Triple Lock Mechanism and Irish Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises:

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

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

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

calls on the Government to:

— 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.

Is mór an onóir dom an rún seo a chur ós comhair na Dála inniu. The Government has made clear its intention to dismantle the triple lock. It has brought forward proposals to remove the UN Security Council mandate, the UN mandate itself from the triple lock. It has proposed to quadruple the number of military personnel who can be deployed overseas from 12 to 50, without the mechanism even kicking in. We, the Social Democrats, are using our time this morning to simply ask the Government to put those plans to the people in the form of a plebiscite on the triple lock.

This morning I will talk about our long-standing history of neutrality in this country, our place in the world, how it is connected to multilateralism, the role of the UN within that multilateralism and our long-standing tradition of peacekeeping. I acknowledge the contribution of our Senator, Patricia Stephenson, who has been central in shaping our positions in regard to defence, neutrality and, indeed, the triple lock.

Ní rud nua é neodrachas na hÉireann. Is rud fíorthábhachtach é dár bhféiniúlacht, dár sábháilteacht agus dár n-áit sa domhan. We have always been militarily neutral and as we all know, that does not mean that we are politically neutral. What it means is that we have a commitment to peace and diplomacy.

Our neutrality has not always been perfect. It has been tested over time and it has not always withstood those tests. For example, during the Second World War we treated prisoners of war very differently depending on which country they came from. We saw the fuelling of US planes in Shannon which were carrying military weaponry and personnel overseas and we have seen the transport of munitions through Irish airspace - something which carries through right to this very day.

However, it is a tradition which has been rooted in the commitment we have in this country to peace and diplomacy. During my research for today’s motion, I looked at the other histories of neutrality around the world. It is important to note that, for example, Switzerland is associated with neutrality, but what people do not often acknowledge is that Switzerland has a long tradition of the manufacture and sale of arms and weapons. Switzerland’s neutrality is arguably more influenced on the basis that it wants to be available to as many clients as possible. It is really important to note the specific tradition and root of Irish neutrality which is that respect for diplomacy, peace and multilateralism. It has allowed us to build up a stellar reputation across the globe and, arguably, was a key part in Ireland having gained a seat on the Security Council on several occasions.

In the early noughties, during the development of the Nice and Lisbon treaties, it became clear that our neutrality was under threat. The European Economic Community was becoming a closer forged community and it was clear that there was a pathway towards a military alliance as well as everything else and that would threaten our neutrality. The triple lock was developed in reaction to these events.

We know the Government does not agree with us on neutrality. It has been very clear on that. That is why we have brought this motion. We should be able to agree on the basic democratic principle that a measure brought in to give people reassurance in the context of the Nice and Lisbon treaties and to secure their vote for those treaties should not be removed without their say.

I will speak now to exactly what is the triple lock. It is, of course, the Government, the Dáil and the UN mandate and the role they have in the approval of the deployment of personnel overseas. I want to speak specifically to that UN Security Council mandate, which the Government raises repeatedly as its key issue with the triple lock. I believe that is a red herring. It is clear from the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 and the capstone doctrine of the United Nations that the General Assembly is available to satisfy the triple lock where we see a deadlock and a veto threatening that peace at Security Council level.

What really rankles with me is when the Government states that the potential veto of a UN Security Council member is a threat to our sovereignty. The people I think of when I hear that are those whose actual sovereignty is under threat – people in Gaza, people in Ukraine and people in conflict zones all across the globe who really understand what that means and who do not trivialise it. In connection with that, I also want to speak to the raising of the cap, because that is a crucial part of our triple lock and raising it so drastically, from 12 to 50, will alter the ability of the Dáil and the people to debate any deployment of troops overseas.

At a time where peace projects are being put on the backburner globally, in Europe, America and beyond, the UN remains the international body which is foundationally committed to peace and the rule of law. It is worrying to see such bitterness to oversight of a body whose mission is to project future generations from the scourge of war.

When I think of our place in the world, I think of multilateralism. We have garnered an international reputation for peacekeeping, for looking out not just for the global north, but for the global interest. As a result, our voice carries weight not only in Europe, but also in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. It means that we do not just split off into those regional blocs. Indeed, within our own regional bloc, there is respect within the European Union for our neutrality - respect that is now threatened not by the triple lock but by the failure to fund our Defence Forces and the willingness of the Government to be carried away on a defence tide. Tá áit tuillte ag Éire i measc na náisiún mar thír atá i gcoinne cogaidh agus atá sásta seasamh suas in aghaidh cumhachtaí móra ar mhaithe leis an gcine daonna. If we reject the support and oversight of the international community, we are rejecting the principle of multilateralism and we will lose our credibility as a good faith actor - credibility which has been built up over decades.

Finally, I wish to speak to our long-standing tradition of peacekeeping. Of course, we have the longest unbroken record of peacekeeping in the world and we are very proud of that record. On behalf of the Social Democrats, I thank the Defence Forces for the work they do in maintaining the work of peacekeeping in difficult locations all over the world. As the House will hear from my colleagues, we support the Defence Forces and the maintenance of our peacekeeping work. This is not a head-in-the-sand approach. It is not blind idealism. It is a practical look at the facts before us. This country has a long-standing tradition of peacebuilding, peace-making and peacekeeping. We punch above our weight in terms of diplomacy, human rights and peace. We need to invest in our Defence Forces to maintain that reputation and we need to act as champions for peace on the global stage and as a member state within the European Union, and we must retain the triple lock.

I urge the House to support this motion and put the question of the triple lock to the people. Tá dlí idirnáisiúnta agus an tsuíocháin faoi ionsaí agus caithfidh muid troid ar ais anois.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Tá sé sin go uafásach.

Deputy Gary Gannon

The Minister of State can shake his head and look as bewildered as he likes.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Tá mé ag éisteacht le cad atá á rá aici.

Deputy Gary Gannon

The Minister of State can shake his head and look as bewildered as he likes but here is the simple fact: the Government has no mandate to remove the triple lock. I accept the Minister of State’s party won more seats than we did in the general election but here is what its manifesto said: “Continue to protect and promote ... neutrality including sensible reform of the ‘Triple Lock’ legislation.” Removing the triple lock is not sensible reform. That is another mistruth Fianna Fáil has told the Irish people.

Fine Gael, admittedly, has talked for as long as it has been in existence about removing the triple lock. The Taoiseach challenged Fine Gael on it on many occasions but its own manifesto has nothing about removing the triple lock. The two parties, however, got into a room together, developed the programme for Government and decided they were going to remove the triple lock without any consultation with the Irish people. That is really what we are here to discuss today. I understand there is a debate; let us have it. Let us have a great national debate on the triple lock and the role it has played in our peacekeeping missions.

We are told it is outdated and inconvenient and slows things down but the real question is, for whom does it slow things down? It does not slow things down for the Irish people. It slows things down for a Government that wants to bypass consent. It slows it down for a defence establishment that wants to partake in the arms industry, the likes of which laid the seeds for the First World War and all the horrors that were unleashed into the 20th century and 21th century. The Government wants to do that by simple majority. We saw yesterday what its simple majority achieves. It is hoping the public will not notice but this is a significant move. When you seek to remove the United Nations from the decision to send Irish troops abroad, you do not get to do it by a simple majority. That is not democracy or consultation; it is tyranny of numbers – a rushed job from a Government that knows the people may not back it if it gives them a real choice. We are not talking about some obscure clause in an EU directive. We are talking about rewriting the conditions under which Ireland sends its sons and daughters into foreign theatres of conflict. We are talking about undermining the very principle that has kept Irish soldiers respected, protected and truly neutral in the eyes of the world.

The triple lock does not make peacekeeping impossible. How could it? We have the longest tradition of peacekeeping under the blue helmet. It makes it accountable. It ensures that every mission we join reflects the values we understand in this Republic - multilateralism, neutrality and humanitarian solidarity - and not the whim of a powerful ally or a strategic alliance that we never voted for.

Some in government and most Members of the House will say the UN is not perfect. Abandoning it does not fix it, however; it merely removes your moral anchor. All the fighter jets in the world that Simon Harris wants to buy will not give us the same protection as the legacy of Fianna Fáil’s own Frank Aiken, for example, when he developed the foundations of who we are on the world stage, but here we go kowtowing and being subservient. When you remove that anchor, where do you drift? We have seen countries chipping away at neutrality until it is unrecognisable, and we will not let that happen here. We will not let it happen without a fight. We want the people to simply have their say, and what is wrong with that? If the Government is confident this is the right path, and the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, seems confident it is, let the Government put the triple lock to the people. Hold a plebiscite, make the case and let the Irish people weigh the facts, the risk and the principles.

If they back the Government then it should go ahead, that can be the basis of its confidence, but it should not hide behind procedure or pretend that removing the triple lock and all that goes with it is just some minor administrative tweak. It is not. It is a deeply profound shift in how we see ourselves as peacekeepers, not power brokers. The Irish people deserve to be consulted on a change of this magnitude. This is about how we will send people, who will be predominantly working class men and women, into conflict zones. That requires a public consultation and debate. It requires people who did not include it in their manifestos but who nonetheless want to initiate it saying why they believe in this and to hold a plebiscite to get the consent of the people. Neutrality is not an inconvenience. It is a choice that needs to be protected. It needs the consent of the population of an independent republic. If the Government wants to change it all we ask is that it puts it to the people. We are bringing forward a motion on this today which purposely makes no assumptions. We understand the Government wants to initiate a debate but we think it is bigger than the simple majority the Government has; it needs the consent of the people. What are we afraid of in putting this to the people of Ireland?

