Neutrality and Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] Dail Éireann — 2026-09-16 ============================================================ Conor Sheehan (LAB), Limerick City This country should not be politically neutral in the face of illegal wars, whether they occur in the Middle East or Ukraine. I do not believe we ever have been. However, in this more unstable, unpredictable, dangerous and violent world, our military neutrality is more important than ever. It has deep support among the Irish people. Every opinion poll states that. It has been a centrepiece of our foreign policy since the Second World War. It has enabled us to play a unique role on the world stage. It has been an act of neutrality. It has allowed this small European country to contribute to international peace through diplomacy, the promotion of international law, humanitarian action and peacekeeping. It has not just been a moral good; it has also been successful strategically in that it has kept us safe while empowering us to play an important international role. The success of our peacekeepers and the high regard in which they have been held internationally is because of our neutrality. It gives legitimacy and protection to our troops overseas, who wear the blue beret of the UN and carry the approval of the international community and international law. That is why I believe the maintenance of the triple lock is essential. Removing it in the absence of a constitutional provision on neutrality will leave our military neutrality hanging on the whims of any government of any day, and that is my concern. Even if we take the Government at its word that the move to scrap the triple lock will have no impact on our neutrality, there must be a cognition that a potential future government, in the years and decades ahead, perhaps at a time beyond which any of us will still be standing here, will have free rein over our neutrality. That is probably why the Taoiseach himself in a previous life described the triple lock as "the core of our neutrality". When the Government argues that the world is a more dangerous place, I agree. That is pretty obvious. However, I do not agree with the Government's proposed answer, which is to scrap the triple lock, chip away at our neutrality and open the door to military alliances. I am concerned about the proposed arrangement to act as a tailored partner or shadow member of the Joint Expeditionary Force Plus, JEF+. I can see how that is like an extension of NATO. It brings us further into the realm of militarism. In a more dangerous world, with international law being undermined in so many different theatres, our neutrality and the credibility it gives us is so important. Now is the time to double down on that, and on diplomatic and multilateral approaches, and to fall in behind the fundamental principle of international law. That is why I do not believe that rowing in behind militarism and embracing a world that is sorting itself into rival blocs will keep us safer. Let us have a proper debate on the UN and its flaws. We in the Labour Party accept that there are flaws and that they are deep. Let us have that discussion and spell out how best we can help to organise the reform of the institution. I do not believe we have had that debate. We should also be clear that the biggest danger to our national security is the persistent failure over many years of successive Governments to properly resource our Defence Forces and national security infrastructure. Look at the spending of 0.2% of GDP. Look at the depleted Naval Service. We in the Labour Party are deeply committed, as I said, to neutrality. However, we are clear that it cannot mean passivity with respect to our defence capabilities. There is no contradiction between neutrality and properly investing in and resourcing our Defence Forces. On the contrary, our military neutrality must be protected and our sovereignty safeguarded through investment in our own defence. Our persistent failure to do that for many years has left us in a position of reliance on our neighbours in Britain, France and elsewhere to fulfil what should be some fairly basic functions of national defence. Those of us on this side of the neutrality debate need to be clear that those failures to resource our own defences do not enhance our neutrality but leave it more vulnerable. I am glad that the motion mentions the Defence Forces because they are in crisis. In February this year, numbers in the Defence Forces stood at 20% below its establishment strength of 9,739. The immediate priority needs to be a workforce strategy to meet the current agreed strength of 9,600 and in the medium term, we believe we need to grow that by a further 2,000. It is no wonder that recruitment and retention is such a chronic issue. The housing crisis permeates the Defence Forces, as it does all sectors of society. There has been continued failure on pay and conditions and the non-implementation of the working time directive. That is where the priority should lie. We need to see proper investment in capabilities that will allow our defence forces to meet the threats of today. These threats include maritime threats to undersea cables or energy interconnectors, drone threats on and off our shoreline, and attacks in cyberspace. We in the Labour Party have repeatedly said that we would prioritise the purchase of maritime drones and primary radar. We would increase funding of the National Cyber Security Centre by 50% because continued outsourcing of our defence leaves us more vulnerable. Of course our relationship with friendly states such as France and Britain should extend to properly managed and resourced intelligence sharing, joint monitoring and the protection of critical infrastructure. That practical co-operation will and should continue. Anyone suggesting we can operate in isolation is ignorant of the scale of the challenge we face. However, regardless of whether we are talking about JEF+ or any prospective European defence pact, co-operation cannot be allowed to become a cover for mission creep. We will never accept any drift toward a binding military alliance that would destroy our independent foreign policy. It would be unacceptable to us and, I believe, unacceptable to the Irish people. If our neutrality was ever undermined in that way, it is not something that the people of this country would protect. I am very happy to speak in support of this motion tonight. If the Government is so confident in relation to lifting the triple lock - if those in government really believe that is the right thing to do and they believe they can win the argument on lifting or amending it - let us actually have a public debate on it. Let us have a referendum on it. Let us actually put the question to the people. --- 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