State, Deputy Troy:

Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorisation is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear: it is wrong and it is illegal.

Does the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, on that? I will repeat the quote, if the Minister of State wants:

Does the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, agree with that? Is that the Government position? I will try again.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Darren O'Rourke)

It is not a debate.

Deputy Paul Murphy

This is from 5 March. Is this the Government's position or not? The Minister of State, Deputy Troy, said:

He was summing up a debate on the Middle East on 5 March. There is a problem with the Government, if that is its position. What does the triple lock do? It means that we cannot send troops except where there is a UN mandate or authorisation. That is precisely what the triple lock does. The Minister of State, Deputy Troy, was correct in what he said. The deployment of forces outside the framework of a UN mandate or authorisation is against international law. That is the truth. The reason the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, does not want to answer whether that is the Government's position is revealing. The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock because it wants to send troops abroad outside the framework of international law. There is all this talk of vetoing this, that and the other. The triple lock means we can only send troops within the framework of international law. That is all it does. The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock because it wants to send troops outside the framework of international law. That is the reality.

Another Fianna Fáiler said that for decades, Fianna Fáil was clear that the triple lock, which makes military deployments contingent on a UN mandate plus Dáil and Cabinet decisions, was critical to our neutrality. He said that was the unambiguous position under every party leader since Seán Lemass. He said that suddenly, and without discussion, the triple lock was anathema. Those were the words of former defence Minister, Deputy Willie O'Dea.

Why is this happening now? Why is the Government trying to get rid of the triple lock while pretending to the rest of us that this has nothing to do with reality? It is not telling the truth to people. It is redefining neutrality, as has happened again in the Minister's speech today, as simply being that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. In other words, the Government says that we could have sent troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq, which would have been possible if not for the triple lock, but can still say Ireland is neutral as long as it does not join NATO. It can join the joint expeditionary force, send weapons to Ukraine, train Ukrainian soldiers, participate in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which meets at NATO headquarters, and buy billions of euro of weapons from French arms manufacturers. It can do all that, while saying it is neutral because neutrality has been redefined by the Government to simply mean not signing on the dotted line to become a member of NATO.

Why is this happening now? The Government's answer is to point to Ukraine and Russia, and more vaguely to other conflicts internationally, and to say that the triple lock, for which one should read "the UN system as a whole", because the triple lock means UN approval by either the General Assembly or the Security Council, is no longer fit for purpose. We look around the world and know where that attitude leads. Look at Gaza and Lebanon. Look at attacks on UN peacekeeping troops by Israel, including our own troops. There has been mass murder of UN and humanitarian workers on a scale unprecedented in history and genocide carried out openly and unpunished before the eyes of the entire world. The reason the Government and large sections of the media want to get rid of Irish neutrality is not because people here are more unsafe. We are a small, geographically isolated country that would never conceivably be able to defend itself militarily. It has no colonial past or history of military aggression. Neutrality is our best defence. That argument makes no sense.

What this is about is that the ruling classes have been fattened up by decades of US foreign direct investment and corporate tax haven bonanzas, and now think of themselves not as a part of a post-colonial periphery but instead want to be a part of the western imperialist core. They want to get in on the act of the intervening in weaker countries and profiting from the military industrial complex. They want to be big boys in the big boys' club in the European Union and NATO, not down in the General Assembly with other post-colonial countries. That is why we have the development of a military industrial complex in this country. It is why the Minister of State repeatedly used the phrase "a referendum is neither necessary nor appropriate". Why is it not necessary or appropriate? Of course it is not necessary for the Government. It just wants to get rid of the triple lock. Why is not appropriate? The people do not believe the Government. They do not agree with the Government and it knows that. The Government should allow the people to decide. If it is so confident on this issue, it should allow the people to have a plebiscite on its proposal to get rid of the triple lock.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

There were a couple of lines in the Minister of State's speech that jumped out, but there was one in particular. The Minister of State said "the Private Members' motion today misrepresents both as it links the proposed reform of the triple lock with Ireland's policy of neutrality". I have heard that previously. The Minister of State is saying that it is unreasonable to link changes to the Defence Acts, which govern the deployment of Irish personnel as part of an international force, with neutrality. The suggestion is that it is somehow an unreasonable connection. The Government is amending the Defence Acts to allow a greater set of circumstances in which Irish personnel could be deployed as part of an international force and suggests somehow that this has nothing to do with neutrality. We get some daft talking points in this place, but that is right up there. I encourage the civil servants to drop that point. It makes absolutely no sense.

The fact is that the triple lock is central to neutrality. The Taoiseach has said so numerous times. It is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Those are his words. The Government sometimes in this debate likes to cast itself as far-seeing and wise, and suggests that those of us on this side of the House do not see the bigger picture. As far as I am concerned, what the Government is doing is reckless, foolish, careless and short-sighted. Ultimately, it will significantly diminish Ireland's place in the world.

I hear the Taoiseach talking about the importance of multilateralism, international law and so on, at the very same time that he is undermining the UN. He and the Minister of State and their Government are the ones talking about deploying Irish personnel. We hope they will be deployed on peacekeeping missions, but it is very likely that they will go on other kinds of deployments outside international law and without a UN mandate. That is what this is about.

People talk about the Security Council. There is an awful lot of talk of vetoes and so on. The reality is more complex. At the end of the day, it is not the case that there is going to be some high-minded UN-led missions that we are not going to be on. The mission would not proceed otherwise. There is no UN peacekeeping mission without a UN mandate.

There are a lot of other myths. People talk about Irish citizens at risk, humanitarian evacuations, drug interdictions and different things. The reality is that the triple lock does not prevent any of those things. It does not prevent the Defence Forces participating in humanitarian evacuation, the rescue of civilians, training, drug interdictions or any of those things, nor does it prevent us from investing in our Defence Forces. As far as I am concerned, Ireland should be strong on defence and neutrality. This Government is neither. Allowances agreed with the Defence Forces have been unpaid. Several personnel are down by thousands of euro. Overtime is not being recorded properly, and, therefore, personnel are not getting the overtime they ought to be getting. That is the reality of the Government's relationship with the Defence Forces. They have been neglected and more people have left than joined in recent years.

The triple lock does not prevent us from showing adequate respect to the men and women in our Defence Forces. It does mean that when Irishmen and Irishwomen serve as a part of a peacekeeping mission, they do so under a UN flag. They have done so with pride and distinction for generations. We ought to be proud of them. In recent weeks and months, they have faced enormous risks as they hold their position in Lebanon, which is being attacked by an Israeli Government that is hell-bent on occupying south Lebanon and expanding into more of it. This is an Israeli Government backed to the hilt by the United States. For a generation now, the Government has facilitated the US military's expansion, attacks and illegal wars. There was an under-reporting of 250 flights over Ireland last year. Some €20 million in dual-use licences have been handed out. At the same time that the Government is saying that the triple lock has nothing to do with our neutrality, it is riding roughshod over neutrality by facilitating flights over Ireland and through Shannon Airport with weaponry, personnel and so on.

The reality is that the Irish people take a lot of pride in neutrality but they also see that it makes sense for Ireland. Ireland is never going to be a major military power. The people know the best way we can exert influence is through standing up for international law and calling out breaches, whether by friend or foe, and whether we have a good relationship or a bad relationship with the country in question. The Government is failing on that count and it should stop itself from going further down this road by getting rid of the triple lock neutrality protection.