Deputy Aidan Farrelly

The truth is this Government does not have the mandate to change the triple lock. As my colleague said, the Fianna Fáil general election manifesto vaguely mentions it. In a 200-page document, it gets one mention. The Fine Gael general election manifesto does not mention the triple lock at all and I am pretty sure it did not make it to Michael Lowry’s shopping list either.

People did not vote for Fianna Fáil on the premise of this change because it never told them about it not to mind the fact that pre-election commitments it did make on housing and on enacting the Occupied Territories Bill have been abandoned as quickly as possible. I will quote from the programme for Government:

We will reform the Triple Lock legislation whilst also ensuring that amendments to the legislation are in keeping with our values and policy of active military neutrality.

That is the only mention of it. It is vague. It is meaningless. What we are doing in the Social Democrats is calling on this Government to consult with the very people who put us here on an issue of such incredible importance. Since tabling this motion we have heard important opinions on the issue being raised with us directly. I am sure the Minister of State has too through the media and from the canteens and school gates around the country. People want to have their say on the triple lock. Unilateral decisions made by this Government will not be good enough.

I am minded of a conversation I had with our colleague Councillor Pat Balfe in Kildare who is a very proud former Defence Forces member. He spoke to me of the incredible tradition that the Irish Defence Forces has. They are trained to the highest degree. We have the longest unbroken peacekeeping service in the world. It is because of this experience and distinguished service in very challenging environments that our reputation upholds. However, this Government and successive Governments have dropped the ball on defence, the members of the Defence Forces and their families. The Social Democrats believes we must invest in the Defence Forces with the goal of bringing funding to a sustainable level that would allow it to fulfil its duties. We must address the pay issues faced by Defence Forces personnel which are inhibiting meeting goals around retention; set a minimum level in the Defence Forces of 11,500 with 500 in training; equip our Defence Forces with the systems and technologies required to effectively carry out its roles, including sonar and air surveillance radar; and we can develop the rank, pay and promotion system within the Defence Forces which is archaic and out of date.

The Government does not have the mandate. The people want to have their say on the triple lock. Give them their say.

Deputy Rory Hearne

It is very clear that this Government is taking us away from the cherished neutrality we have had as a country and as a republic. Our neutrality is something that is core to what it means to be Irish today. It is not a passive thing but something that needs to be chosen and protected. What the Government is doing is shattering that neutrality. Arguably, it is making this decision without a proper discussion of its significance. We have brought forward this motion today because the people have the right to have a say on whether or not we are changing neutrality. The Government should put it to the people.

This is an abandonment of neutrality. In 2013 Micheál Martin said the triple lock was “the core of our neutrality”. I will repeat that. The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, in 2013 said the triple lock was "the core of our neutrality". What has changed? How is it no longer the core of our neutrality? He also criticised Fine Gael for having an out of touch, ideological obsession and that making changes to the triple lock would undermine our neutrality. It is a U-turn on his position and that of Fianna Fáil and it appears it is just one more example of how Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are indistinguishable from each other and how this Government is just rolling along with the drum beat to war which is being pushed at a European level and ditching our history of peacekeeping and peace making. We are moving from peace makers and peacekeepers to adding to this drum beat to war to bring Europe, the European Union, to war. We cannot get away from it. We should not pretend otherwise. At a European Union level there appears to be a desire for the creation of a European army and the European arms industry which Ireland is going along with rather than standing up for our neutrality. We can be different. There is nothing wrong with being different and standing up for our principles which Fianna Fáil said it stood for and went to the people and said it stood for. However, as my colleagues mentioned, it is one more promise being abandoned. Fine Gael did not mention the triple lock at all during the election. Fianna Fáil promised to reform it at some level. It can frame its proposals as reform but by removing the UN mandate, it is removing the triple lock.

Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Deputy Thomas Byrne)

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"notes that:

- 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; and

- the Government does not believe a national plebiscite on the matter is either necessary or appropriate;

recognises:

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

- 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

- the importance of stakeholder engagement as part of the legislative process in shaping Ireland's future defence policy; and acknowledges that:

- 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 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 Force personnel overseas, in other overseas roles, such as the crisis management evacuation of Irish citizens.".

As Minister of State at the Department of Defence, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion on reform of the triple lock mechanism and neutrality. As Members will likely be aware, the Tánaiste is in Lebanon today visiting the dedicated women and men of Óglaigh na hÉireann, who are currently serving in UNIFIL in south Lebanon. At the outset, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all Defence Forces personnel who are currently serving overseas. I am very mindful of the sacrifice that they and indeed their families make in serving our countries in the interests of peace.

All of us recognise that the global security context has changed. We may differ in our views as to how we respond to the changing global security context, but all of us can agree that the world has changed considerably in recent years. Ireland is not immune from the changing global security context. We can see the international rules-based order that Ireland has advocated for and worked within since independence under considerable strain. In line with our fellow EU members and international partners we are obliged to take our security and our responsibility towards our like-minded partners more seriously than ever.

An agile, thoughtful, and considered foreign and defence policy is needed to meet the challenges that face us.

In respect of our own security, Ireland's policy of military neutrality can be characterised by our non-membership of military alliances, or common or mutual defence arrangements. Any neutral country has its own nuance. An example was given of one country that I would not necessarily accept. Every single country has its own nuance as to what its neutrality means. Ours has been characterised by non-membership of military alliances. This policy choice has been practised by successive Governments since the Second World War. The Government is not changing this policy. To put it in simple terms, Ireland will not be joining NATO and, in line with Bunreacht na hÉireann, we would not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence. There has never been any such proposal and the EU is not a military alliance. However, 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. I welcome the Social Democrats' commitment to increasing investment in our Defence Forces. The Government is certainly aligned with them on that.

The UN Security Council is not functioning properly. We cannot continue to deny that reality. As the House is aware, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council possess a veto power, which can prevent the adoption of resolutions by the UN. Crucially, this veto power allows permanent UN Security Council members, namely the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia and China, to prevent the authorisation of peace support mandates. In practice, even the threat of a veto is often enough to halt Council action. Ultimately, while other organs of the United Nations can make recommendations to member states, under the UN Charter, the Security Council alone has the power to take decisions that member states are obligated to implement. Ireland has consistently opposed the use of the veto, as demonstrated during our own term on the Security Council, where we witnessed its use several times. It is important that we address the reality.

I can provide the House with some recent examples. One of our most important initiatives on the Security Council was the proposal of a resolution on climate and security, effectively allowing climate to be discussed at the Security Council. This was an initiative co-led by us and Niger. It had the backing of 113 UN member states. It was vetoed by Russia. Since February 2022, Russia has used its veto power to stop action aimed at addressing the illegal war in Ukraine. Since October 2023, the US, China and Russia have exercised their vetoes in relation to the Middle East, including on resolutions concerning Palestine. If the Irish Government was on the Security Council now and tabled a motion on Palestine, almost certainly no matter what we said it would be vetoed by one or other of the permanent members. In February of this year, the US and Russia opposed a European-drafted resolution supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity and condemning the illegal and unjustified actions of Russia.

For my own part, I have direct experience in dealing with the power of the veto at the UN Security Council. I have direct experience of actually implementing the triple lock. In November 2022, I travelled to the UN Security Council to advocate for the renewal of Operation Althea, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Irish members of the Defence Forces serve. The experience demonstrated to me why reform of the triple lock is necessary and why it should not be at the core of Irish policy. I had no certainty that day as to whether Russia, or any other UN Security Council member, would veto the renewal of this peacekeeping mission. This is the whim of a foreign government, which Deputy Gannon has spoken about. That is the reality we face when we want to go to the UN Security Council. If this effort had failed, Ireland would have been required to withdraw its contingent from Operation Althea under the current triple lock provisions. It should be noted as well that even though there are only five members of the Defence Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it does require a UN mandate. The 12 members provision applies to Dáil approval.

Deputies will join me in recognising Ireland's proud peacekeeping tradition. We want to ensure that this continues. We cannot simply allow this situation to persist where Russia, the illegal invader of Ukraine, has a veto over what we decide in this Dáil. I went to the Security Council just months after Russia had invaded Ukraine. That is the reality we face.

The programme for Government commits to reforming the triple lock legislation, while also ensuring that amendments to the legislation are in keeping with our values and policy of active military neutrality. Any proposed legislative change will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, and international law.

I reject the statement made as Gaeilge by Deputy Gibney about an dlí idirnáisiúnta also. Conflict is impacting communities across the world and yet we have not seen a new UN peacekeeping or peace enforcement mission mandated since 2014. That is because of the veto. We need a mechanism where our own elected officials of Government and of this Dáil have the power to direct the dispatch of our Defence Forces personnel overseas. Our Constitution sets out that Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state. Under the legislative proposals Ireland will make decisions about where Ireland sends its Defence Forces personnel. These will, of course, be in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law, subject to Government and Dáil approval.

