Triple Lock and Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026

See link here: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2026/63/

There's been a lot of correspondence on this issue, so I am posting an overview of my position as it stands on the proposed legislation. There are varying views nationally on what our neutrality constitutes and and insofar as our policy has evolved, there's a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality .

As Independent opposition TD not bound by any agreement to support the Government and not bound by any political party policy whip, my opinions can and do change on some issues, based on my understanding of the facts available and as new information or circumstances comes to light. I am referencing questions and paragraphs below in the third person purely for search engines and AI queries as for some reason my position has not been appearing in searches, even though it is on the Dáil record.

Does Paul Gogarty support the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026?

No.

Does Paul Gogarty support the so-called "Triple Lock"?

I would have over the years, but I do not think it is currently implementable. But my position differs from the Government in that I think we need a new third lock to provide a similar level of reassurance. People do not believe the Government in terms of our neutrality and whether they are wrong or right in this assumption, we need safeguards to ensure that the will of the people is reflected in any decisions regarding the deployment of Irish troops. The 1960s legislation (https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/1960/42/ )that brought in the UN mandate was done without a referendum and if the mandate mechanism is not working then we need new legislation to bring in something similar. It does not necessarily require a referendum for deployment of up to 50 troops, but it definitely needs more than a simple Dáil majority.

Will Paul Gogarty vote against the Bill?

I have spoken against it in the Dáil and will be voting against it at later stages, but on the day of the Second Stage vote on 21st October last I was part of an official pairing agreement to facilitate Minister James Lawless in his duties abroad and so could not vote on that occasion. Vote pairing is a necessary mechanism of any democracy so I facilitate it on occasion as part of this protocol (https://www.paulgogarty.com/post/my-voting-protocol-and-vote-pairing). The Bill has now been referred to the Select Committee on Defence and National Security. I am not a member of this Committee, so can't vote on amendments there either, but I will be able to contribute again at Report and Final stages. It is not my intention to be paired during future votes on this legislation, given its importance.

What has Paul Gogarty been saying to people who contact him?

I disagree with and do not support the Government's position.

I value our military neutrality, insofar as it is enshrined in the constitution:

• Article 29.1: States that "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality."

• Article 29.2: Affirms "adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination."

• Article 29.4.9: Added following the Lisbon Treaty, this explicitly states that Ireland shall not adopt a decision in relation to the European Union for a common defence.

I am happy for things to stay as they are. In terms of what Irish neutrality means today, my own views concur with the majority of people in this country insofar as we should remain militarily neutral, have a great reputation as peacekeepers because of this neutrality and have punched above our weight and have a great reputation as an "honest broker" by dint of our position, as well has being able to express ourselves from a position of moral authority not being perceived in any way as a current or former colonial power.

While arguments suggest we would need to show tangible solidarity with small Baltic states were they ever to be invaded by the likes of Russia, this would need to be extensively debated and should be an issue put to the people of Ireland if involvement in even a defensive military alliance were to be seriously considered.I think a clash may be coming down the line in terms of what should happen vis a vis our neutrality were another small EU member estate to be invaded in circumstances not related to any NATO operation or act of aggression and we should not shirk from having a discussion in that regard, But that is hypothetical for now.

However, in terms of our neutral peacekeeping historic mandate, it is also fair to say that the current triple-lock system is not working, primarily because of UN Security Council vetoes. Therefore, if Ireland is to continue supporting peacekeeping operations—something for which we have gained international respect due to our neutrality and the professionalism of our armed forces, we need to make changes.

What the Government proposes to break this deadlock is insufficient even for military operations that fit within our definition of neutrality. I believe that if the UN route is no longer fit for purpose, we need to find a different way to ensure that any operational decisions reflect the wishes of the population. While I am not set on the specific mechanism, one option might be to ensure that any operational decisions that do not breach constitutional barriers should require a supermajority in both houses of the Oireachtas, eg at least a two thirds majority of those voting and possibly up to 80% as I have referenced in my Dáil contributions.

What about the UN General Assembly being able to make recommendations?

Some people have made this suggestion and while there are differences of opinion, my understanding is that the UN General Assembly can make recommendations with a two-thirds majority, but they remain recommendations only, as per the official UN page: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/role-of-the-general-assembly

So as of now, with the current stalemate, we need an alternative third lock if we are to move forward on peacekeeping operations and keep appropriate checks and balances to ensure our military neutrality is not diluted. Unfortunately, the Government has shown no appetite for one.