Deputy Seán Crowe

Clearly, we are living through a dangerous moment in Irish politics. Piece by piece, step by step, there is a growing effort by the Government parties to weaken Irish neutrality and dismantle the triple lock. Neutrality is not weakness; it is a positive expression of Irish independence. It is the belief that Ireland should decide its own path in the world, free from the influence of military blocs, imperial powers or the interests of bigger states.

For decades, neutrality has allowed Ireland to speak with some moral authority on the world stage. It has allowed Irish peacekeepers to serve with pride in UN missions. It has allowed us to support diplomacy over war, and peace over profit. That tradition is needed now more than ever. It reflects the lived experience of past generations of Irish people who experienced colonisation, occupation and conflict. That is why the triple lock matters so much. It ensures that Irish soldiers are sent abroad only for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes, not dragged into foreign wars because of pressure from NATO, the EU military agenda or powerful allies. Yet, what we are hearing now from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is that the triple lock is somehow outdated. We are hearing that it limits Ireland's flexibility and we are hearing calls to remove UN approval altogether.

The agenda of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is blatantly obvious. They want the power, as parties in a Government with a Dáil majority, to deploy Irish troops abroad with far fewer restrictions. That would represent a fundamental change in Irish foreign policy, and the Irish people have not consented to it.

Let us be clear that advocating for neutrality does not mean neglecting defence. Ireland absolutely needs properly funded defence forces. Our Naval Service, Air Corps and Army have been neglected for years. Recruitment and retention crises have been ignored. Investment is needed to protect Irish waters, ensure cybersecurity and retain emergency response capacity. However, strengthening defence is not the same as abandoning neutrality. A genuinely independent Ireland should be strong on both neutrality and defence. We can defend our people and sovereignty without becoming part of military alliances or surrendering democratic safeguards like the triple lock.

At its core, this debate is about what kind of Ireland we want to have. Do we want an Ireland that follows larger powers into military conflicts or an Ireland that stands for diplomacy, peacekeeping, humanitarianism and international law? Do we want decisions about war and peace made by political elites?

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank Deputy Stanley for this very important motion.

Our neutrality is not an accident of history. It is a conscious expression of our independence, sovereignty and belief that small nations can be a force for peace in the world. Our non-participation in foreign conflicts or military alliances has earned Ireland respect across the globe, but this reputation has been steadily undermined by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which seem hell-bent on dismantling the triple lock and sending Irish men and women overseas to fight foreign wars.

For years now, Shannon Airport has been used as a hub for the US military, facilitating the transport of armed troops and munitions to active war zones, including in the Middle East. This completely compromises our position of neutrality in the eyes of the world. We find ourselves in a staggering situation in which our own peacekeeping personnel are being sent from Baldonnel to serve with UNIFIL in Lebanon while, hot on their tails, US warplanes, permitted to use Shannon, are carrying the bombs that will be dropped by Israel around their base.

That this is still being allowed shows complete disregard for our sovereignty and military neutrality. How can Ireland claim to stand for peace, diplomacy and international law, or speak with any moral authority to countries suffering the consequences of war, if we allow our neutrality to be hollowed out piece by piece? The triple lock is central to protecting that neutrality. It is a democratic safeguard and a guarantee to the Irish people. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want to dismantle that protection without the consent of the people. Sinn Féin rejects that approach completely. We support strengthening our Defence Forces, but our defence policy must be rooted in independence, multilateralism and peacekeeping, not closer alignment with military alliances. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael truly believe the Irish people want to abandon neutrality, it should be put to the people in a referendum.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Sometimes when I am in this Chamber, with its busts and statues of the 1916 leaders all around, I find what I listen to from the Government astonishing. I think of the famous banner that stated, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland". That is a really proud declaration and it is burned into the hearts of the Irish people because they were colonised for long enough and fought empire for long enough. It is a proud stand that we have taken for all of these years, and it has given us real credibility to engage on the international stage in peacekeeping, the defence of human rights and the resolution of conflicts. That has been our proud position for so many years. It is cherished by the Irish people.

I find the Government's current position disgusting when I think that, at the first ask, the Irish people rejected the Nice and Lisbon treaty propositions. The propositions were put back to the Irish people with clear, solemn promises around our neutrality and the triple lock. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael made those promises to the Irish people and now they want to break them. This will not stand. If the Government believes it is right in removing the triple lock, it has to be put to the Irish people. It has to be put to them because they were given promises when they voted for the Nice and Lisbon treaties at the second ask.

Deputy Cathy Bennett

The Government proposal to cut the triple lock neutrality protections stands among the most significant foreign affairs and defence policy departures in decades, so it is important that it be properly considered and understood. It is concerning that the Taoiseach's own position is consistent only in its shifting nature.

Initially, the Taoiseach proposed a citizens' assembly on neutrality. Then it became a so-called consultative forum on international security policy, providing minimal interaction for the public or the Opposition, in favour of voices hand-picked by Government. When the report from that stroke reported no public appetite for change to our position on neutrality, the Taoiseach announced his plans to get rid of the triple lock neutrality protection altogether. He tells us that it will have no impact on our neutrality, despite his having told this House in 2013 that it was the core of our neutrality, and despite the Department of foreign affairs website clearly stating our European partners understand our policy of military neutrality with reference to the triple lock.

The Taoiseach needs to be upfront as to why his public statements on neutrality today differ from those of the past and from those of his Government's contemporary publications. He should consider what it means to him to hold something as solemn, because he was part of the Government that made a solemn national declaration to the Irish people on the triple lock in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. I invite him, and in fact all members of Fianna Fáil, to reflect on what value they believe members of the public should place on their word.

Deputy Thomas Gould

In 2013, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, described the triple lock as being at the core of our neutrality. At the time, there were protests in Kyiv, and the following year the annexation of Crimea took place. There was a war in Afghanistan and there was a civil war in Syria, with the Russians and the Americans involved in it.

Now he is saying times have drastically changed but that is not true. Things were as bad then as they are now on the world stage when it comes to wars. For as long as I have been alive, leaders of powerful imperialist countries have waged wars and Ireland has remained neutral. During the Lisbon and Nice treaty campaigns, a solemn commitment was given to the people of Ireland that the triple lock would protect our neutrality and now the Government is trying to get rid of it. It is wrong. What the Government is doing is against the people's will. We want a referendum. Let the people have their say and let them decide, not our Taoiseach and our Tánaiste who are trying to be the good boys for the EU. What is their point? I cannot understand what their point is when they know the Irish people do not want this. It just goes to prove how lost this Government is, when it goes off to Europe and forgets about the people of Ireland and what they want. Our neutrality is at the core. There is a bigger picture here. This is not just about what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want but what the people of Ireland want. That should be sacred.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I welcome the appointment of Lynn Boylan, Sinn Féin's Dublin MEP, to the security and defence committee. She will be a powerful voice in the EU for Irish neutrality and against a militarised Europe.

Irish Army personnel are renowned for peacekeeping missions around the world in war-torn countries, not for going off to fight other people's wars. They are renowned for bringing peace to areas where truces and ceasefires are brittle. We have a proud history of peace and conflict resolution but the Government is asking us to get into bed with countries that are not only defending, but arming a genocide. The lack of meaningful action in the defence of international law is weakening the foundations of multilateralism. Indeed, by abandoning the protection of the triple lock that grounds our neutrality, the Government is signalling to the world that it does not believe in the UN. While the UN has its flaws, it still represents the best opportunity to engage in dialogue rather than conflict and loss of life.

