Neutrality and Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members]
Dail Éireann — 2026-09-16
============================================================

Gary Gannon (SD), Dublin Central

It was an interesting line the Minister kept referring to in her contribution as she patronisingly looked across to the Opposition and said, "Make that make sense." I want to talk her through some things that potentially will not make sense but let us see if I am misinforming the House about any one part of it.
In June 2001, Irish voters rejected the Nice treaty. Most of the concerns raised during that campaign referred to neutrality and a fear among the population of increased participation in military campaigns. In June 2002, we had the Seville declaration, which I very rarely hear any member of Government talk about. After that European Council meeting, the Irish Government issued its national declaration on neutrality. In that declaration that the Government gave as a solemn promise to the Irish people. We brought forward the triple lock as a guarantee in advance of the second Nice referendum. That referendum then passed based on the guarantees that were given in the Seville declaration. I hope that makes sense.
That was further compounded in 2006 with the Defence (Amendment) Act, which consolidated the rules and made specific reference to the triple lock, which was brought forward in advance, again, of the Lisbon treaty, which was in the first case rejected by the Irish people again because of participation in increased military alignments and campaigns, but those fears were once again assuaged in the second referendum precisely because of reference to the triple lock.
It does not make sense to me that any government would not see itself as a custodian of the promises that were made to the people less than a mere 20 years ago in our adult lifetimes. I voted in 2009 based on those commitments given. The crux of the issue is that we actually gave the triple lock as a promise to the Irish people. If the Minister feels there are strong arguments for it to be changed, surely it is incumbent on her to go back to the Irish people and ask for approval and consent. In the absence of that, this just seems not to be just a promise broken but it brings us down a very dark path.
The Minister might say that the world has changed but these commitments were given after 2001. The world very much changed in 2001 yet Irish people were still very much opposed to and rejected the idea of participation in military conflicts without the security of the triple lock. That is where there is an element of not just muddying the waters but actually just giving up on the responsibilities of a promise that was given.
One of the first motions that the Social Democrats and Deputy Gibney tabled at the beginning of this Dáil was to ask for a referendum. We used the slogan: "Put it to the people." If the Minister believes her arguments are strong, why would she fear having them endorsed by the Irish people? It was those very same arguments that gave the commitment and confidence to them to pass two referendums. This is an antidemocratic position. It was fortified during the summer when I heard Fianna Fáil backbenchers talking about their concerns about the removal of the triple lock in full knowledge that those they would be whipped in here to vote for it. That is my fear. We are heading into very dark times but it is precisely our neutrality and our strengths of conviction on the UN that has given us our special place in the world.
There is also this belief that it is our triple lock and our neutrality that undermines our capacity to have defensive resilience when it comes to improving our Defence forces, including our Naval Service and radar capacity. That is actually just a Government failure. There is nobody across this House who would not see increased investment as something we would all support but this just has an element of shadiness to it.
Two referendums passed because of a commitment given on the triple lock. That Seville declaration matters. It has to carry weight. The Minister is a custodian of that promise and the fact that the Government is changing this by forcing backbenchers, some against their will, to vote for it is precisely the reason we need it. That is why I and the Social Democrats are strongly advocating that the Minister simply asks the question of the Irish people. Do those commitments no longer stand given what the Minister believes is a change in world dynamics that is somehow different from the chaos that followed 2001? Outside of that, it is actually just sleeven politics, which enables a scenario where there is simply no trust because the Government is breaking a promise.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-16/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-28T05:50:48+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-09-16