Brian Stanley urges defence of neutrality, opposes scrapping triple lock
Brian Stanley spoke in the Dáil on 11 February 2026, challenging proposals to scrap the triple lock and alter Ireland's practice of military neutrality. He argued against abandoning the triple lock, saying it would repudiate national declarations, undermine neutrality and could be unconstitutional.
Main arguments on the triple lock
Brian Stanley recalled the Taoiseach's 2013 remark that the triple lock was at the core of neutrality and said his work on the Defence Committee convinced him of that. He pointed to the 1960s Defence Amendment Act requiring a UN mandate for overseas deployments and disputed claims that Russia routinely vetoes peacekeeping missions, noting that from 2020 to 2024 the UN Security Council passed 264 out of 284 resolutions without a veto. He also cited a weekend poll showing 71% support for maintaining neutrality and criticised a year-long stream of media calls to scrap the triple lock.
Treaty declarations and legal concerns
He warned that proceeding to scrap the triple lock would shred two national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon treaties and risk being unconstitutional. He quoted the wording used in those declarations requiring UN authorisation or agreement of Government or approval of Dáil Éireann for overseas deployments and asked whether those declarations would now be repudiated. He reminded the House that early attempts to pass the Nice and Lisbon treaties had failed and those declarations had been used to secure approval.
Peacekeeping, UN vetoes and global politics
Stanley challenged the notion that the UN veto should determine Irish participation in peacekeeping, asking which missions Russia had vetoed and pointing to examples where other states have undermined UN decisions. He referenced the Wagner Group's activity in the Sahel and expressed concern that geopolitical actors could block peacekeeping where Ireland might contribute. He also recounted questions from Irish troops after a visit to UNIFIL about where future peacekeeping experience would be found.
Parliamentary authority and defence tradition
He defended Ireland's long tradition of peacekeeping and the triple lock's role in it, noting past participation in NATO, EU and African Union-led missions. In the debate the Taoiseach emphasised that military neutrality means not being a member of a military alliance and framed the triple lock as relating specifically to peacekeeping. Stanley argued that parliamentary democracy should determine participation and asked why the Dáil should be afraid to give itself clear authority over peacekeeping deployments.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Taoiseach, your government had proposed us to scrap the triple lock, but in 2013, when you were over this side of the House, you said, and I quote directly, the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. I agree with what you said then. As a member of the Defence Committee, we have looked at this very carefully, and I'm fully convinced of it, because what you said was true. And you will try and justify the abandonment of the triple lock, because we live in a changed world. You've said things like this, but neutrality was adopted during World War II. The 1960s Defence Amendment Act set out clearly that the UN mandate is required for the deployment of a contingent of the Defence Forces to be deployed overseas. And that was in the middle of the Cold War, and at the time of huge international conflict. The UN veto and the UN Security Council can exercise is something that's raised. And you will use this to try and justify the case for the abandonment of the triple lock. But again, in 2013, you said, and I quote, yes, the UN isn't working as it should, but we must not abandon it as an essential part of the international system. I agree with that also, unquote. From 2020 to 2024, the UN Security Council passed 264 resolutions out of 284 resolutions without a veto being exercised. And you will tell us that Russia will veto a peacekeeping mission. Tell me which one they've vetoed. Tell me which one they've vetoed. I'll be looking for it. Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong, but the United States and Israel are two countries that have consistently undermined and trampled over UN resolutions and UN decisions. I'll remind you of the weekend poll, which again showed 71% of people in favour of maintaining neutrality. And this comes on the back of a flood of right-wing propaganda in dozens of newspaper articles over the past 12 months, calling for the scrapping of the triple lock and the scrapping of neutrality and the full participation of our defence forces in combat overseas. Proceeding to scrap the triple lock and shredding not one but two national declarations that your party, your party, drew up is likely to be unconstitutional and would probably have been met with a court challenge. The Nice Treaty, in that your party put in, and I quote, Ireland reiterates that participation of a contingent of the Irish defence forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under EU security and defence policy, requires a the authorisation of the UN Security Council or General Assembly, b agreement of the Government, or c approval of Dáil Éireann. The very same words were used in the national declaration attached to the Lisbon Treaty, and you made a solemn declaration in the Nice Treaty to uphold that. You and I know that the first two attempts to pass the Nice Treaty and Lisbon failed, and your party had to do that to get them through, and that's fair enough. But are you going to now shred, are you now going to shred those two national declarations? Are you now going to repudiate the will of the Irish people and uphold Irish neutrality? Tieshaq, please. First of all, Deputy, our military neutrality is defined as not being a member of