Reference was made to the programme for Government but one thing included in that programme that the Government has not brought forward is the occupied territories Bill. The Government brings an amendment to the motion to the House but not the occupied territories Bill. It was said earlier that there is a reason for the Government not supporting the proposal to hold a referendum to enshrine neutrality. What is the Government so afraid of? It is afraid of the voice of the people of Ireland because they have said in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referenda that they do not support the ending of our neutrality. They do not support Irish soldiers going to fight other wars on behalf of the people who colonised this country and the people who are arming and participating in genocide. We want nothing to do with those people. If the Government is really serious about the Irish people and democracy, it should hold a referendum. It is in its hands.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

We have a long history in Ireland of resistance to colonial oppression and of liberation struggle, albeit unfinished. What is this Government promising? It is promising the removal of the triple lock because it does not really matter. The only logic behind removing the triple lock is to move away from our long history of non-alignment and of having clean hands, which there is definitely space for in this modern world. What have we been stopped from doing on the basis of the triple lock? That is what I want to know. My fear is not about what we have been stopped from doing but what this Government is willing to do and who it is willing to align itself with. We have seen the absolute failure to deal with Shannon Airport facilitating the American military through many of its failures and escapades that have led to nothing but death and destruction, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, long before Donald Trump came to power. We are dealing now with the reality and the madness of the attacks on Iran by the US, led by the nose by genocidal Israel. What about Israel? We have a great history of peacekeeping but what have our peacekeepers been dealing with lately? They have been dealing with genocidal, ethnic cleansing acts of an Israeli regime, supported by the US, that is out of control. We are talking about removing one of the protections we have in relation to neutrality and non-alignment. We need independent foreign policy. There is an absolute fear of the Irish people on the part of this Government. If it is serious about this, it will put it to the people. It will not do so because it is afraid of the people's view, which is that we cannot remove neutrality or the triple lock. I have yet to see any courage from the Government. It will just follow whoever it needs to follow on the basis of being the best boys in the eyes of the US or the European Union.

Deputy Ciarán Ahern

I thank Deputy Stanley for bringing this important motion forward. The Labour Party will support it and I would like to take the opportunity to restate our firm commitment to the principle of military neutrality, the retention of the triple lock and our country’s continued promotion of peace and an end to war. We know the immense human cost of war. We see it on our screens every day from Gaza to Ukraine to Sudan. Aside from the profound human suffering, as our party’s environment spokesperson and this being National Biodiversity Week, it would be remiss of me not to mention the massive environmental, climate and ecological impacts of war that are not spoken about enough.

Militaries contribute 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. We know that war is driving deforestation, agricultural decline, industrial pollution and the collapse of health and sanitation systems. We see the destruction of the basic facilities and systems that make human life possible, including water networks, sewage treatment plants, farmland, ports, fuel depots and electricity infrastructure, often leaving polluted air, contaminated soil and unsafe water long after the fighting ends. We see fires, oil spills, toxic debris, damaged sanitation, collapsing public health systems and ecosystems pushed beyond recovery. We all have a human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the promotion of peace internationally, via our neutrality, should be at least one method for our State to pursue this vital right.

Neutrality has been central to our foreign policy since the Second World War and it has been an active neutrality. It is an expression of our sovereignty, independent judgement and a belief that small nations such as ours can contribute to peace not through military alliances, but through diplomacy, humanitarianism, peacekeeping and international law. For decades, it has allowed us to carve out a respected position on the world stage precisely because we have refused to become an appendage to a large military power. Our neutrality has stood us in good stead. It is widely supported among the public who have consistently and repeatedly expressed their support for neutrality and continue to do so in every opinion poll on the matter. However, our neutrality is not secure. It does not have constitutional status. The Labour Party has long-supported enshrining neutrality in our Constitution and published a proposed wording for an amendment to this effect as far back as 2002.

Our neutrality is a large part of the reason our peacekeepers, of whom we are all immensely proud, are so well-respected and trusted in conflict zones. Members of our Defence Forces have served as peacekeepers with distinction the world over, protecting civilians, monitoring ceasefires, delivering aid and so on. Our reputation for peacekeeping has flourished because of our position as a neutral county. The removal of the triple lock risks undermining that reputation precisely because it risks undermining our neutrality. As the Taoiseach once said, in what I guess was a previous life, it is "the core of our neutrality". The triple lock ensures not only that any overseas engagement is safeguarded against the whims of the Executive or geopolitical pressures, but that its grounded in international law, which itself brings legitimacy, respect and an additional level of confidence in the safety of our Defence Forces personnel who are being deployed. We do not need to look too far to see the disastrous effects of unilateral wars and illegal invasions that bypass international institutions and can start on a whim. This is all playing out in the Middle East right now with Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal attacks on Iran.

The Government, in its argument for removing the triple lock, often points to the dysfunction of the UN Security Council and there is some truth to that argument.

However, the answer is not just to abandon multilateralism. Right now, international institutions, multilateral co-operation and international law are all under sustained attack and probably have never been more in need of advocates, at least since the Cold War. We should seek to strengthen the credibility of the UN, not weaken our commitment to it. If the Government believes the Security Council requires reform, that is fine; I largely agree. Let us advocate for that reform. What we must not do is retreat from the institution and potentially jeopardise our neutrality in the process.

The Government's proposal is that deployments be authorised by the approval of the Government and the passing of a resolution of the Dáil. Assuming that Whips would operate as normal for Government parties and there would not be a free vote on such a resolution, the proposal would mean, in essence, that our Defence Forces could be deployed on the whim of whichever government is in power. No international assent would be required and there would be no further safeguards. It is a deeply concerning prospect and the Government should know that. Ministers can deny it all they want but it leaves the door open to our Defence Forces getting involved in NATO missions, an EU common defence arrangement or some other military composition that would, in effect, spell an end to our neutrality.

On the Defence Forces and our defence capabilities more broadly, the Labour Party is a staunch defender of our military neutrality and the triple lock, and always will be. However, we also acknowledge that, politically speaking, when we debate our neutrality, the substance of the debate rarely moves past the triple lock. Its removal would erode our neutrality and risk damaging the unique voice we have in international affairs, whereby we have historically punched well above our weight. What often gets lost, however, is that neutrality is not the same as passivity in terms of the Defence Forces and our defence capabilities. We should not accept that there is a contradiction between our policy of neutrality and investing in our defence.

On the contrary, our position of neutrality means it is incumbent on us to ensure we invest in defence. That is how we ensure our sovereignty when it comes to these matters. At present, we rely on the UK, a NATO member, for our air defences. I fear that our neutrality, and an assumption that if worst came to worst, the UK would come to our rescue, has led to a certain level of complacency in building up our own capacity to defend ourselves. We hope we will never have to do so but the reality is we exist in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable geopolitical arena. While we cannot and will not under any circumstances accept a role in a common defence pact or any offensive actions involving Irish troops, we have a responsibility to get our own house in order.

The best insurance policy against any external threats to our neutrality is to ensure we have some reasonable defence capabilities. We cannot continue outsourcing our defence. Irish people are realistic about what is possible but we do not want to feel we are defenceless and unable, for example, to monitor our territorial waters and respond to perceived threats. Those threats, to name but a few, might take the form of large-scale drug smuggling operations or potential interference by bad actors in our vital undersea cables or electricity and gas interconnectors. Our neutrality will become more and more fragile if we do not act on those threats.

An over-reliance on our political allies for monitoring and protection leaves us vulnerable to being politically pressured into scenarios that legitimately threaten our neutrality. We need to take corrective actions in terms of our own defence capabilities. Our Defence Forces have nowhere near the levels of personnel they need, with fewer than 7,500 members at present. That shortfall is not surprising when we look at the pay and conditions on offer. For instance, cadets get €503 per week for their first year, compared with starting pay of €550 per week for recruits, who move to €814 after six months. Cadets earn 47% less than their enlisted counterparts in their first year. It is no wonder we have struggled with recruitment for so long. As my colleague Deputy Smith said in the Dáil a couple of weeks ago, it may be financially illogical to become a cadet in view of the long-term impact on pension entitlements. In addition, the supplementary pension scheme issue, which is a problem across our uniformed services, is playing into our difficulties with recruitment and retention.