We are in no way disengaging from the UN. It is rather the opposite. The reputation of Ireland has been acknowledged by the Social Democrats in dealing with multilateralism and international bodies like the UN. That is thanks to Government policy over many decades, that of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael which are criticised all the time, and our diplomats who operate under our policy direction. We have always taken an active approach to global challenges and have made significant contributions to international peace and security.

Partnership has been at the heart of all our international engagement. We have always engaged constructively with our international partners in the UN. We are committed to working with our fellow EU member states through the EU's common security and defence policy, while acknowledging that defence policy is a matter for each individual member state. Every document on defence from the European Union talks about that.

The proposed new legislation governing how we dispatch our Defence Forces personnel overseas will be brought to this House and to the Seanad for debate. This debate will occur following pre-legislative scrutiny by the relevant Oireachtas committee, when the committees are established.

The Government's countermotion recognises the importance of these 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 in this Dáil of the people of Ireland, and not by Russia or China. That is the reality. I have faced that reality myself. The Government will ensure that our security and defence policy will continue to be shaped by military neutrality, coupled with active and principled membership of the EU, the UN, and other international forums.

Some of the statements on the European Union that the Social Democrats have put out this week are worthy of Nigel Farage. The European Union is the greatest peace project in the history of the world. The statement by the Deputies opposite in the last few days about war-mongering and all of that could not be further from reality. It is the greatest peace project in the history of the world. The Social Democrats' voters do not agree with them on this. Ireland has one of the highest levels of support for membership of the European Union. People can see the benefits in terms of peace, economic security and where we see our place in the world.

Ireland's commitment to the rules-based international order, and to multilateralism, has not changed but the world has changed. We are militarily neutral, but we are not indifferent. We are not immune to the challenges of the global security context. We must work to strengthen our place in Europe and around the world. We must reform aspects of our foreign and defence policy when circumstances change, while always holding true to our values and constitutional principles. The Government's motion reiterates our support for Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality and it sets out our commitment to continuing multilateralism, which we accept. The previous Government was clear that reform of the triple lock was needed. In November 2024, Ireland had a general election, and the subsequently agreed programme for Government committed to reform of this. I call on the House to support the Government's motion. I thank the Deputies for their engagement.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I have to take the Minister of State up on what he has just said, trying to imply somehow that the Social Democrats are not strong supporters of the European Union. We always have been, since our foundation.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

That is not what Deputy Hearne thinks.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

That comment really is beneath the Minister of State. He knows well we have always been strongly supportive of the European Union. There is no question on that. It is really just a distraction tactic. The heart of this is in the Minister of State's speech, where he keeps talking about reform of the triple lock. This Government is not reforming the triple lock. That is what it said it would do in its manifesto. It is abolishing the triple lock, going from a situation where there are safeguards in place to one where the Cabinet of the day can effectively decide whether to send Irish young people abroad into a war zone. That is what this is about. The Minister of State can talk about reform all he likes. That was the promise given to the electorate. The Government is abolishing the triple lock and has not given good justifications for it. The Minister of State is engaging in distraction tactics.

I want to agree with the Minister of State's comments thanking our Defence Forces and their families for the contribution they make.

I fully agree with the Minister of State on that. Ireland has a proud role in this regard. That is what we are trying to do with our motion, namely protect that. Since the United Nations was founded, Ireland has been committed to the principle that if we send our military abroad it is under a UN mandate. The Government is ripping that up by abolishing the triple lock and taking us in a dangerous direction.

The implications of this could be very far-reaching. We need a discussion on that. When the Taoiseach, the leader of the Minister of State's party, was in opposition, he said that attempts to dismantle the triple lock were, "[A]n out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the facts of Ireland’s international standing".

EU battle groups, which are now the focus of Ireland's overseas deployment, operate without a UN mandate and are not subject to EU parliamentary or judicial oversight. They are unaccountable to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, or the European Parliament. The Minister of State's party leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, told the Dáil when in opposition that:

Earlier this year, the Minister for Defence signalled that he would try to water down Ireland's commitment to the triple lock, which is at the core of our neutrality. He presented the idea that it was contradictory and that we were giving unsavoury countries a veto over our actions. This argument has been behind the efforts of a wing of Fine Gael to erode neutrality over the years.

That is what the Taoiseach told the Dáil when in opposition.

Deputy Pádraig Rice

I start by acknowledging that we live in very turbulent and troubling times. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israel's destruction of Gaza and Trump's threats of a trade war are examples of this. As a result, foreign policy debates like this are increasingly important. We need these discussions and debates on Ireland's role in the world, what it means to be neutral today and how we prepare for a less certain tomorrow. It is also important to acknowledge from the off that these are complicated and complex policy areas.

Since becoming a TD a few short months ago, I have noticed that many issues across many policy areas are often presented in black and white terms. This does a disservice to debates, the Dáil and the people who elect us. We need to spend more time acknowledging the grey and shed light on the complex and challenging parts of these problems. We need to discuss these issues with due care and consideration. Ultimately, we need wider national debate. That is why we should put the question of a triple lock to the people.

I was disappointed to hear a Fine Gael back bench TD recently describe the proposal of a plebiscite as "makey-uppy". Plebiscites have been held in the past. We had one in Limerick and Cork on the issue of directly elected mayor and there is no reason why we cannot pass enabling legislation to carry one out on another national policy issue. Equally, Articles 27 and 47 of the Constitution provide for ordinary referendums on policy issues which do not involve textual changes to the Constitution.

I am deeply concerned about increasing militarisation in the world. Ireland has an important role to play on the world stage as a voice for peace and peacekeeping. That said, I am not blind to the increased threats we face. We need to be better prepared to defend ourselves and our vital infrastructure. I am also keenly aware of the threats faced by other members of the EU. We are, after all, a family of nations. I would like to strongly challenge the assertion of the Minister of State that we do not support EU membership. I am fully in support of EU membership.

We need to consider how best we can contribute to the de-escalation of those threats. For me, this is through the wider promotion of peace, co-operation and shared prosperity. It involves greater dialogue, discussion and engagement at a global level. It means being the conveners and experts in peace talks and peace building. It means being trusted to lead those talks as a neutral country. It means continuing to be dedicated peacekeepers. It is about multilateralism, based on the principles of equality, inclusion and co-operation, that aims to foster a more peaceful, prosperous and stable world. It is about a central role for institutions such as the UN. For me, this is why the triple lock matters.

In a world of ongoing wars, let us be the voice of peace and peacekeeping. In an era of increasing militarisation, let us not be afraid to be different, stand out and say, "Stop". In a time of increasing isolationism, let us lean into co-operation, multilateralism and the UN. Ultimately, it is time for a serious national debate on defence, neutrality and the triple lock. It is time to put this to the people.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I thank the Social Democrats for allowing me some time on this important motion. I wish the Minister of State well in his position. He knows my position on this. My position is that the triple lock is sacrosanct. Our neutrality is sacrosanct.

I was concerned about two years ago when the Taoiseach had a roadshow with hand-picked people to try to soften up the public for a change to our neutrality. The Taoiseach has also said that our neutrality is an outdated concept. I do not believe it is and I think the matter should go to the people. We should let the people decide. We tell them they are sovereign, and they should be sovereign. There has to be a vote. We know how this came about after the Nice referendum, when the people said, "No", and the Government went back to soften them up. We must respect the people's vote and why they voted.

It would fit the Minister of State and Taoiseach better to give proper respect to our peacekeepers, including those who fought the heroic battle in Jadotville. The Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, when in opposition, promised that he would look after them. They have not received recognition. Those involved in Jadotville are almost all gone and need recognition, and that should happen during this Dáil.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an rún agus tréaslaím leis na Daonlathaithe Sóisialta as an rún seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Tá Sinn Féin go hiomlán i bhfabhar an rúin agus i gcoinne leasú an Rialtais. Tá Sinn Féin den tuairim go bhfuil an Rialtas ag cur na neodrachta atá mar chuid lárnach dár bpolasaí eachtracha i mbaol agus go ndéanann sé laghdú ar an gcosaint atá air sin.

Sinn Féin is totally opposed to the end of the triple lock neutrality protection. That is what is at issue here, not reform, change or anything like that. Fundamentally, this debate is about removing the triple lock. It will be a matter for a Government that has a majority to make a decision to deploy troops. That is the reality of what the door is being opened to here. It will be within the gift of a Government that commands a majority to deploy Irish troops to missions and deployments of the type that we have never considered and which are completely contrary to decades of our foreign policy.

The Government has spoken a lot about the world changing. The world is changing; there is no doubt about that. We live in a very febrile and volatile world at this moment in time. It is not the time for rash actions that undermine our place in the world. The world is changing and we need to consider our place in this changing world. The Irish people have a very strong understanding of Ireland's place in the world. They understand that Ireland will never be a major military power, that we are a small country with an outsized influence. It should not be overstated or understated that we have an outsized influence in the world. We have achieved that in a number of ways. We have achieved it by the strength of our diplomatic team. I acknowledge the strong work that people in the Department of Foreign Affairs have done. It has also been achieved by the huge credibility of our peacekeepers, whom I commend for the work they have done. It was not helped by the underfunding of the Defence Forces over many years which has resulted in their withdrawal from the Golan Heights. They have built our credibility. We have the credibility that we enjoy because of our understanding of the impact of colonialism and imperialism across the world and our history as a colony under imperialism.