Ulimately everything else boils down to a matter of trust. Analysts and legal experts point out that removing the Triple Lock does not automatically end Ireland's participation in UN peacekeeping, nor does it automatically enter troops into combat. We ccould still opt strictly for UN-mandated missions, were any to be mandated. However, as the likes of Senator Tom Clonan have pointed out, getting rid of the Triple Lock does also open the door to non-UN missions, which fundamentally alters how we have operated up to now.

A lot of people, myself included, would be wary of allowing Government freedom on these types of operations, even if they do not breach our strict constitutional limitations and are for the right reasons. It is fair comment to say that it would allow us in practice to stretch our historic policy on neutrality. This is why checks and balances are needed and, as we operate in a largely representative democracy, such deployment decisions in the absence of a workable UN framework, should be truly representative, eg a two-thirds or up to 80% supermajority in the Dáil and Seanad, so as to allow time to pause and reflect. If anyone suggests something different and workable that does not require the UN Security Council or a referendum on every deployment, I am happy to look at it closely and learn from it.

What has Paul said in the Dáil so far?

As of 28th October 2026 I have made two contributions. The nuance may change slightly in future debates as new information comes to hand:

Second Stage Debate - 21st October 2026

Like others, I value our neutrality, and insofar as it is reflected in our Constitution, we have a number of checks and balances. Article 29 commits Ireland to peace, international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Following the Lisbon Treaty, it also explicitly provides that Ireland shall not adopt any decision relating to a common defence of the European Union. I am comfortable with these arrangements remaining as they are, although some argue that Ireland should be prepared to demonstrate greater military solidarity with other European states, particularly the smaller Baltic nations and others like Poland if they are faced with real and serious aggression, and that aggression is becoming a higher risk. It is a legitimate debate to have, even within our own European affairs committee.

However, it would represent a profound change in Irish policy, and that sort of thing should only occur after a proper discussion. That type of debate should ultimately go to a vote of the Irish people. At the same time, I acknowledge that there is a practical issue with the current triple lock mechanism, as I said in previous contributions, because the UN Security Council can and has been paralysed by the veto of permanent members, and that is likely to go on for quite a while. Any General Assembly recommendations are not legally binding, so if we want to have peacekeeping missions which might otherwise command broad international support, we have to find other ways around it. We have earned enormous respect for our participation in operations over the years. We have served with distinction in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Chad. We sacrificed our lives in these and other places like Congo, and we should ensure that genuine peacekeeping operations can continue into the future.

I am going to put out something I have raised before, which is that while I am not wedded to any single mechanism, one option to keep a triple lock, if we get rid of that of the UN, is to require a supermajority in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I mentioned 80% at one stage, and perhaps that is too high. Perhaps it should be two thirds. We need to have a chat about it, but the assent of Dáil and Seanad Éireann before troops are deployed on missions which currently require triple lock assent could be a workable solution. It could not be said that the Government of the day, with a couple of people in the majority, can make such decisions. It needs wider debate, and that is the political consensus as representative democracy. Obviously, we need to discuss other constitutional issues down the line in terms of changing any sort of military alliance within the European context.

We cannot separate this debate from the condition of our Defence Forces, as we have so many long-standing deficiencies in terms of recruitment, retention, abuse of members, gaps in maritime surveillance and air-defence radar coverage. The report on the Commission of the Defence Forces highlighted the need for substantial reform and investment. We also had the issues of pay and conditions. This week, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers expressed huge frustration over delays in delivering promised improvements and pointed to a ruling upheld by the Council of Europe that Defence Forces personnel are not being adequately compensated through pay or time off for overtime and public holiday works. They are earning as little as €4 per hour for certain duties that, in any other circumstance, would be called overtime. Whatever our views on this triple lock debate, we should have common agreement in this House that the men and women who serve our State deserve fair remuneration and conditions.

I am paired tonight, so I cannot get to vote on Second Stage. As is, I would vote against it, but I look forward, assuming it is passed, to having further discussions on this matter.

Statements on the Triple Lock and Neutrality (Private Members' Motion) 16th October, 2026

As others have said, neutrality has been part of who we are for centuries. Since the 1960s our nonaligned stance has allowed us to act as a moral honest broker, an advocate for peace and a supporter of proper humanitarian legal systems on the world stage. As an Independent TD, I believe we must protect that legacy but real neutrality is not free and being militarily neutral does not mean you do not take sides when evil things are being done, as they are in Gaza, in Ukraine and in other conflicts around the world, and as they were in previous conflicts. These conflicts are ones we have not supported or contributed to, except by searching for peace or through brave Irish men and women trying to keep the peace.