These issues need be addressed. Our investment in building up our defence capabilities should be focused first and foremost on our people. The failure to get on top of our low level of Defence Forces membership is having knock-on effects elsewhere. There is a recommended acceleration programme of naval vessel replacement, for example, to ensure a balanced fleet of nine modern ships by the early 2030s. However, the problem in the Naval Service is not that there are no vessels; it is that we have no one to staff them. Throwing money at more vessels will not work. The investment must be in our people.

We in the Labour Party have always maintained that Ireland is a militarily neutral country, and proudly so, but we are not politically neutral. We cannot compromise on our values. We cannot be politically neutral in the face of Israel's genocide in Gaza or Russia's imperialist invasion of Ukraine. Ireland's political voice should continue to be one that speaks for peace, diplomacy and multilateralism. The reason we can do that, and do it sincerely, is our military neutrality. I commend Deputy Stanley on his motion. Neutrality is the only path forward and any attempt by the Government to undermine it will be met with the utmost opposition by the Labour Party and by all of us across the left.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "notes that:" and substitute the following:

— Ireland's policy of military neutrality, our strong reputation of international diplomacy, and our tradition of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance abroad;

— the importance of public, democratic consultation in shaping Ireland's future defence policy;

— the importance of safeguards, protections and oversight in ensuring Irish military deployments are in line with our policy of military neutrality; and

— the Government plans to remove the current Triple Lock mechanism and raise the number of troops that can be deployed without Dáil oversight to 50;

acknowledges:

— that the Triple Lock mechanism requires (i) Government approval, (ii) Dáil approval, and (iii) a United Nations (UN) mandate through the General Assembly or Security Council for the deployment of more than 12 Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas;

— that the Triple Lock mechanism was introduced to protect our military neutrality during the adoption of the Nice and Lisbon Treaties; and

— that the UN mandate has played a significant role in shaping Ireland's approach to international military engagement and cooperation;

calls on the Government to:

— recognise that the Triple Lock and neutrality are intrinsically linked;

— uphold the policy of neutrality and the Triple Lock as set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960 and the solemn national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon Treaties;

— abide by the principal of multilateralism and not allow the State to become part of any regional military alliance;

— hold a national plebiscite, to take place before any legislation to amend the Triple Lock mechanism is brought before the Dáil, to allow the Irish people to express their view on whether a United Nations mandate should remain a requirement for Ireland to deploy peacekeeping troops overseas;

— ensure that the plebiscite presents a balanced and informed choice, reflecting the role of the Triple Lock mechanism in Ireland's approach to international deployments to date, the considerations around its impact on peacekeeping operations in the future, and any scope for the removal of the Triple Lock mechanism to result in potential non-neutral military deployment; and

— commit to respecting the outcome of the plebiscite and ensuring that any subsequent policy decisions reflect the will of the people while upholding Ireland's commitment to military neutrality, multilateralism, and international cooperation.".

I thank Deputy Stanley, his colleagues and his team for bringing forward this motion. It is long overdue that we have an opportunity to speak about neutrality and the triple lock in the Chamber.

I acknowledge the efforts of the many volunteers in the Irish Neutrality League and other organisations who work so hard on this issue. Uplift is doing amazing work to mobilise communities across Ireland. I am very proud to be a member of the parliamentary wing of the Irish Neutrality League. As Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned, when it was originally formed, the league included as members heroes of mine such as Countess Markievicz. It is an area in which we are working really well across the Opposition. We do not all hold the exact same position but it is approximately the same. We certainly oppose the defence (amendment) Bill being put forward by the Government.

This is an area on which not just left-wing Opposition parties but the full range of Opposition Members are in unison. I appreciate the Minister of State's attendance in the Chamber and acknowledge her indication that the Minister for Defence will be here presently. However, at this stage, I expect the Minister will not arrive until 11.45 a.m., when she will make a closing statement. That means she will not have the benefit of hearing the unity of voices across the Opposition benches in defence of our neutrality and in opposition to the Government's attempt to dismantle it.

That is why I tabled my amendment. It is not in any way intended to compete with the work of Deputy Stanley. Since I have been in Dáil Éireann, one of the most cynical practices I have witnessed is the Government's response to Private Members' motions. People outside the Chamber do not really understand what goes on. I find it offensive that the Government tables an amendment whereby it takes the entire text of a motion put forward by the Opposition in a spirit of genuine debate and replaces it with a self-praising, self-aggrandising and totally contradictory statement. That is what the Government does every time. Of course, it does so because it does not want to have to vote against what is proposed, which, in this case, is support for neutrality. The Government wants instead to vote for its own hollow position. I tabled this amendment because I want the Government TDs, including Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Independent Members, to say to us that they do not support neutrality because that is the position they hold. I will go into that in more detail.

I will use my remaining time to talk about the narrative the Government is putting forth in this area, which is comprised of myths. I propose to bust a few of those myths with the aim of countering some of what I am hearing from that side of the House. The word I want to use is one my late dad was really fond of and that is "bolloxology". I hope the Chair will pardon my language. The rationale for the Government's stance does not make any sense. It is important to pick apart some of the myths it tries to hold. When we do so, we see they mean nothing. There is nothing in them.

The first myth is that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock. The Fianna Fáil manifesto spoke about seeking sensible reform. The Fine Gael manifesto did not even mention reform of the triple lock. Since then, the Government has said it is putting forward a defence (amendment) Bill to enable a shift from having a mechanism that does not work towards an approach based on the principles of the UN Charter. Of course, there is no legal comparison between adhering to the principles of the UN Charter versus the actual legal mechanism of the triple lock. It is like going before a judge and acknowledging guilt of a crime but proposing to interpret the law as one sees fit. It is just meaningless. The principles of the UN Charter are important but they do not serve the purpose served by the triple lock. That is why it was baked into legislation. The claim that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock is the first myth we need to bust. In fact, it is trying to completely remove it, as is clear from its proposed Bill and the debates that have happened to date.

The second myth is that the triple lock is not central to our neutrality. We have heard from multiple members of the Government on this point.

I see that great quote from the Taoiseach has aged as well as a Trump tweet does in saying the triple lock is core to our neutrality. I will read some of the similar things he said from around that time. He said, "It appears Fine Gael is arguing Ireland is failing in its European responsibilities and is allowing Russia and China to have a vote over our peacekeeping activities." This is the very same argument the Taoiseach still holds. He said, "This is nothing more than an out of touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the fact of Ireland’s international standing." That captures what a lot of us are trying to get across. We punch above our weight in diplomacy, human rights and the values we hold around solidarity and social justice. That is where we are good. We cannot compete with the military might of other European and global powers. We never have been, and never will be, able to.

The triple lock is what serves us in allowing ourselves to be militarily active, to have Óglaigh na hÉireann and to allow them to engage in peacekeeping. We have the longest-standing unbroken peacekeeping record of any country in the world. All of it has been done under the Blue Helmet and Blue Beret. That is what the Government is trying to take away. That is what it is saying is militarily neutral.