The reality is that the actions the Government proposes to take will undermine the credibility that we have. We will expose ourselves very significantly to potential pressure from other countries if we remove the triple lock protection. We have had comments from Ursula von der Leyen and the rearm Europe movement. We can see the direction in which things, including politics, are travelling. Given the climate that currently exists, it is not difficult to foresee a situation whereby an Irish Government would be put under pressure to increase its role in X mission or engage in Y mission. We are totally opposed to that.

The UN is not perfect by any manner or means. However, I take the point, which is important, that some of the arguments the Government made in terms of the Security Council are not correct or entirely accurate. Ultimately, as imperfect as it is, we have had the policy that Irish peacekeepers go on UN-mandated missions, not missions of whatever kind the Government is talking about.

Deputy Seán Crowe

Sinn Féin supports the motion. It is welcome and timely. We were colonised and know what it is like to struggle for freedom against a foreign invader. The principle of neutrality is a fundamental republican principle and was one of the cornerstones of the foundation of the Irish State.

The Irish people set great store in our neutrality. It is a point of pride that our troops have only ever gone abroad to help to quell conflicts and bring an end to war and division. Indeed, Ireland's primary objective internationally should always be to facilitate the resolution of war and conflict. Successive Irish Governments have allowed that principle of neutrality to be eroded. It was Fianna Fáil that signed us up to the Partnership for Peace, seen by many as a stepping stone towards NATO membership. Only the staunch resistance of the Irish people to any such move has prevented later Governments from taking the leap. Fine Gael has in the past described neutrality as a sham and has consistently voted in Europe to roll back any obstacle to Ireland's participation in an increasingly militarised Europe, something we were told was only some fringe conspiracy theory during the Lisbon treaty debates.

The Government will tell us that the triple lock is too restrictive and prevents the Defence Forces from carrying out their duties to protect the State and the Irish people. This is nothing more than a smokescreen. All we need to do is to further expand the existing legislative framework to include circumstances such as the rescue of an Irish hostage abroad and repatriation, close protection for Irish officials in conflict zones and drug interdiction in waters just outside Ireland's territorial waters. This way we can strengthen the triple lock rather than overturning it.

On the substance of the motion and the calls for a plebiscite, my preference would be to incorporate neutrality into the Constitution. That has been a long-standing policy of Sinn Féin. I cosponsored a Bill on a constitutional referendum to that end in 2013. There are Members on the Government benches today who voted against that legislation then and would surely vote against it now because they do not want Ireland to be a neutral country. A citizens' assembly should be established with a view to bringing a wording for the constitutional amendment to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution so the Government of the day may not run roughshod over the opinion that Irish people have expressed over and over again, which is that Ireland should not be a member of this club.

Deputy Matt Carthy

We accept that the world has changed dramatically and that it is changing. We accept that it is right that we have a conversation to consider and examine Ireland's place in the world and what is necessary to ensure Ireland's security. It is also necessary to ensure that at such times, we do not set aside our integrity or our precedent, or that we do not do things out of short-term interest that can have profound long-term effects.

It is widely recognised that the triple lock is a neutrality protection. It was recognised in the now Taoiseach's statements when he was the leader of Fianna Fáil in opposition before he abandoned every principle in order to hitch his wagon to Fine Gael. The triple lock ensures that the democratic wishes of the Irish people are protected. The people rejected both the Lisbon and Nice treaties. The triple lock was sold to them on the basis that they would have nothing to fear from the ongoing drive towards militarisation and a centralised military command at a European level. In my view, only the Irish people can undo that democratic decision, which forms the basis of our current membership of the European Union. The rhetoric coming from the Government is dangerous. Abandoning the triple lock will allow any future Government at any particular time to engage Irish troops in a conflict situation that has no direct connection to Ireland. One wrong move could undermine decades of Irish diplomacy, humanitarian aid and the long-standing reputation we have across the world.

This is not about broadening our horizons. It is about a determination by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to abandon Irish independent foreign policy and lock us in entirely to an EU framework that will not always be in Ireland's interests. The triple lock neutrality protection must be protected by this Dáil and shame on anybody who votes to abandon it.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion and giving us the chance to have this important debate. Here we have another day and another U-turn. Today's U-turn sees Fianna Fáil move even closer to Fine Gael. At some point they are going to have to acknowledge that there is virtually no difference between the two parties. We have come to expect the hawkish views of Fine Gael. We are used to them. We see them beating their chests and all the rest of it. When we hear the Tánaiste talk about fighter jets, we are not surprised. However, the enthusiastic support for militarisation is new to Fianna Fáil. Like all the poor decisions Fianna Fáil has made, we can be sure it will embrace it enthusiastically. While the Government and the Lowry group have no regard for the triple lock, the people of this State do. They value our neutrality and the triple lock. The ask here is simple. If the Government is so sure it is right, it should put the question to the people and let them have their say. If the Government is sure it is right and understands the importance of the issue, which I believe it does, it should put the question to the people and let them have their say.

This is a serious matter. We should have a conversation about neutrality and the triple lock and all the people should be involved. This Government wants to take us in a very dangerous direction but it will not do so with the assistance of Sinn Féin. The triple lock is at the core of our neutrality and while it clearly means nothing to this Government, it is important to ordinary people. The Government should let the people decide.

In his contribution, the Minister of State spoke about and paid tribute to the Defence Forces. I join him in that. However, the Government does not match its tributes with meaningful action. There is now a phenomenon in our Defence Forces whereby people are not even serving their full time but are resigning. They are not waiting until retirement. The Government has made the Defence Forces a deeply unattractive place to work and the members are telling it that by leaving. If the Government valued the Defence Forces, it would implement the European working time directive. If it valued the Defence Forces, it would ensure the members have a safe and decent place to work and are paid appropriately. If it valued the Defence Forces, members of the Government would do more than come in here and simply parrot meaningless words but would back them up with action. The Government does not do that. The members of the Defence Forces see the Government for what it is.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I thank the Social Democrats and welcome the motion calling on the Government to hold a referendum on the triple lock. Ireland has a proud tradition of neutrality and peacekeeping missions. Because of our history of occupation and colonialism, the continued partition of our country and our long-standing policy of military neutrality, Ireland has built a strong reputation for standing up for oppressed people and our passport is seen as one of the most respected across the world. We have built that respect not by engaging in military wars alongside colonial powers in the EU and the United States but by standing by international law and international human rights. There is no doubt that eliminating the triple lock is part of the position of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and others to incrementally drag us into some form of military alliance. The people have continuously rejected such an alliance in poll after poll. In fact, the most recent poll in the Irish Examiner showed that an overwhelming 75% of people support the triple lock and Ireland's neutrality. The proposal to end the triple lock breaches the commitments given during debates on the Nice and Lisbon treaties. The people of this State rejected those referendums because of the fear of being dragged into wars that are not ours, such as the war in Iraq, which, as we all know, was based on a lie that led to the deaths of over 1 million people and has led to absolute horrors in the Middle East that are still being felt today.

If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael feel so strongly that this is the right thing to do, it should go back to the people. This was one of the major issues around the Nice and Lisbon treaties. The Government should go back to the people and give them a say in one of the most important decisions that could be made, that is, the potential decision to send our young people to war on behalf of the United States or the EU.

Deputy Cathy Bennett

I thank the Social Democrats for putting forward this motion. Ireland can be proud of our contributions to the multilateral system in terms of the role we have played regarding humanitarianism, disarmament, non-proliferation and peacekeeping. Alongside our diplomatic corps and peacekeepers, who see policy enacted, our independent foreign policy and triple lock neutrality protection, the chief components, have allowed Ireland to make those contributions.

This is what the Taoiseach thought in 2013 when he responded to similar efforts to undermine the triple lock. In this House, he described such attempts as "sniping at our neutrality", although today he argues that the matters are unrelated. He described the argument that Ireland was failing in its European responsibility and the references to Security Council vetoes as "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael". The Taoiseach's proposal to cut the triple lock is shrouded in inconsistency and shifting justification. He was in favour of a citizens' assembly on neutrality until he was in favour of a so-called consultative forum instead. Following the publication of the forum's report, the Taoiseach announced his intention to dismantle the triple lock, despite the report having found that there is no public appetite to do so. Despite the Taoiseach stating that this would have no impact on Ireland's neutrality, at the time he credited it for our accomplishments. When he opposed Fine Gael's attempts to undermine the triple lock in 2013, the current Taoiseach said that the triple lock had "complete popular legitimacy". The Taoiseach has invoked the triple lock in referendums before. If he believes it has "popular legitimacy", he should have the courage to put this proposal directly before the Irish people via a referendum. Do the Taoiseach and the Minister of State intend to railroad the proposal through without any democratic vote?

Deputy Mark Ward

Yesterday, we witnessed the Government ramming through legislation about Dáil speaking rights without going through the proper due process. The public are rightly concerned that it will do the same with Irish neutrality. Any changes to the triple lock and Irish neutrality must be put to the people to decide. Is the Government afraid of a referendum on Irish neutrality? The Tánaiste's proposal to abandon the triple lock breaches multiple commitments given to the Irish people, particularly during the referendums on the Nice and Lisbon treaties. It represents a fundamental and negative shift in Irish foreign policy and goes against the will of the Irish people. I again ask the Government to give the people the opportunity to vote in a referendum on this matter. Let the people have their say.