a military alliance, and we're not members of a military alliance, and we don't intend to be, and we're not members of NATO, fundamentally. The triple lock relates to our participation in peacekeeping missions. We want to continue the tradition of Irish participation in peacekeeping missions. It's been a very noble one. It has enabled Ireland, it's probably one of the defining qualities of Irish foreign policy. People accept our bona fides in the international field, whether it is in military peacekeeping or in civilian peace monitoring, our contributions to conflict resolution, participation in multilateral fora from the United Nations, your African Union, European Union, you name it. But the world has changed dramatically. I simply do not believe, and I know you said that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was wrong. I would respectfully say it was far more than wrong. It was appalling, horrific, and is having horrific consequences. And if you stand back, why should Russia have a veto on whether Irish peacekeepers participated in the peacekeeping mission or not? And when I say a veto, it's very clear that Russia, geopolitically over the last two decades in particular, do not want UN peacekeeping forces in a lot of parts of the world. So you take Nigeria, you take Mali, you take all of those areas in the Sahel. What has the Wagner Group been doing there for quite some time in Russia? They've been facilitating coup d'etats, trying to exploit the natural resources of those countries in return for protecting the elites who perpetrated a coup d'etat. Like, is that the country that should determine whether Ireland participates in the peacekeeping mission or not? No, and more, and the same goes, like the US have decided that we should, the UN should not support the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL. And when I was up in UNIFIL before Christmas, a lot of our members of our army asking very straightforward questions as to where do we get the experience in the future of peacekeeping? What's the next theatre for Irish troops to have experience in peacekeeping? What is it? Will the US determine that? Will China determine that? When we were on the Security Council, we wanted to connect climate security and make it a core principle. Russia vetoed it. We nearly got there, but Russia vetoed it. So, and in increasing times, we've been part of NATO peacekeeping missions. We've been part of European Union peacekeeping missions, and we've been part of African Union-led peacekeeping missions. The key issue is the principle of peacekeeping. Why are we afraid in Doyle Airden, with Shannon Airden, to give ourselves the unrestricted authority to do that? We are the democratically elected people of this country. What's the problem? Do we not believe in parliamentary democracy? Parliamentary democracy is the cornerstone of one of the longest living democracies around the world, which happens to be Ireland. Maybe a bit more faith in ourselves, and self-respect and self-esteem. I think it will go a long way to a layer of propagandistic fears that have been articulated about this initiative. I would remind the Taoiseach of two things. One is that the UN, I know the UN isn't perfect, and the veto that may be exercised, but I also read out to you 264 resolutions that were passed in a four-year period without a veto being exercised by any of the five, including the US. And none of this, none of what I'm saying goes against strengthening our Defence Forces capacity and having a level of cooperation in terms of sharing information, et cetera, with other countries. That's not the argument I'm making here. But the facts are is that if national declarations are made, and your party, in government, solemnly made those national declarations regarding the triple lock and neutrality to the Irish people, are you going to tear up them? They're there in black and white on those pages. They're there in black and white. You know how they were put there. And it's a good thing they were put there. But now what you're proposing to do is stand that on its head. And I reminded you that neutrality was brought in by your party in times when the world was at peril, a lot worse than what it is now. And yes, the world is. There is some people in the world gone mad. I agree with you on that. You know, the Netanyahu is the Trumps and the Putins are gone crazy. But what we should do is join military alliances. And that's the madness that's going on. It's because my party introduced neutrality during World War II that I have the self-confidence to deal with this and absolutely be confident that this is not about ending military neutrality. I'll make that point more generally. And we have evolved independent Irish foreign policy ever since in a manner that has been respected around the world. But the UN Security Council itself is a post-war creation. And it's ridiculously outdated. The five members of the Security Council do not represent the world anymore. Africa should be on the Security Council. The Latin American Southern should be on the Security Council. It should be expanded. It should be reformed. No, we can't get reformed. We support reform of the UN Security Council. That's a problem in itself. There is no sense of Ireland being a warmongering nation in any shape or form, nor do we have the capacity. But what we do have the capacity for, we're professional peacekeepers. We've made a significant contribution around the world. There hasn't been a peacekeeping mission sanctioned since 2014. The one in Lebanon is coming to an end at the behest of the Security Council. So why are we, we're really restricting our capacity for peacekeeping. Thank you, Taoiseach. Deputy Paul Gogarty. Composition and behaviour of the Security Council. Deputy Paul Gogarty. Time is up, Taoiseach. Deputy Paul Gogarty.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