The third myth I want to bust is that Europe is not on a path to militarisation. One of the Minister’s colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, went apoplectic a couple of weeks ago when I suggested that in another debate and said I was scaremongering, fearmongering and causing concern among people. I cannot understand how the Minister can stand here and say we are not on the path towards militarisation. We have appointed a European Defence Commissioner who talks about a European defence union, and not covertly but completely openly. We have completely diverted European funding towards military spending and away from social cohesion. We made changes to the multi-annual financial framework which means those countries that have an arms industry will benefit the most from the future of European Union finance. That means the bigger countries, the ones which do not need it as much, are now going to be getting, and benefitting from, European funding. This also means those businesses which are not contributing to the defence space are also going to find it harder. On the idea that Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, the Government cannot hold these positions. They are nonsense. We can all see it with our own eyes. To suggest the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock, it is not central to our neutrality anyway and Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, if we start to cut those pillars out from underneath the Minister's argument, we get to the final one which is that the Minister says the Government continues to support Irish neutrality. That is the guts of this statement and I suspect what we were going to hear from the Minister, Deputy McEntee. I cannot think of enough examples to say why that does not hold water anymore besides the Defence Act and what the Minister is putting forward as the abolition of the triple lock.

We have seen the Government cosy up to NATO and the former Minister for Defence talk about the purchase of weapons above what many have talked about are the absolutely urgent issues of reforming and improving terms and conditions for our military personnel. The Government has absolutely trounced any neutrality in terms of our airspace and airports in allowing the use our airspace and Shannon Airport to transport arms and personnel for other military powers. The Government cannot hold that it stands for military neutrality when all it has done since it has been in government and during previous terms is chip away at that neutrality. What this Defence Act and the removal of the triple lock will do is put a final nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality. We on the Opposition benches will not let that happen. We are going to fight tooth and nail for this along with the Irish people.

All of this brings me to one of the things that irks me most about this argument is the Minister talks about sovereignty and says our sovereignty is under threat because of the veto of the UN Security Council. I know the UN Security Council and the UN more broadly needs reform. I totally accept that; we all do. However, when the Minister talks about that sovereignty, it absolutely undermines the meaning of the word, which is under threat in Gaza and Ukraine, and which can be protected by the upholding of the international global order which is what the Government is trying to walk away from by removing the triple lock. Removing the triple lock is not just signing a piece of paper; it is saying to the UN and smaller nations across the globe that we are done with multilateralism and we are going retreat to our regional bloc and work with Europe because we are into the whole militarisation game it is pushing and we do not believe anymore that our benefit to the world is in the space of human rights, solidarity and social justice. For me, the question around sovereignty is another myth that we need to bust.

Finally, the triple lock is emblematic of that sovereignty because it is what the Irish people said they wanted in the Nice and Lisbon treaties when they knew that this day would come when we would be pulled towards a European defence union. I ask the Minister to put it to the people, just as this motion sets out.

Deputy Paul Lawless

Neutrality and our triple lock is a serious element of our defence and foreign policy. Indeed, Irish people widely support our neutrality and are proud of it. I want to clearly say to the Minister that if she and the Government want to remove the triple lock, put it to the people by means of a referendum.

Promises may not mean much to many Government politicians and, indeed, promises mean very little it seems to Fianna Fáil but to the rest of the country, promises matter. Fianna Fáil assured the public in 2009 that the triple lock would be maintained in order to pass the Nice treaty. Assurances were given to the Irish people. The triple lock was, therefore, essentially passed indirectly through a referendum. Now Fianna Fáil and, indeed, Fine Gael want to remove it. The triple lock will remove the UN Security Council veto, meaning the deployment of our Defence Forces will be effectively in the hands of two political parties. Increasingly in those two political parties, backbenchers are not listened to, particularly in Fianna Fáil. We are essentially giving control of our Defence Forces to two political leaders. That is what this is ultimately going to lead to.

The context of this is very significant. Europe is on a path to militarisation and is rearming. European funding has been and is being directed away from social funding, agriculture and other areas and into rearming. It is increasingly going to be spent on guns and bombs. That is the truth.

The ironically named "safe regulation" under the "ReArm Europe" plan offers Ireland incredible financial flexibility in terms of purchasing missiles. It is money for bombs. Where is the money and flexibility to address the housing crisis in the country? The Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget is going to see a significant cut as a result of this. If the Minister wants to see the triple lock gone and is so confident the Government has the support of the Irish people, put it to them by means of a referendum.

Deputy Paul Nicholas Gogarty

There is a lot of emotive debate over this issue. The Irish people have consistently spoken out in terms of wanting to preserve our neutrality. In terms of Ukraine, for example, we have been keen to emphasise we are militarily neutral. As my Labour Party colleagues mentioned earlier, what we do not have is the military capacity to defend ourselves in any way, shape or form, or to patrol our coastlines. I note the Government is talking about investing in remote control-type of weaponry. We should be paying our Defence Forces more. They do a great job, and we should be trying to get more personnel on board.

As a neutral country - and I wholeheartedly support Ireland's neutrality policy - we should have the capabilities to at least create a strong deterrent. Equally, from a geopolitical perspective, there is a huge risk from the likes of Russia in our economic zone in terms of undersea cables. The UN Security Council is not fit for purpose.

I agree with the Government about that. I also note that the defence (amendment) Bill will require that any overseas operations would still be grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, even without a formal UN resolution. However, we cannot just have a double lock. We still need a triple lock. If the Government gets rid of the UN Security Council element because it is not fit for purpose, we will need an 80% Dáil resolution and-or the ability to hold a referendum in some situations. There is scope for having up to 60 military personnel without any kind of requirement to go to the Dáil, but for larger scale operations we need a triple lock of sorts and it should be an 80% Dáil majority, a referendum or both.

Deputy Michael Collins

Independent Ireland supports Deputy Stanley's motion. Some people in politics today are trying to paint neutrality as old-fashioned, outdated or somehow weak. The people of Ireland do not see it that way at all. The people understand neutrality because it is about independence. It is about Ireland making its own decisions, not taking orders from Brussels or NATO and not being dragged into conflicts that are not ours.

For generations, neutrality has served this country well. We are a small nation, but we have earned respect across the world because Irish soldiers went abroad as peacekeepers, not as occupiers. Irish troops have worn the blue helmet of the UN with honour. Families across Ireland are proud of that service. Now the Government wants to tamper with the triple lock. It can dress it up whatever way it likes, but ordinary people see through it.

The triple lock is there to stop the Government of the day sending Irish troops overseas without proper checks and balances. It requires the approval of the United Nations, the Government and the Dáil. This is not some inconvenience; it is democracy. Let us not rewrite history either. When the people rejected the Nice treaty, and later the Lisbon treaty, neutrality was one of the biggest concerns raised. The Government of the day came back to the people with solemn guarantees that neutrality and the triple lock would be respected. Now years later, the Government wants to quietly row back on those commitments again, without ever asking the people. That is wrong. If the Government truly believes the Irish people wants to abandon neutrality, it should have the courage to put the removal of the triple lock to a referendum. Let the Irish people decide our future, not the rest of the world.