We have a proud history of United Nations peacekeeping in this State. Has the Minister of State had any conversations with ordinary rank-and-file members of our Defence Forces, who will be asked to go to war-torn countries to keep the peace? Has he had any conversations with UN veterans, those who have served this State with distinction? I am a proud son of a United Nations veteran. My father served this State, home and abroad, for more than 25 years. While he is really proud of his service, and his family is really proud of the service he has given, the main reason he served abroad was economic. Plain and simple, it was to put food on the table for me and the rest of my family. Fast forward 30 years since my dad last served, and we still have Defence Forces members going abroad for economic reasons. A father of seven in my area goes away every six months and when he comes home after serving in the UN, has to sign on for the working family payment to keep food on the table for his family. That is not good enough. It will not be the children of Government Ministers who will have to go away and serve their country. It will be the working poor who will have to go away. History tells us that, so have conversations with the ordinary rank and file to make sure Irish neutrality is kept 100%.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I commend the Social Democrats on bringing forward this important motion. It is a motion at the heart of everything we do, and indeed is something the people feel extremely strongly about. Irish neutrality is at the core of everything we do and is the core of our democracy. This attempt to try to get rid of the triple lock and our neutrality has been a long time coming. I experienced it in the last Dáil, and now again in this one. The idea that a Government would try to get rid of the triple lock without putting it to a referendum is in my opinion absolutely appalling. This State has continuously punched above its weight on international affairs and on an international stage. The reason we have been able to do that is because of our unique history and our neutrality. We have always been seen as honest brokers in former colonies in the global south because of our neutrality, and indeed because of our experience of colonialism. However, for some reason, this and the previous Government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, seem bent on getting rid of this. People are horrified that the Government has failed to defend our neutrality on an international scale. People are horrified to see continued reporting by The Ditch that munitions destined for Israel are going through our airspace. This is something that the Minister of State, his Government and every Minister in the Government need to get to the bottom of and need to stop. We want to have no hand, act or part, and no complicity in a genocide that is ongoing in Gaza.

However, on this important issue it is time for the people in this State to decide. It is time to put this to a referendum.

Deputy Duncan Smith

I extend my thanks to the Social Democrats, and to Deputy Gibney in particular, for bringing this motion forward. In Ireland we have a unique position. As a small European nation with a large global footprint, it is both our neutrality and our commitment to development aid which have given us a distinctive voice on the world stage. While many states, including our European partners, are reducing their development aid and while some have renounced their neutrality, we have remained committed to our development aid, which is a good thing, but we are on the verge of damaging our neutrality with what would be the removal of the triple lock. With our voice, we have been consistent in pushing for and facilitating peace around the world, and rightly there are huge concerns in the country that Government moves to abandon the triple lock may erode that distinctive, powerful and important global voice.

Indeed, the arguments that many of us in the Opposition have made against abandoning the triple lock were also made by the now Taoiseach in 2013. He said then that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. He rejected assertions that, through the triple lock mechanism, we were giving unsavoury countries a veto over our actions, saying that this argument was Fine Gael attempting to erode our neutrality. Today, when members of the Opposition make that point, the Taoiseach tells us that the triple lock has absolutely nothing to do with military neutrality. If this Government is one thing - and Fianna Fáil in particular - it is consistently inconsistent on this issue. This motion calls for a plebiscite that 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 of 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. These are all incredibly important issues to the Irish public, even if the Government has decided to pretend they are not.

We in the Labour Party are staunchly against the removal of the UN approval for Irish peacekeeping missions. We support a referendum to protect our military neutrality, as outlined in our manifesto. The Taoiseach must have read our manifesto cover to cover, based on the number of times he brings it up on the floor of the Dáil, albeit never of course in any good faith. I believe that in these times of uncertainty, when the international order has shifted in ways that truly are unprecedented, it is important to remember our proud history and current role in the area of neutrality, and just how dearly the Irish people hold onto that. For so many people, our neutrality makes up a part of our Irishness. This is an island that has seen horrific violence. As a country and as a society, we hold our neutrality, now more than ever, as a foundational pillar of who we are on the world stage. In talking about moving away from the triple lock, we have heard from a number of Government members, whether frontbenchers or backbenchers, that we should trust the Government and the Dáil when it comes to when and where we deploy our people. I have to say that the word "trust" is not the first one that springs to mind when thinking of how this current Government behaves. Trust is earned, whether through follow-through on agreements, timely relaying of information requested, or even things as simple not ramming decisions through unilaterally. What I can say for certain is that the Government does not have my trust, and it does not have our trust. I do not want to speak for the rest of the Opposition, but I would put good money that it does not have their trust either.

What we can work on together is our shared view that we need to be investing more in our own security, to protect our neutrality and to keep us safe. I raised this issue last week, and it is important to reiterate that we have not taken our security seriously enough.

That starts with the pay and conditions of our Defence Forces and goes all the way up to the lack of investment in our detection systems, which has caused us to rely on the Royal Air Force, something which needs to end. This should be an issue that can unify this House but, unfortunately, this Government has managed to cause yet another wedge.

Of course, we have seen the EU as a whole change in recent years, particularly in the past couple of months, with a focus on increased militarism now being the key issue for a host of member states. 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 ensure our own house is in order when it comes to security.

We also know that we do not have a firm ally in the United States. The latest scandal out of the Trump Administration shows an open distain from the Vice President and the Secretary of Defence towards Europe. The Vice President, JD Vance, claimed that actions against the Houthis amounted to “bailing Europe out again”, and the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, stated that he shared the Vice President’s loathing of European freeloading, calling it pathetic. This is as hostile as an American administration could be towards Europe and that is before we factor in the looming tariffs to come. We simply cannot look to the Americans to protect us.

There is a lot to do to get our own house in order. An aspect we absolutely need to look at is the lack of investment in our National Cyber Security Centre. It is now a reality that security of our trade networks and critical infrastructure is under constant threat from cyberattacks, data breaches and disinformation campaigns. The hack of the HSE from Russia was not a one-off. It was a warning that our global supply chains and our State services could be disrupted and manipulated at any point. There are experts in the National Cyber Security Centre who, through lack of funding, constantly have to be reactive rather than proactive against these threats. This has us on the backfoot constantly. I urge the Government, as a priority, to take a look and invest in this.

The issue is more widespread, however. With regard to our Defence Forces, we are nowhere near the levels of personnel we need, which now only stands at 7,497 members. While I touched on this last week, I wish to talk about a response to a parliamentary question that is incredibly concerning and shows a fundamental disconnect in the Government’s problem in this area. There is a solution within its grasp, but the Government does not act. The parliamentary question to which I am referring references the unspent allocation of Defence Forces’ spending on pay. In 2018 to 2024, the unspent allocation of Defence Forces’ spending on pay was €197.7 million. An addendum to that parliamentary question stated that the unspent allocation over this period arose primarily from Permanent Defence Force numbers falling below the target strength. However, any unused allocation arising from this was utilised to address spending pressures elsewhere in defence. This “prudent approach” has ensured that only €36 million of the overall gross allocation over the 2018-2024 period remained unspent. That is €36 million that could have been invested in the pay and conditions of our standing Defence Forces. If we have a huge retention issue due to, among other things, poor pay, and the Government is willing to spend another €197.7 million specifically on the pay for Defences Forces, never mind that it was later used for other things, did it not at any point cross the Government’s mind that this could be used to invest in the actual pay and conditions to ensure we did not have the said retention problem?

We in the Labour Party feel there is an urgent need to ensure that the barracks and associated facilitates are upgraded and maintained. There is also a real opportunity to develop new housing on Defence Forces’ land for service members and their families.

The pension issue facing so many members of our uniformed services in regard to the public sector single pension scheme needs to be amended to recognise the particular position of workers in these fast accrual professions. Access to supplementary pension is needed to bridge the potential significant gap from retirement to State pension age.

The vulnerabilities surrounding our undersea cables is a critical concern we need to address. It is no secret that a Russian shadow fleet vessel was recently "loitering" - for want of a better word - in our waters just off the coast of Cork, directly over one of these cables. We do not even have the technology to properly investigate the vessel. Our detection capabilities are non-existent. While it is a costly and complex procurement process to have an effective detection system, it is clearly something we need to fast-track. That Russian vessel, after leaving our waters, hightailed it up to the Baltics where the Russian fleet is not shy to drop anchors and damage undersea cables. If Ireland were to be subject to similar actions, it would have a real and potential paralysing impact in this country. I do not say that to stoke fear; I say it to emphasise the need to invest in our naval fleet alongside detection technologies in order that we can monitor our own waters and invest in our own neutrality. While we know there is a recommended acceleration programme of Naval Service vessel replacement to ensure a balanced fleet of nine modern ships by early in the next decade, there is no confidence the Government will be able to deliver this, considering its record.

At the heart of this motion and of our neutrality is the importance of democratic consultation in shaping this country’s defence policy, something this Government and the previous Government, of which the Minister of State was a part, have been utterly devoid of. I utterly reject shooing away Opposition concerns that Government Ministers had themselves when sitting on the Opposition benches. It raises issues of values and trust. We cannot simply abandon what we say and what we believe just because we sit in a different side of the House. The muddying of the waters the Government has done when it comes to our neutrality actually impedes the broader and more serious conversation we need to have about our own security.

