2026-06-09

131. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the discussions and communications she has had with her counterparts across Europe in relation to the potential of Ireland’s departure from the triple lock mechanism, and possible new military deployments or actions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43667/26]

This goes back again to the triple lock, this time on the international implications. I ask the Minister whether the new Bill would have allowed Ireland to participate in Trump's illegal war on Iran. We heard from a top civil servant, despite seeming objections from the Minister and her junior Minister at the committee, that if the triple lock was not there, Ireland could have participated in the invasion of Iraq. If the triple lock is gone, and if the Minister gets through with her Bill, will there be anything stopping her making Ireland join Trump's war in Iran?

I thank the Deputy. I would say at the outset that times have changed. We should be allowed to debate the fact that we are in a different world now from when this was first introduced. At the time when the triple lock was introduced, those who opposed its introduction said that it was going to drag us into wars; that the US, Russia, China and the permanent member states of the UN were going to drag us, through the triple lock, into all these wars in which we were going to partake; and that we would lose our neutrality. These were debates that were actually put forward at the time. That did not happen. It did not transpire. We have had decades of peacekeeping troops on the ground that have contributed to peacekeeping missions and that has been it. What is now happening is that we have the bizarre situation whereby those very countries like Russia, which is waging a war, and the USA, which is obviously actively involved on the ground - I do not dispute that - are-----

Waging a war?

-----now preventing us from continuing on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I do not understand or fathom how we could find ourselves in a position now where we would sit, do nothing and allow larger countries that have nothing to do with, and nor should they have anything to do with, how we deploy our troops to prevent us from continuing in missions and see us now having to come off missions that other member states are on. There are no other countries within the EU that have this position. There are no other countries that are neutral. Austria, for example, will not sign up to a military alliance in the same way that we will not, but if it is putting forward members for peacekeeping missions, it does not have to go through the same triple lock mechanism. The Deputy asserted this evening that we are suddenly deciding out of nowhere, as a Dáil, that we are going to put forward our troops for missions that do not align with international law and are completely outside of the UN Charter. The legislation that is being proposed is very clear and specific in providing that any mission we would propose our troops for would have to align with international law and the principles of the UN Charter and that it would be a decision for this House. We are all democratically elected Members. We represent the people who voted for us, so we have a duty to make sure we reflect their views and wishes. I believe we can have that debate here without allowing an outside force that has nothing to do with anybody and that has not been democratically elected by a single person in this country to decide what we do with our peacekeeping troops.

There is something called international law. I will quote to the Minister what the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, said: "Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorisation is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear: it is wrong and it is illegal." Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy? All the triple lock does is ensure that we can only send troops where there is a UN mandate or authorisation. That is all it does. The Minister getting rid of the triple lock is about enabling her to send troops outside of the framework of international law. That is 100% what it is about. What is interesting is that the Minister speaks about how the new Bill is going to talk about the principles of the United Nations Charter.

No.

Will it say that we will only send troops abroad in accordance with the articles of the UN Charter? The articles of the UN Charter are very clear. The Minister can send troops abroad in self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, or she can do it with a UN-authorised mission, which is precisely what the triple lock states. The triple lock enshrines in Irish law international law. It states that we can only send troops in accordance with international law. The only reason to get rid of it is if the Minister wants to send troops outside of the framework of international law.

Deputy Daly wishes to come in on a supplementary.

Whatever about what was said when the triple lock was introduced, it is clear that there is great concern about it and 40% of the questions tonight, including the next question, are in relation to the triple lock. I want the Minister to outline the proposals she has to remove it. When will we see the Bill? I know the Minister has abandoned the plans for a citizens' assembly but is there a timeline? I presume there is not going to be a referendum. The Minister has no plans, certainly, for a referendum. I look around my own town and see the statues and various monuments to Crimea, the Boer War, the western front and Gallipoli. The Minister would surely agree that the triple lock has served us well. It was backed by the Irish people because it was central to convincing the electorate in the Nice II and Lisbon II referendums in that it was mentioned that it was a guarantee of neutrality. Therefore, claims of frequently vetoing or that there will be no more peacekeeping do not stand up. How many times this century has there been a block put on as a result of the veto being there? Contrary to the Minister's partners in government's plans to reform, they clearly want to abolish the triple lock.

In terms of what will be in the proposed legislation, we will have an opportunity to discuss and debate in this House on Committee Stage, as we should do, anything of significance. This is significant because it will allow us to continue a practice we have had in place for many decades. The absolute priority here is to make sure that any future deployments for operations are put forward and that they adhere not just to the principles of the UN Charter but also to international law. We are very clear. We are not going to start proposing sending troops on any other missions that do not adhere to international law and are not peacekeeping missions. There is a proposal in the legislation that would allow for UN troops and smaller numbers to be able to remove people safely from conflict zones. That is something that happens at the moment, but we need to make sure we have this included in the legislation as well. Where there will be a requirement to seek Government approval where the number of Defence Forces personnel is over a certain number, Dáil approval will still be triggered. There will still be a mechanism here in the Dáil to make sure. At the moment, the number is 12. The legislation proposes to increase this number to 50 but even at that, there will have to be engagement at the end of the year with a final report and there will be engagement with the committee through different stages. All of this can be discussed when this Bill comes to the fore. Again, I will make a point on referendums. A referendum is to change the Constitution. What are we talking about putting in here? What we are actually talking about is amending legislation. We are not amending anything that is in our Constitution. We are talking about changing legislation that was agreed by this House many decades ago. I believe the onus is on us now, as Members of this House, to change the legislation in the same way so that we can continue doing what the legislation set out to allow us to do in the first instance and we are now being prevented from doing.

I think the Minister is deliberately being a bit disingenuous by saying that, okay, this is agreed by legislation. She does not recognise the European referendums that enshrined this. We have the Seville declaration. It is part of international law. The Minister does not recognise that the people voted on this. That is forgetting about the recent presidential election where neutrality dominated the campaign. That is forgetting about all the opinion polls that show that people support neutrality and support the triple lock. The Minister might enlighten us then about the circumstances where she thinks it is legal to deploy soldiers abroad that do not have UN authorisation nonetheless are in the framework of international law? What is it that she is talking about? I cannot understand because the UN Charter is very clear. It is very clear about the circumstances where you can deploy troops abroad. You can do it in self defence or you can do it when there has been a resolution by the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. It is clear. That is precisely what the triple lock says. What I think the Minister wants to do is say that we adhere to international law but we do what we want and then we just say that it is in line with international law. When the US engages in its imperialist adventures around the world, it always says it is in line with international law. I think Putin claims that his invasion of Ukraine is in line with international law but there is a big difference.

The Deputy is being completely disingenuous by consistently and continuously linking the triple lock with our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. Does he accept that? We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. It was introduced at a time to make sure that we could send our troops across waters to peacekeeping missions. In many instances, that is not possible so, again, does the Deputy accept that in the past two weeks alone, we have had troops who have been active on a mission in the Mediterranean who have to come home because we now no longer have a mandate. The Deputy can say it has changed and the mandates changed. Our Naval Service monitors shadow fleets across the EEZ at the moment-----

I do not think they should be in the Mediterranean.

Our Naval Service already monitors the shadow fleet so the very fact that this is now not being continued and the UN mandate is not continuing is because countries like Russia do not want us to. The Deputy is being disingenuous in saying that this is about our neutrality. There is nothing in this that impacts our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced and we will be a neutral country if and when this changes. I hope that we can change it as soon as possible.