Independent Ireland strongly believes we can support and strengthen our Defence Forces while remaining proudly neutral. Those two things are not contradictory. Our Naval Service needs ships, our airspace needs protection, our soldiers deserve proper pay and conditions and our Defence Forces need investment after years of neglect, but strengthening our Defence Forces' capability is a very different thing from dragging Ireland closer and closer to European military structures. People in Ireland understand this clearly. They do not want Irish neutrality chipped away bit by bit while politicians in Dublin pretend nothing is changing. Neutrality is not a weakness. It has kept Ireland independent and allowed Ireland to speak with credibility on the world stage and to act as peacekeepers and humanitarians. Once this independence is surrendered, it will not be easy to get it back. Independent Ireland stands firmly with the Irish people on this issue. We should protect the triple lock and neutrality and, above all else, trust the people enough to let them have their say.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

Independent Ireland was set up for one reason: to give a platform for Independents to work together. What is the difference between Independent Ireland and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael? We have a vote of conscience. Whether to remove the triple lock is a vote of conscience. It is a vote for the people of Ireland. It should not be up to the Government party leaders. Anything such as removing the triple lock should be an open vote in this House for Government parties at a minimum. The Government no longer fully represents of Ireland. It should look at its numbers. At the recent protests when people came out what happened? The Government talked down to the real people of Ireland and ignored them. It no longer represents the people of Ireland as a whole.

Neutrality is not a weakness. It is independence. Do we need to invest in the Defence Forces? 100%. Do we need to ensure our Defence Forces can protect the country? 100%. However, we also need to hear the voice of every person in the country on any removal of the triple lock. It is not something the Government should have control of. That is why Independent Ireland put a vote of conscience into its constitution. While we in Independent Ireland might agree on 90% of issues, we will never agree on 10%. It allows members of the party to make individual choices because they represent different parts of the country and different people in their areas. That is the difference between Independent Ireland and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The Government parties are told what to do. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir. That is what they go with. Why not recognise the people of Ireland and let them make the decision on whether there is to be any alteration of our neutrality? Any alteration to the triple lock is a choice for the people to make, not for the Government. Why not recognise the people of Ireland and let them make a decision about whether there will be any alteration?

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

First, I thank Deputy Stanley for bringing forward this timely and important motion to allow us to say what we want in Dáil Éireann regarding neutrality. It is most important that we retain our neutrality and the triple lock. If the Government wants to change it, by all means it should put it to the people of Ireland. It should put it to the country. There is nothing to be afraid of. At all times, the people of Ireland have given their opinions on the different referendums put before them and we in this Chamber duly had to recognise the voice of the people. That is what we have waited for here.

Back in 2013, then Deputy Micheál Martin - he is now our Taoiseach - suggested we could not or would not get rid of the triple lock. The only difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael at that time was that Fine Gael was apparently in favour of getting rid of the triple lock and Fianna Fáil was not. If Fianna Fáil wants to change that, it means the two parties will more or less unite and be one party because there will be no difference between them, in my eyes anyway.

De Valera stood up to Churchill in during the Second World War. As a young fella I listened to his speech. England had oppressed us for more than 800 years and he told Churchill where to go. De Valera was not taking his dictation when he was asked to forgo neutrality and get involved in the war and open the ports for England. I and many people will forever thank de Valera for that stance, for standing up to the powers of the world at the time and holding our neutrality.

I thank our peacekeeping forces for all the work they have done in different conflicts across-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Darren O'Rourke)

Go raibh maith agat.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

-----the world. I certainly do not want to see a European army we are part of.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I too thank Deputy Stanley for bringing forward this motion this morning. My position is clear: the triple lock is sacrosanct. Ireland's policy on neutrality is equally sacrosanct and remains a vital cornerstone of our approach to defence and international engagement. I too compliment our peacekeepers who have worked all over the world in very dangerous situations over the decades.

Following the initial rejection of the Nice treaty, the Government gave explicit assurances to the Irish people ahead of the second referendum. These assurances included the Seville Declarations on the Treaty of Nice which safeguarded Irish neutrality and incorporated a requirement for UN authorisation in the triple lock. That was a promise made to the people. Do we have any respect for what the people were promised? We seem not to. To remove this requirement now would represent the reversal of a commitment made to the Irish people in 2002. Therefore, any proposal to replace it with a broader or alternative international mandate should most definitely be put to the Irish people. The people are sacrosanct and sovereign here, and they should make the decision.

It is often portrayed in media coverage that there is strong public support for maintaining the triple lock.

The majority of the Irish people believe in preserving this safeguard. As a sovereign nation, it is the Irish people who should decide whether such a fundamental change is made. The Government argues that a referendum is neither required nor necessary because it is afraid of a referendum and the people. The Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, went on a roadshow some years ago to Cork, Donegal and God knows where else – it was a nice ready-up with a hand-picked chairperson - to try to ready the people for change. It is a democratic decision of the people and nothing else.

Failure to recognise or act on principles suggests two things. The first is that the Government may lack confidence that the electorate would support its position and the second is that it is unwilling to allow people to have their say on an issue of such great importance to the Irish people. I listened to much of the debate. The Opposition is in unison as regards the position. The Government should listen to that and take heed of democratic accountability to this House.

Deputy Catherine Callaghan

I stand in this Chamber today as the only person in the Thirty-fourth Dáil who has served in Óglaigh na hÉireann and the only current Deputy who has signed the oath of allegiance, the same oath of allegiance that all members of the Defence Forces sign. When we sign, we say we will only obey lawful orders. Lawful orders are orders that are fully and wholly in alignment and accordance with international law. I have also served as a UN peacekeeper in southern Lebanon, protecting the citizens of southern Lebanon, the very same citizens who will still need protection once the UNIFIL operation ceases at the end of this year and Ireland's involvement with peacekeeping in the region ends due to the lack of a UN mandate.

There has not been a single UN mandate sanctioned by the UN Security Council since 2014. The system is broken. Before I go any further, it is important to be clear about something fundamental. Neutrality and the triple lock are not the same thing. Sinn Féin seems to constantly roll words like "triple lock", "neutrality" and "protection" off its tongue as if they are the same thing. This is false and misleading. The triple lock does not guarantee our neutrality. We are neutral as a country because we choose to be neutral. There is no desire, discussion or intention of changing our neutrality and any assertion to the contrary from the Opposition benches is unfounded.

Neutrality is a long-standing policy of independence about how Ireland chooses to conduct itself in the world. The triple lock describes the three-step process we use to come to a decision as to where we deploy our peacekeeping troops, but the real truth lies in the fact that the decision as to which UN missions are suitable for our troops is decided in the first part of the triple lock. It is decided in line with our policy of neutrality and the commitment to obeying international laws.

When deployments are being considered, the first step for the Government is to seek the advice of senior and experienced members of the Defence Forces, the men and women I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, who are beholden to obeying international law, alongside the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is at this stage that a peacekeeping mission's suitability is established. Missions will not be approved unless they are in line with Ireland's values, including our policy of neutrality. There has never been an incident where a Government has gone against military advice about the suitability of a mission for Irish personnel. This is our autonomy and sovereign decision of the State. Ireland was neutral long before the triple lock. We will be neutral after the triple lock is amended.

Deputy Barry Heneghan

Gabhaim buíochas le gach Ball a labhair ar an rún seo. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Gibney as an leasú a chuir sí chun tosaigh. Nuair atá muid ag éisteacht leis an bpobal, tá sé sin thar a bheith important. Successive polls have shown a consistent majority in favour of neutrality. When we are discussing the triple lock, we need to be clear what it entails. I agree with an Teachta Callaghan about listening to the Defence Forces, but from my own research – the Minister can correct me if I am wrong – I understand one cannot survey current Defence Forces personnel on their opinion on removing legislation. Perhaps their spouses and children could be surveyed to see what they think.

If there is a specific peacekeeping mission and genuine humanitarian emergency where the Defence Forces are needed, and the UN Security Council is being vetoed - it has vetoed multiple peacekeeping missions for many reasons under P5 - then we should introduce emergency legislation, make a case and bring a Bill to the House. We have introduced emergency legislation on previous occasions. Right now, there is no clear reason to do this. It is as if we are trying to create a deterrent. That is what we should be doing. It is not acceptable. If we are going to do this and are confident that the Irish people want this, we should have a referendum.