As I have outlined, we in the Labour Party are serious about improving our security. At the heart of this issue and our neutrality is the need to improve pay and conditions for our members of the Defence Forces, as well as our need to hold our neutrality dear. Only from those foundations can we achieve any of our further goals. While the Department of Defence knows and acknowledges that recruitment and retention are a huge issue, as of yet, we have not seen a clear pathway to improvement. We need to be able to stand on our own two feet in regard to our security. The best thing we can do for the EU as a whole is to ensure we look after our own house in the first instance. Our neutrality, like our commitment to development aid, must always remain a key pillar of Irish foreign policy. I call on the Government to fully support this motion and to come in lockstep with the Opposition which, on this issue, is on the right side.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy James O'Connor)

We now go to Deputy Paul Murphy. He has three and a half minutes.

Deputy Paul Murphy

One of the most cynical arguments we have heard in relation to the speaking time row in the past 24 hours has been the suggestion that the Opposition is wasting time on this unimportant thing when there are very important issues happening like the housing crisis, Trump and so forth. Commentators, who have cheered on every step of the way while the Government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, made developers and landlords rich and worsened the housing crisis, now profess to care about the housing crisis and that we should be debating it. The speaking time row is precisely about our ability as an Opposition to hold the Government to account. It is precisely about us having time to ask questions about issues such as the housing crisis, appropriate education places for children with additional needs and neutrality because we have a Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Lowry Government that is determined to ram through a whole series of unpopular measures. That is fundamentally why they are undermining the ability of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. They want to get rid of neutrality. The Minister of State’s own party leader said the triple lock is at the very core of our neutrality. The Government knows that this is going to be deeply unpopular and, therefore, is halving the time of Taoiseach’s Questions, cutting Private Members’ time and time for the Order of Business in order to stop the voice of Opposition being heard in here so that it can be rammed through. The Taoiseach repeatedly said yesterday that not a single minute of speaking time is being taken off the Opposition. Today, our group gets 13 minutes and 20 seconds in this debate. Next week, however, if the Government gets away with it, we will get ten minutes. The same goes for all the Opposition parties. Our time is being cut to facilitate the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Lowry group.

The fundamental point is that the triple lock is the expression of what is outlined in the Constitution, namely, that “Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.” That means, under Irish and international law, the only two situations in which it is legal to use military force is in self-defence or under a UN mandate. It is a joke that the Government wants to get rid of the triple lock but still tells us not to worry and that we will still operate within the UN Charter. The UN Charter is what is outlined precisely in the triple lock. For at least 65 years, since the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly is what an international United Nations force needs. That is a core meaning of Irish neutrality rooted in the colonial past and present of this island.

Let us remember that the triple lock was endorsed by the people in a referendum. When we voted no to the Nice treaty in 2001 because of worries about the drive of militarisation, the reaction of the Government at the time, made up of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, including the current Taoiseach, was to add an official declaration to the treaty to include the triple lock. That was the solemn promise given to the people of this country made by our current Taoiseach. It promised us that Irish troops would not be sent overseas without the authorisation of the Security Council or the General Assembly. That is the reason the Nice treaty passed the second time around but the Government is proposing to get rid of it without going back to the people and allowing the people to decide.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The statue of James Connolly is behind us and the portrait of Countess Markievicz is in the hall. They were two of Ireland's greatest revolutionaries who stood for working people and stood against empire. They set up the Irish Neutrality League in 1914. That is where our tradition of neutrality comes from. They were two of the greatest revolutionaries and they were revered by the people of this country because they opposed war, empire and colonialism. That is where the tradition comes from. The Irish Government wants to trash the tradition established by Connolly and Markievicz and the people who led the Irish revolution against colonialism, war and empire, by aligning us with the embryonic European empire and project of militarisation in Europe which is directly aligned with NATO and which is dominated by the major western imperial powers. That is the simple truth.

The triple lock, as inadequate as the United Nations is, prevents us from deploying troops where empires are fighting against each other. It prevents us from sending troops and taking sides in battles between empires, because our tradition is to oppose empire. The Government wants to be able to deploy troops at the behest of Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz or, for that matter, a US administration which it goes grovelling over to and which insults and humiliates it as with the Trump administration. The Government wants to allow US troops to go through Shannon as they rain down missiles in Yemen. Trump is a pig and a horror, a warmonger and an imperialist but Ursula von der Leyen greenlighted the genocide in Gaza and Olaf Scholz invited the war criminal, Netanyahu, to Germany. Germany is the major provider of arms and weapons to those carrying out a genocide. Why would we want to deploy troops in any way connected with military powers that are guilty of arming a genocide? The Israeli genocide against Gaza, the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and the apartheid could not happen without US and European money and arms. This is what the Government wants to involve us in and smash up the tradition of Connolly and Markievicz, which stands against all of that.

We will pay a price for this because the genocide in Gaza is coming home to roost if our sons and daughters are sent out to fight in wars for European or US empires. The Government now wants to spend billions of euro more on weapons that should rightly go to housing, health and education. Connolly would turn in his grave.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

lreland’s neutrality with regard to participation in armed conflicts, our position in not joining military alliances and our commitment to the specific ideals of the UN Charter have always allowed us to exercise a significant voice towards building and achieving peace as a resolutely non-aligned nation. I think on all sides of the House, there is agreement that the value of this independent role on the world stage must always be central to our foreign policy, as it underlines our legitimacy as an honest, independent actor for peace whenever we are called upon to participate as a peacekeeping force. The Government now proposes the removal of the triple lock authorisation for foreign military activities, which has a direct implication for that core idea of impartiality in military deployments.

Last week, I asked the Tánaiste if the new policy dispensing with the need for a UN Security Council mandate will make a distinction between peacekeeping missions and peace-enforcement missions. The response was unclear, and I would welcome further clarity today. To us in the Green Party, this is a critical distinction and, if our peace deployments are to become unmoored from Security Council authorisation, an important visible principle in preserving Ireland's reputation as a neutral, honest actor, would be lost.

Peacekeeping in general has been 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 conflict from escalating further and to create space to build the peace through humanitarian aid and peace-building programmes. Peace enforcement is the deployment of a force without the specific consent of the parties to a conflict, which uses a coercive military force to impose a cessation in fighting between two or more parties.

If the State is to preserve that crucial neutral and trusted role, built up over decades, and move beyond what is often a paralysed UN Security Council, we must enunciate a visible, principled alternative as a State. We should state clearly that we will not act outside a UN Security Council mandate when participating in peace-enforcement missions which require proactive military engagements, offensively imposing order. Were Ireland to deploy in enforcement missions without Security Council consent, the risks of being seen by one or more parties as partisan are clear. So too, are the risks that Ireland contributes to force led by states that ultimately act in their own interests, rather than in strict adherence to the principles of the UN Charter. I would very much like to hear the Minister of State's response, as the distinction between peacekeeping and peace-enforcement is critical to this debate.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this timely motion, which I support, but it is probably too late. Judging by the Government's behaviour yesterday, when it rammed through Standing Orders, it appears that it will do exactly the same with this legislation. I have no faith in the Government and I say that as a committed democrat in the Dáil. I will quote from the Transnational Institute, TNI, because I could not put the words any better. It stated, "This is a fundamental policy shift that will seriously weaken Irish neutrality. It could see Irish troops being deployed, not to keep peace within a UN mandated mission, but to wage war as part of a military alliance".

This is a fundamental shift in policy and a fundamental twisting of language, where one day, or one year, the triple lock is an integral, core part of our neutrality and the next day it is not. How could anyone trust the Government in relation to the misuse and abuse of language like that? It is a further breach of trust with the Irish people. It was done to us with Nice and with Lisbon. We got a declaration and another document that acknowledged our neutrality and that would always be acknowledged.

This change will have profound long-term consequences, not just for our country, but for peace in the world. I do not want to personalise this but I know the Minister of State represents the Government which talks about being "militarily neutral". When it is reduced down to that, that is an insult. Neutrality means a lot more to all of us, as evidenced by the thousands of representations we are getting on a daily basis regarding this proposal to get rid of the triple lock. What it means is that we take pride in the history of our troops who have served abroad since 1958 on UN peacekeeping missions, not peace-enforcement missions. I know it is difficult for the Minister of State to hear that but in my limited time I will ask him to listen to it because people are asking me to speak out. I do not stand here for no reason. Peacekeeping forces are what we want. We passed an Act in 2006 that allowed the Government to send more than 12 troops abroad for various reasons, including humanitarian ones. The Minister of State might spell out what the Government wants to change. He might also clarify how the Government can rightly decry what Russia has done - and I agree with it - and completely ignore what Israel and America is doing and have done.