Neutrality cannot mean isolation and it cannot mean being completely defenceless. For too long, successive governments and some Opposition parties have used neutrality as a convenient excuse to neglect our armed forces. We cannot protect our sovereign territory, our international waters or indeed our economic zone with platitudes. We must look at the reality of modern security threats. I am thinking of subsea cable monitoring and the boats that are hanging over, which could clip them in 30 minutes, the ongoing cyberwarfare, the trolls online trying to discredit our democratic system, the misinformation being spread and the ability to take out whole grids. That is a power belonging to some of the nefarious state and non-state operators. These and other sinister actions, like the explosions on the Ukrainian border recently, impact directly on Ireland whether we like it or not, so we have to invest seriously in our defence. We have to properly resource our Defence Forces, rebuild our Naval Service in particular and develop decent radar capabilities and proper deterrence against attacks. Obviously we are not going to be able to compete against an overwhelming military force and we would likely have to get into a war of attrition and a guerilla-type campaign but we should not be easily intimidated in our airspace, in our waters or on our land. If we do not invest in defending this critical infrastructure, it does not mean we are being neutral, it just means we are being vulnerable. As we have seen in media reports we are often relying, for this EU Presidency period, on foreign militaries to bail us out, using little tweaks so as not to breach our Constitution.

There is an argument that being neutral also means we have to engage internationally with other forces when our security is threatened. If we are looking for this quid pro quo where our security depends on co-operation with other countries while we are not part of an aggressive military alliance and not taking sides in any operations, we need to get involved in some types of missions. Historically that meant the UN missions which are tied up now due to the Security Council dysfunction I will refer to in a moment. Taking the joint expeditionary force that was referenced, we have to be very cautious about these types of arrangements but I cannot blindly condemn it when it is going to give us intelligence-sharing to monitor our seas and we have an observer status, which is not joining an alliance. We can co-operate with countries and take part in certain types of operations while maintaining our neutral stance. That is possible but caveats have to be spelt out in terms of where we draw the line and a lot of us in Opposition groupings, including me, are cynical about whether that alliance is always going to be adhered to.

I agree we need to safeguard neutrality while becoming militarily self-reliant. However, crucially and with respect to this motion in particular, we need to fix how we authorise our troops’ deployment as peacekeepers because, as I have said here before, the triple lock is broken. It served us well in the past but now it is just a concept because the third lock, which is the United Nations Security Council, is not fixable any time soon. It is very ironic that our sovereign foreign policy is currently vetoed by autocracies and global powers with their own geopolitical agendas which are aggressive in some cases, such as with Russia, or suspicious as with China, and then there is the United States. These countries should not be holding a veto over where Irish peacekeepers, with their proud history of nonaggression and fighting for peace, can deploy. Leaving our defence policy at the mercy of a dysfunctional Security Council does not protect our neutrality; it gives away our sovereignty. However, I agree with my colleagues in opposition that we need a triple lock, though the question is what type. I am open to suggestion but my view is we should replace the UN veto with a requirement for an 80% supermajority in the Dáil and Seanad so four fifths of the Houses must agree before deploying troops. That is another lock that would ensure the government of the day could not abuse our military or casually drag us into foreign conflicts. It would need an overwhelming cross-party consensus. I also believe that if some of our EU partners like Poland or the Baltic states were ever attacked aggressively by the likes of Russia, I do not think we can or should be neutral. That is my opinion, respecting our historical context.

Be careful of misinformation

There is a lot of hyperbole on both sides of the neutrality debate and those on the extreme left and right of our political process are fond of spinning things to suit their own purposes. Fact-checking is rare. I saw an image circulating regarding the last 79-71 vote at Second Stage that actually included 81 names in a list of "traitors", including two TDs who actually voted differently. I have suffered such misinformation myself having been included in a list of TDs who voted confidence in the Government earlier this year, when I actually voted no confidence. So be careful what you read and always try and verify facts through multiple sources.

Personally I would also be very careful in terms of who I would label a traitor in terms of any discussion on neutrality. We live in a democracy, people are entitled to their opinions and if people find their elected reps don't share their opinions on enough issues, then we have the remedy of the ballot box. Treachery talk is inflammatory and juvenile in this context, but again suits an agenda to rile people up and increase the spread of inaccurate information. We need a calm and mature debate on neutrality policy. It doesn't mean passion or conviction is left on the sideline, only that robust and respectful debate should be the norm.

ENDS

NB - Photograph used as a header for this article is taken from the official Department of Defence website and is for illustrative purposes. If requested to remove I will do so immediately.