The Minister will give me lenience to bring her attention to the Global Sumud Flotilla. Michael Cullen, a good friend of mine, was on the flotilla yesterday while his peaceful humanitarian boat was shot at. I was on a flotilla and have seen the brutal way the IOF treats people. I ask for an update from the Minister's Department. Michael's sister was watching the live stream when she heard shots being fired and the feed went dark. She did not know where he was. Having seen the treatment of our ambassador when I was in prison, we need to do everything we can and stand up to people who are committing war crimes and genocide. We have an obligation. I welcome the acknowledgement last week on the work that is being done in the Department on the Occupied Territories Bill and I would love an update.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Helen McEntee)

At the outset, I want to join many colleagues in acknowledging the exceptional service of the men and women of the Defence Forces currently deployed overseas. As we know, their work in peacekeeping missions often takes place in challenging and dangerous environments, as demonstrated most particularly in south Lebanon, and continues to reflect our enduring commitment to international peace and security. I am deeply conscious, not least because I met many of those members and their families in recent weeks, of the sacrifice they and their families make in serving their country and advancing the cause of peace.

I fully recognise the strong public interest in and deep attachment to Ireland's neutrality, as well as the strength of feeling it continues to generate. I also acknowledge that there are genuine concerns and, in some cases, misunderstandings regarding the impact the proposed amendments to the Defence Acts, including changes to the provision commonly referred to as the triple lock, may have on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Just a few seconds ago, we heard from a Deputy who said Ireland should not be dictated to by other countries while at the same time saying that we do not need to amend the triple lock, the very thing that allows other countries like the US, China and Russia to dictate exactly what we do.

Let me be absolutely clear. Ireland's long-standing policy in regard to our neutrality remains unchanged. We do not participate in military alliances or mutual defence arrangements and I am being very clear when I say there are no plans by the Government to alter the position. That commitment has been made repeatedly on the floor of the House and I again explicitly reaffirm it today.

I want to again address a fundamental misconception at the heart of the motion before the House. The triple lock is not a defining feature of our neutrality. It is not set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann and it is not a constitutional requirement. Rather, it is a legislative mechanism grounded in the Defence Act. It governs the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas, primarily in the context of UN-mandated missions. The triple lock evolved from political commitments during the Nice and Lisbon treaties process and we all accept that. I disagree with the idea that we would not have a discussion many years later in a space where we have elected representatives who represent all of our constituencies and are living in a changed global environment. It is not a constitutional principle. This is an opportunity for all of us, as elected representatives, to discuss the situation we find ourselves in. It is quite simple. We cannot operate in certain missions or certain missions that are due to end because of our triple lock. Amending the legislation underpinning this does not require a referendum. I am fully of the view that such a proposal would be neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of what we are discussing.

The Government is committed to progressing the defence (amendment) Bill, the general scheme of which was approved on 4 March. This legislation will consolidate and update existing provisions relating to overseas deployments and will modernise the framework in which such decisions are made. It will be reflective of the current global security environment, an environment in which no new peacekeeping mission has been proposed since 2014. Due to the veto of other countries, since 2014 we and UN peacekeeping missions have been blocked from progressing. The core objective of the legislative reforms proposed is to strengthen our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and to allow us to make our own decisions in terms of deploying our own troops.

Crucially, it will ensure that decisions regarding the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas to peacekeeping missions are determined solely by the Government and Dáil Éireann, the sovereign representatives of the Irish people, rather than being subject to the veto of the permanent members of the UN, countries like the US, China and Russia, countries that are actually involved in conflicts-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

The US.

Deputy Helen McEntee

-----we are trying to keep peacekeeping troops on the ground for. The practical reality is that the veto power exercised or indeed threatened by permanent members of the Security Council can and does prevent action, including in circumstances where there is broad international support. For Ireland, this can create and in fact does create real and immediate consequences. In the absence of a UN mandate, deployments cannot proceed. They must cease, regardless of our position or of the will of this House.

Deputy Heneghan asked why we are doing this now. I will give examples. We know very clearly that the troops I met in Limerick a few weeks ago will be the last operational mandate or battalion sent out to southern Lebanon for a peacekeeping mission that has been in situ for decades. We have a very proud tradition of sending thousands of members overseas over those years to protect people and keep them safe. The dynamic has changed and it is a very difficult situation now for civilians and our troops with that mission ending by next year. We will have no mandate to be able to support the people on the ground. We heard Deputy Callaghan speak and, like her, every peacekeeping troop or member of the Defence Forces I have met wants to continue that operation on the ground. That will not be possible.

I will mention as another example Operation IRINI, which is an EU-led mission in the Mediterranean. We have our own troops on that mission. That is coming to an end on Sunday. It is not being renewed. We will not be able to keep our troops there as part of any new mission that is being progressed. This is what we are trying to do. We have members of the Defence Forces who train, are highly skilled and are highly experienced. As missions are not being renewed because the UN Security Council is not operating in the way it should - we all know that - we are having to take back our troops and we are not able to continue the fantastic work we are so proud they have been doing for so many years.

The legislative changes I am proposing will address this issue directly. It will remove the requirement for the UN mandate as part of the decision-making framework while retaining robust safeguards. People want to know that there will be robust safeguards; that there will be Government approval and Dáil approval, where appropriate; and that this will continue to be required. All deployments will remain fully consistent with international law and with the principles of the UN Charter. Under these reforms we can continue to participate in missions such as Operation IRINI, which I have just mentioned. It is coming to an end and we will no longer be able to be part of it.

On the question of any further potential missions in south Lebanon - I know our troops want to continue their work there - if the EU or any other regional organisation proposes such a mission, the House can decide to be part of that. I think that is a role the House should take on.

I emphasise that even though the reforms to the triple lock legislation are often portrayed as altering our neutrality, they will not change our neutrality. I will repeat what Deputy Callaghan said: we were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. Amending it does not change the fact that we are a neutral country. The reforms do not signal any move towards participation in military alliances, nor would they do anything to expeditionary operations or diminish our commitment to the UN or to multilateralism. On the contrary, we will continue to regard the principles of the UN Charter as the foundation of our international engagement and we will actively support efforts to strengthen and reform the multilateral system. I have briefed and engaged directly with Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, on our intended approach. Our position and our ongoing commitment to the UN are well understood within the UN system, just as our peacekeepers are highly valued and appreciated. The UN does not see this as Ireland pulling away from the UN. This does not come across, nor does the UN believe that this is Ireland pulling away. The UN understands the need for us to be able to deploy our troops and to support the many missions they feel they cannot support because of the veto. Ireland's reputation as a peace-builder and as a contributor to conflict resolution, peacekeeping, human rights and disarmament is well established and will continue to guide our approach.

We have all touched on the security environment. We can see that it is different from previous decades. We are witnessing increased geopolitical tensions, a weakening of established multilateral mechanisms in certain instances and the emergence of new and complex threats that do not respect national borders. Against that backdrop, it is both prudent and necessary that we ensure our legislative and policy frameworks remain fit for purpose. This includes ensuring the State has the capacity to respond in a timely and effective manner to emerging crises, whether they arise from conflict situations, humanitarian emergencies or risks to Irish citizens abroad. The ability to act when required and in line with our values is an essential component of a credible and responsible foreign and defence policy. Our participation in overseas missions, whether it is under the auspices of the United Nations, the European Union or other regional arrangements, has always been grounded in clear legal authority and a principled commitment to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Nothing in the legislative proposals alters that fundamental position. Rather, what is being proposed is a pragmatic adjustment to ensure Ireland is not unduly constrained in circumstances where international consensus may be blocked for reasons completely unrelated to the merits of a particular mission. They may be completely unrelated, and we have seen that happen. In such situations it is reasonable that we retain our sovereign capacity to determine our own course of action, subject to the appropriate democratic oversight.