I have read the speeches of some 5,500 words. They contain no mention of Gaza, except one word. There is no mention of the genocide going on there. There is no mention of our friend, America, funding the genocide. When the Ministers of State put the folder down, we might see their faces because this is a very important topic. They cannot hide but they can try to. They can try to hide behind the misuse of language to tell us that the Government is not doing away with our neutrality but only with the triple lock. The Government does not want to be burdened by international human rights law. It does not want to be burdened with the responsibility of changing the UN to make it more suitable to the modern age. The Government does not want to work with the all of those other countries that see what Israel and England are doing. Before he leaves, the Minister of State might just listen to the planes that have left from London to Yemen with American money, bombs and weaponry to bomb innocent people on the streets of Yemen.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

Irish neutrality has been one of the most important policies of this country for the past 100 years. There will be a protest outside the Dáil on 9 April at 6 p.m. I welcome everybody, from all political persuasions, who favour and support Irish neutrality, to join the protest.

Arrogance is a key aspect of this Government. The Government is using the infrastructure of the Oireachtas to push through, force through and beat through its objectives on various issues. Yesterday was an example of that. Today's debate about the triple lock is another example of it.

Irish neutrality has been a key policy for many years, because we have understood that being aligned to a military bloc is a dangerous thing for a small country. Small countries cannot influence the decisions of large military blocs, but we must adhere to their decisions. In other words, we cannot influence what wars they get involved in, but we have to send our young men and women to the war zones they get involved in.

There is a significant project within the European Union to change its nature to an EU defence union. There is no doubt about that. The steps the EU has taken so far, which include creating funds and loans for military hardware, are blurring the lines between the EU and a military bloc. It is, by definition, in a practical sense, transitioning military decisions towards the EU from the nation states. That is a big problem. Before she ran for the Presidency of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen made it one of her key election platforms that she would seek to build an EU military defence union.

The second point in regard to what is happening at the moment is that the EU has stated that countries using this budget must purchase their military hardware from the EU in the main or from countries that have signed up to a defence union or defence agreements with the European Union, thereby again transferring the competency of a military bloc to the European Union from nation states. That is an absolute disgrace.

There is no doubt that for a long period Fine Gael has been fully behind Ireland becoming involved in military blocs. In the past, when it was in opposition, Fianna Fáil stated the opposite but it now adheres to that. Two years ago, Micheál Martin stated he would support changes to EU treaties to allow the EU to make more efficient decisions on military issues. By "efficient", what they mean is less influence from the nation state in making those decisions.

Simon Harris has long stated that he wants to get rid of the triple lock. The Government says it wants to get rid of the triple lock because it affects Irish sovereignty. That is horse manure. Neutrality is an expression of Irish sovereignty.

The Government states the UN Security Council determines whether we get involved in UN peacekeeping treaties, but when there is opposition on the UN Security Council and we still get involved in the military action despite that opposition, we are, by default, aligning with a military bloc. That is the reason we decided not to get involved in those cases. That is the basis of it. The Government's intention is that Irish men and women will get involved in military actions on the basis of being against a significant military bloc in this country. I laugh at the Government because it talks about the need-----

Deputy Neale Richmond

The Deputy laughs at the Government every day.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The Government talks about the need for stronger defence systems in this country. It spent €5 million on the National Cyber Security Centre following the attack on the HSE. In the same year, the Department of the Taoiseach spent €15 million on press statements. Three times the money was spent on press statements by one Department than all the money on the National Cyber Security Centre. The attack on the HSE has already cost €100 million and is likely to cost another €650 million. That is not to mind the thousands of people who had their health damaged or their care delayed as a result of the attack.

The Government has seen the complete collapse of the Defence Forces. We have hardly enough staff to float a ship on the high seas at the moment. Currently, the Army is at one of its lowest levels. We are spending 0.25% of our GDP on defence, which is one of the lowest in Europe. The Government is currently the biggest threat to the Irish defence system. The Government is the problem. I believe in Irish neutrality and the best way to ensure it is to properly invest in our own Defence Forces and make sure they are fit for purpose.

The Government tells us it is about flexibility and not letting one country's veto stop us from acting, but what it really is about is the first step on a slippery slope. Today, it is about peacekeeping; tomorrow, it is about deployments without proper oversight; and next week we will be tied into someone else's military agenda whether we like it or not.

We are a neutral country. We are not part of NATO. We are not part of a military alliance and we do not need to be. We are respected across the world as peacekeepers, not aggressors or enforcers. We do not need to change that; we need to protect it.

Independent Ireland, the party I am proud to represent, is clear. We will oppose any removal of the triple lock. We will not stand for Irish troops being sent into conflict zones without the backing of the Irish people and international legitimacy. If the Government wants to change that, it can take it to the people in a vote and let them decide. Until then, I urge the Minister not to mess with neutrality or the trust of the Irish people in how we use our Defence Forces. The Government should not change a core policy without the people's consent. I fully support the motion, which respects our neutrality, democracy and sovereignty. I urge every TD in this House who still believes in those things to do the same.

In a number of interviews the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned that we are spending more money on our Defence Forces. I have no issue with that because over the years little or nothing has been spent. Members of the Defence Forces have been treated appallingly. I listened to a radio interview recently where it emerged that even some retired members of the Defence Forces cannot find a home for themselves. People find themselves in a difficult situation. They have been treated very poorly all along.

I agree that money should be spent on the protection of the State. We must defend our country. We recently saw ships training off our coastline in an area where there are underwater cables. That caused serious concern. Sometimes we do not have the resources or manpower to protect our nation. From now on, that is where our focus must be. It is not too long ago that the door fell off a Defence Forces helicopter while it was in the air. The situation in which we find ourselves in this country is that money needs to be spent, but spent here to protect the Irish people going forward. I support the motion.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

As the general secretary of Independent Ireland, I commend everyone in the Defence Forces. I commend everyone in our Army, and everyone who is a protector of Ireland.

I say to those people that I am sorry that this and previous Governments have not treated them with fairness, even on pay and conditions. We have called out our forces to help us in times of crisis. One side of our forces gets treated well. Some had to bring their own sandwiches while the other part of our forces were given food and looked after. Their pay and living conditions while they are protecting us are not fair. The investment we need to put into our Defence Forces needs to be in the people in the Defence Forces first. Then we should put it into equipment that we need for our basic security that has not been updated in years and we need to look after the people in the Defence Forces.

Article 5 of Bunreacht na hÉireann establishes that Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic State while Article 6 sets out that all powers of Government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive from the people. Under the Constitution, therefore, sovereignty is vested in the people and consulting us on matters of national interest is not only a legal imperative, it is the cornerstone of democracy.

Democracy was raised yesterday in this Chamber of democracy when we saw what was pushed through the Dáil. That is not democracy. Democracy is open meetings to make sure we come out with a proper result. That was not democracy yesterday.

The failure to consult the people is even more concerning if we consider that in January 2025 a poll showed 75% of Irish people support neutrality. This result was reflected across all groups, regions and political parties, including Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This indicates the Government has no mandate whatsoever to dismantle the triple lock and attempting to do so without consulting the people is a dangerous subversion of democracy. Again, we are back to democracy. Why do we not take this back to the people of Ireland and ask them whether they want to remove the triple lock? It is because the Government would get a loud and clear message, as was shown in the survey that states 75% of people do not want it removed and that they believe in neutrality. Why is the Government so afraid to take it to the people? People were elected to the House by the people, so why not take it back to the people on the issue of neutrality? I will go back to investment in the Defence Forces. It was mentioned by Deputy Collins, our party leader. We had a helicopter that the door fell off. Will we not look after our Defence Forces and equipment first before we start doing anything else? Look after our own - is there something wrong with that? I do not believe so, but it looks like the Government does.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Neale Richmond)

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion. As I proceed to completely disagree with them, I say it is a good thing that we were able to have a frank and open debate in the Chamber. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue's paying credit to the men and women of the Defence Forces and the service they give to the State currently and have given previously. It is with great pride that I see the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence currently visiting the more than 300 Irish troops who are on deployment as peacekeepers in the most perilous of situations. They are doing good and important work and that will continue regardless of the aspirations of the Government or of some of the comments made in the Chamber.

I will respond to a few points in the Opposition motion specifically before laying out a few clear opinions of the Government, responses to some of the comments made in the Chamber and the genesis of our countermotion. I welcome the opportunity for this debate.

It is a novel and unprecedented suggestion that a plebiscite be held. We live in a parliamentary democracy. We have elections regularly and have had a smooth transition of power in the entire 103 years of our establishment as an independent State and democracy. We regularly have referendums. Probably, apart from Switzerland, we have the most referendums on the continent of Europe. We consult the people. The notion of holding a plebiscite in advance of any parliamentary or legislative debate or decision for a non-constitutional matter is unprecedented but it is innovative and I commend the innovation, but I do not agree with it. I advise Deputy Ó Laoghaire that it is okay to disagree agreeably, which he and I do regularly, on the basis and without giggles and smirks. The consistent references to referendums on this, beyond the plebiscite, and on neutrality more generally pose some interesting questions.

With respect to Deputy O'Donoghue, we do not govern by opinion polls. I can show him 100 opinion polls which would seem to back my argument and he could show me another 100 that would back another argument. We govern by democracy, on the basis of the results of elections and we look at the numbers in the Chamber when we make decisions. When we make decisions on a legislative basis we look back at manifestos and the programme for Government. I have been a member of Fine Gael my entire adult life. At every Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, we have committed to seek to abolish the triple lock. The people who voted for me in Dublin Rathdown and for my colleague, Deputy O'Connell, did so while well aware of that. The 35% in that constituency who voted for us knew exactly what they were voting for when they backed us.

If we are having this debate, we should have it in the context of how the triple lock came into being, why it exists and what is the footing for it. When the House debated UN membership initially, the concern - probably quite some time before any of us present was born - was that UN membership and its obligations would end Ireland's military neutrality. The triple lock was devised as a mechanism to offer reassurance. It is not set out in the Constitution. It is not an expression of Ireland's policy of military neutrality but rather the legislative basis to give effect to the obligation of UN membership and how it would operate. I am just stating fact which has been on the record of this House for some time. The Government is seeking to make an alteration to that so we can be more flexible in the deployment of our peacekeepers. Many people have said this is the end of neutrality or of military neutrality. This does not change one iota of our policy of military neutrality. I say that as someone whose personal opinion is that we should end our military neutrality. That is not the opinion of this House, the people of Ireland or of the Government of which I am a member. I accept that limit of democracy but I am allowed to have a personal opinion.

This proposal the Government is talking about does not change our policy of military neutrality. It is important to put that to the people. This notion that we use "neutrality" as a broad brush term ignores the fact that we are not politically neutral. We are clearly not. We can say that to the people of Ukraine, the 26 other member states of the European Union and an abundance of other sovereign independent countries we have various agreements and memorandums of understanding with. What the Government is proposing, despite the claims that this is being rushed, was planned to be introduced by the Government as per the general scheme of 4 March. The legislation will allow ample opportunity for the Dáil and Seanad to provide scrutiny, both pre-legislative and within the legislative process. There is no rush in this. Any revised legislative framework will continue to require Government and Dáil approval, where appropriate, for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to participate in peacekeeping and similar missions. These proposals remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The proposed legislative changes will amend provisions relating to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel in non-combatant evacuation operations to support Irish citizens and contribute to the protection of our embassies and close-protection duties overseas. The proposed changes will allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility and will not change Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, as I have laid out.

It is important to be clear on precisely what we are discussing. The mechanism for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel is provided for in section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, predating the Nice and Lisbon treaties. These declarations - I campaigned for both of them - reaffirmed Ireland's right and choice to decide our own defence policy. It is somehow dismissed as inconsequential that there is an abundance of precedents in recent years - there has not been a UN mandated peacekeeping mission in 11 years - where Ireland simply has not been able to participate. We were not able to participate in the efforts in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia due to a veto by the People's Republic of China.

We had to join Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean a year later than everyone else because the UN would not provide a mandate. We were not able to participate in a UN-backed counter-narcotic mission across the Atlantic based out of Portugal. We were not able to renew for 18 months our participation in EU-led missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These are all things that were stopped and this notion that somehow the UN Security Council or members of it are not impacting our sovereignty fly in the face of the actualities and the facts.

Let me be utterly frank in stressing the importance of Ireland’s continuing involvement in the United Nations, her agencies and our commitment to multilateralism. We have to be very careful with this when we land this accusation. We are in a world that is ever-evolving, ever-changing and increasingly frightening, where other countries are turning their back on multilateralism, withdrawing their funding and diminishing the role of the UN agencies. In the face of that, despite accusations here, Ireland has increased its involvement in the UN and our agencies. We have brought forward funding to literally keep the lights on and keep people employed. Every other European country has reduced its overseas development aid while we have increased ours, so Deputies should not dare for an instant say we are turning our back on multilateralism. We believe in it wholeheartedly.

Certain Deputies in this House questioned the role of the European Union, but I stand proudly to say Ireland is a fully-functioning, committed member of the European Union process and believes in that level of agreement and co-operation with our colleagues.

It is important we have a reasoned debate on this issue. We should be able to enter into the spirit of wanting to have that reasoned debate on the basis of fact and actuality without simple political point-scoring. I truly aspire to our having the space for us to be able to have a debate without it descending within 30 seconds into an accusation we are looking to rush to join NATO. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this, and I thank again the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion. We are talking about Government-proposed changes to the triple lock. I aspire to have an abundance of debates in this Chamber, in the Seanad, in committee and at the pre-legislative stage about why the Government wants to do this, the merits and demerits of it and for us to work at it together. At the end of the day I have no doubt we will disagree but that will be democracy functioning and us having that full and welcome debate and not taking to social media to do it or whittling out some mad conspiracy theories of the sort we have heard from other Deputies, none of whom are present in the Chamber this morning. They whittle it out, put it on social media and then are not even here to hear the response from the Government.

I have been around a while in both Houses and am aware how Private Members’ debates work and the importance of them. I know it is important, therefore, for the Government to set out quite clearly what we are trying to achieve in our countermotion. We do not believe a national plebiscite on this matter is either necessary or appropriate.

I recognise Ireland is increasingly spending time in a contested, dynamic and volatile international security environment. This countermotion further notes the systematic challenges facing the UN Security Council obliges us to reconsider our existing legislation to ensure dispatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas is decided solely by the sovereign representatives of the people of Ireland.

I am pretty sure the Acting Chair is sanctioned by Russia like I am. I really do not want the Russian Federation to have a veto over our sovereign policy going forward and would like to think the vast majority of people in this House agree with me. In that light, I call on the House to support the Government’s countermotion.

Deputy Liam Quaide

Our neutrality has not just been a key military stance since the foundation of the State. It is in some ways a core part of our national identity and culture. It has been a foundation of our international diplomatic status and given generations of Irish people a sense of security from wars happening on an international stage.

The subject of neutrality is one of the most vexed and divisive in our public discourse. A remarkable feature of this subject is we have yet to have in-depth debates on neutrality in any kind of systematic or considered format such as citizens’ assemblies or Oireachtas committees. A number of fast-emerging and deeply unsettling international trends demand we give much greater consideration to our defence resourcing, especially the war in Ukraine and the departure of the US from its traditional diplomatic and military alignment with Europe. We also must reckon in the longer term with what are likely to be the significant security impacts of the climate crisis. One of the most sobering predictions associated with the climate crisis is that of greater political instability in a world of catastrophic weather events and diminishing natural resources. Issues of national security will increasingly be tied to volatile, immensely destructive natural forces.

Notwithstanding these threats, we need to proceed with extreme caution with any proposed changes to our defence policy. While there are legitimate critiques of UN decision-making, there is also well-founded concern among broad sections of our population and civil society that removing this triple lock mechanism is part of a general trend of moving away from our neutrality by stealth and that our Government is abandoning long-held principles of defence, and safeguards, without proper public consultation or engagement.

Deliberative democracy needs to be the framework for any major proposed defence policy changes. Any attempts to alter or weaken our military neutrality will be extremely divisive and will need to be put to the people through referendums. The pushing through of decisions that are so divisive and complex by simple majorities inflicts harm on our parliamentary democracy and alienates many people from politics. We should also consider citizens’ assemblies to afford us the most wide-ranging consultative forum possible on these matters that may be deeply consequential not just for us but for our children and their children.

Deputy Jen Cummins

This motion is about giving voice to the people of Ireland. It is a matter that goes beyond policy; it is about democracy. The Government's attempt to remove the triple lock without public consultation is not just a policy change but a fundamental shift in Ireland's stance on the global stage and yet the people have not been asked.

During the most recent election, neutrality and the triple lock did not really feature at all as issues affecting people’s lives. Issues like housing, health and education were a key focus for most people. When it came to foreign policy neutrality was not at the forefront. What people made very clear on the doors I knocked on in my area, and what was made clear to my colleagues doing the same, was they want the Government to pass the occupied territories Bill. However, the Government is ignoring them by prioritising a Bill to which the people have said no and delaying a clear priority they set out for the Government. They are just being ignored.

If the Government truly believes removing the triple lock is in Ireland’s best interest then it should put that to the people. Let the people debate it. Let us have a debate. As the previous speaker said, let us have a citizens’ assembly. Let us test it out to see how strong that will is. We have a very proud tradition of debating and voting on major constitutional and foreign policy decisions so let us test it and put it to the people.

Our neutrality is not just about policy; it is a defining feature of Ireland’s role in the world. It is the reason we have the longest unbroken record of UN peacekeeping service. Everybody speaking today thanked those people who are doing that on Ireland’s behalf throughout the world. Let us be respectful. We are respected internationally as an independent voice for peace and changing that is something that cannot be done behind closed doors.

The Government argues the triple lock is outdated and inefficient, but it has never once prevented Ireland from carrying out its peacekeeping duties. Removing it would strip away that safeguard and undermine the public’s trust in how we make these decisions.

It is not just about military policy; this is about democracy, trust and whether this Government believes the people have a right to a say in the future of our neutrality. They want to have that say. If the Government truly believes this change is necessary and that the people support it, it should put it to them. Let us have the conversation and see what happens. That is the democratic thing to do.

On a point mentioned twice by the Government side today, this motion is not about what has been suggested, namely, the EU and our membership. The Government should not misconstrue what people are saying-----

Deputy Neale Richmond

I did not.

Deputy Jen Cummins

-----because it is not about that. I want to be very clear on that.

Deputy Neale Richmond

It was reflective of comments, not the motion.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

There is nothing stopping the Minister of State sharing the time with them.

Amendment put.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy James O'Connor)

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 26 March 2025.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 11.54 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 12 meán lae.

Sitting suspended at 11.54 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 26 Mar 2025

Triple Lock Mechanism and Irish Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 2025