Our international reputation, as we all agree, has been built over many decades and it is one of consistency, independence and willingness to contribute constructively in support of peace and stability. Our Defence Forces personnel are widely respected for their professionalism, their integrity and their dedication in challenging environments. Ensuring we can continue to deploy such personnel, where justified and where appropriate, is in keeping with that proud tradition. By next year, there will be hundreds of troops who will not be able to participate in a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon in a way we have done for decades. This is because of the triple lock. What we are proposing here is to make sure we can continue to deploy our troops.

I will touch on one other point.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Darren O'Rourke)

Go raibh maith agat. The time is up.

Deputy Helen McEntee

Some commentary has been made on our investment in defence and in security. Being a neutral country does not mean that we should not invest in our capabilities to defend ourselves or that we should not be able to engage with other countries so that we are working collectively together. That does not in any way impact on our military neutrality.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I welcome and support this motion and thank Deputy Stanley for bringing it forward. I want to address some remarks to Fianna Fáil TDs, Fianna Fáil Senators and the wider Fianna Fáil membership. Is Fianna Fáil going to abandon its history? Is Fianna Fáil going to abandon Bunreacht na hÉireann, Éamon de Valera's Constitution? Is Fianna Fáil going to abandon Éamon de Valera's declaration of neutrality? Is Fianna Fáil going to abandon the solemn national declaration given by a Taoiseach from that party, Bertie Ahern, during the second referendum on the Nice treaty? Is it going to abandon the solemn national declaration given by another Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, during the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

No.

Deputy Seamus Healy

Is it going to abandon people like Éamon Ó Cuív and Willie O'Dea who are on record as opposing the abolition of the triple lock? The Minister has said that there is no connection between the triple lock and Irish neutrality but as we very well know, the current Taoiseach told us previously that the triple lock is the core of Irish neutrality. These are huge questions for Fianna Fáil, and for its future. Will they abandon their history?

Irish neutrality goes back hundreds of years. It is part of what we are as a nation and as a people. It goes back to Wolfe Tone. It goes back to James Connolly when he erected the banner on Liberty Hall which said "We serve neither king nor kaiser, but Ireland!". It goes back to huge protests against conscription during the First World War. It goes back to Article 29.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann - Éamon de Valera's Constitution - in which "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination."

The triple lock itself was endorsed by the sovereign Irish people in two referendums: the second Nice treaty referendum and the second Lisbon treaty referendum. The triple lock was included in solemn national declarations in those treaties. Any question of changing the triple lock will require a referendum of the Irish people. What is the Government afraid of in putting this to a referendum? The Irish people have spoken twice on this issue and have supported the triple lock. Any change will require a referendum, so this should be put to the people.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I acknowledge the work of Irish peacekeepers in Lebanon and in other missions overseas, particularly those serving in Lebanon currently given the actions of the terrorist Israeli State. I also acknowledge the work of volunteers who have campaigned and continue to campaign to uphold neutrality. I thank all those from the Opposition benches who spoke on it this morning. I note that not one Fianna Fáil Deputy has darkened the door to come in and to defend what is being proposed here. That is interesting and speaks for itself.

The motion calls on the Government to uphold the policy of neutrality and the triple lock as set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 and the solemn national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon treaties; to recognise that these commitments regarding the triple lock and neutrality can only be changed or amended by a majority of the electorate in a referendum; to recognise that the triple lock and neutrality are intrinsically linked, as set out by Micheál Martin; to strengthen the State's policy of neutrality by bringing forward a referendum to enshrine it in the Constitution. If the Minister really believes in it, which she said a number of times, enshrine it in the Constitution; to work with other neutral and non-aligned countries to reform and re-establish the primacy of the UN as the forum to uphold international law and for resolving international disputes and conflicts; to abide by the principal of multilateralism and not allow the State to be become part of any regional force; and to halt plans to progress the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025, which is about abandoning neutrality, and respect the will of the people.

Being neutral does not inhibit us in any way from having a level of co-operation with other states. Being neutral does not stop us from enhancing and modernising our Defence Forces and the protecting the likes of undersea cables. It does not stop us from increasing the numbers in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service or having modern equipment. It is the Government parties that have presided over the running down of the Defence Forces. I welcome the fact that some money is being invested in them and there have been some improvements but there is a lot more to do. Poor pay and conditions and lack of investment have been at the core of the problem. Next Tuesday night at 8 p.m., there will be a meeting on neutrality in the parish centre in Portlaoise. I am just getting in that plug with the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle.

Who are the people sent to war? They are not the sons and daughters of the militarists. It is the working class that is sent to the front line. The arms industry in Europe, led by Germany, is banging the war drums but, of course, we have cohorts banging the war drums at home. There have been over 50 articles in the media calling for the abandonment of the triple lock, with hardly any articles putting forward the counter position. Week after week, we hear from people like Brigid Laffan, Dan O'Brien, Dan Mulhall, John O'Brien and Ben Tonra banging the war drum and churning out the propaganda that we must abolish the triple lock and abandon our policy of neutrality. A conditioning process is happening to convince people to transfer money away from spending on agriculture, social cohesion and important matters like health, education and housing and use that money to buy guns. Brigid Laffan was very clear about it. When she was asked what she meant by Brendan O'Connor recently, she said that it is about guns.

The Minister said here a number of times, and told me and a number of members at the defence committee, that we are not going to join NATO but we do not have to join it. The boys and girls at the top of NATO know this. Why do they know this? It is because the Government is already joining in and signing up to joint missions and partnerships with all sorts of names and terms used as a cover for participating and being aligned with NATO. That is the reality. That is the conditioning process.

We are supposed to be neutral. I remember being at Shannon Airport. The one and only time I was there was in 2008 and I was horrified to see the number of American troops in American Army uniforms going through the airport and the military overflights. The Government at the time signed up to allow this. We cannot allow that to continue in light of the slaughter that happened in Iraq and Iran. We facilitated flights into and out of Shannon and flights over Ireland on military missions. That has to stop.

We recently gave €90 million in aid to Ukraine. I support the €60 million for humanitarian purposes but I do not support the €30 million that was given to buy guns and bombs. You are firing guns and bombs into what is already an industrial war. That is the only way you could describe it. It is like trying to put out a fire by throwing petrol on it. A neutral country cannot do that. The boys and girls at the top of NATO are not worried because they already have the Government.

Wolfe Tone was the first to enunciate Irish neutrality. Some 110 years ago, James Connolly hung a banner over Liberty Hall that read "We Serve Neither King Nor Kaiser But Ireland!" This is not about being isolationist. It is about us being a peaceful country, using our voice as an independent neutral country to stand up for what is right in a world run by bullies such as Trump and Putin and the terrorist State of Israel. I express my solidarity with the people who have been kidnapped by Israel and I urge the Government to take the strongest possible action. If it sees the Israeli ambassador, tell them to go home as soon as possible. It should expel the ambassador. They should be expelled and we should pass the sanctions Bill today to stop any trade with Israel. It is a disgrace that we co-operate in any way with it. We should continue our role as a peace-keeping country.

Amendment to amendment put.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is deferred until tonight's voting block.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 20 May 2026

Defence and Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 2026