We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THERE’S SOME BACK and forth in political circles over the idea of abolishing a requirement for a system that demands three levels of approval to send a certain number of Irish troops abroad.
Currently, there needs to be approval by the Government, approval by the Dáil and a UN Resolution to mandate a mission sending more than 12 troops overseas.
Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has said that moving away from the triple-lock system would be “a sensible change”, with a motion put forward at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis to require only Government and Dáil approval.
However, coalition partner and Green Party leader Minister Eamon Ryan said the current system works for the country, while Sinn Féin has also pushed back against the idea, saying it would threaten Irish neutrality.
So today, we’re asking you: Would you support changing the triple-lock system for sending Irish troops abroad?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why do they want to change it?
I’m generally suspicious of any Govt request making deployment of the military “easier”.
@Tricia G ☘️: Because Russia, China etc have a veto in the UN. That means they decide where Irish troops can go/not go. I would much prefer that the only people who decide what Irish troops do are the Irish themselves.
@John McG: The veto is the problem not the triple lock. We should be campaigning to end the veto, along with every other UN member without it.
@Tricia G ☘️: very true…and at the moment the defence forces find it difficult to a battalion together to go anywhere…. staffing levels are rock bottom…the government need too decided if we are an army or a defence forces…our mission has always been defence of the state…the government needs to start at problem number 1 on the list not number 25 …staff ,equip and fund it as a defence forces first so it can do its basic job … fund the navy and air corps properly and worry about UN missions when we can fend for ourselves…we are like the poor cousins when we go anywhere…we do a fantastic job and are world renowned on un missions…but its time to worry about home first
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: sure Russia and China will veto the vote.
why send anyone abroad if Ireland is neutral. it will only cause problems. there is no reason to compete with other countries about who sends how many people into conflict areas.
@Soeren Kuehling: The fact we are neutral means we are not seen as a threat from either side. We have a wonderful and proud history of peace keeping work with the UN.
@Soeren Kuehling: we are not and never where nuetral.
Absolutely not
We are a neutral country always have been always
Will be …No to Nato…
Give us a referendum on
This CETA and our Water
Yes OUR Water…
@Kerry Evans: its nothing to do with neutrality. The current system means russia have a veto over where we send our troops. That’s the big deal
@Kerry Evans: we are not and never have been neutral.
@Brian Guilfoyle: if you’re so gung-ho Brian there’s plenty of volunteers foreign legion groups you can join to fulfil your dreams of corporate bootlicking.
You don’t need to drag the rest of the country along with you .
If another EU member state is attacked, we should go to their defense if requested. Anything outside the EU like peace-keeping missions, we should keep the triple lock system in place.
@Seán Ó Briain: Finally a sensible comment
@Seán Ó Briain: If an EU country is attacked, it will most likely be by another EU country. So which one will we help. Better to stay out of the conflict..
@Roger Bond: what’s your rational for that ??
@Roger Bond: Poland could be attacked by Russia and then Ireland would be barred from intervening because Russia would veto any security council resolution.
Its all hypothetical in any event because we are unable to defend our neutrality and instead shelter behind the NATO umbrella and the RAF to protect our air space. If we truly want to be neutral, then we need to be equipped to defend it.
@Killian O’Sullivan: exactly. Neutrality not explicitly mentioned in constitution. , Anyways Russia dont care about neutrality, only about how many divisions you have. They can snip our cables and not a thing we could do about it, unlike other small countries like Finland,Norway whom could at least track them .Russia already attacked us in hybrid warfare – HSE hack. The least we can do is prepare for next cyber attack and NATO /Ukraine have the best info on Russian cyber attacks. If you couldn’t stand up for yourself in the school playground, then the school bully picked on you. It’s no different here.The very fact that we are defenceless and not in NATO, but important to US ( intel chips) makes us an increasingly likely target. Poland was attacked by Russia last week.
@Killian O’Sullivan: “Poland could be attacked by Russia and then Ireland would be barred from intervening .
Apart from a strongly worded letter, there’s bugger all Ireland could do in that situation.
We don’t have the capability to defend our own country so we can forget about defending anyone else.
@Seán Ó Briain: didn’t see any of the EU coming to our defense durning the troubles the rising
@Michael Nolan: The EU didn’t exist during the
height of rhe troubles or the Rising. What are you talking about?
@Killian O’Sullivan: in much the same way we couldn’t provide military support for Iraq against the illegal invasion by the USA and their allies? Ye know, the invasion that was preceded by lies about WMD? The invasion that was preceded by warnings to UN Weapons Inspectors that they had better get out of Iraq because the Americans were going to bomb the country even if they were still there.
@Seán Ó Briain: Benelux agreement
It does seem odd that our sovereignty is overruled by US, UK, France, China and Russia. I would prefer the UN mandate but not while it is controlled by these permanent members with their vetoes.
Government totally out of touch with ordinary people
They’re happy as Larry in there bubble
We need an election
@John Mcmahon: pandering up to the EU and the USA…that’s all it is ..oh and looking for a gig when they get kicked out of office
Why ask us? Surely the only people qualified to understand it are those that run the army
@Ger Cassidy:
Really????
@Ger Cassidy: Perhaps it’s because our sons and daughters will pay the price if political decisions are in the hands of the military.
Absolutely not strengthen our neutrality and stay as far away from NATO as we can. Hunter Bidens laptop blows the lid off of Ukraine corruption.
@Joe Kelly:
How’s the weather in Moscow….
Binden’s Laptop????
@Cowboy Ted: your some txxl
@Joe Kelly: I suppose you believed Pizzagate too!
@Gary Kearney: wouldnt be into pizza
Before you use them as play things, can you at least pay and equip them properly.
You first Simon
Maybe, when we beef-up the Defence Forces to a level equivalent to other truly neutral countries, then we might be able to withdraw the UN lock factor. Otherwise, we’re poorly equipped to operate without direct UN assistance overseas. Anyone who’s worked in the DF will tell you the same story.
How can we be claim to be neutral if Russia can block Ireland sending force on peace keeping missions.
As a neutral county we should make our own decisions and not have to ask permission for anyone else.
Insane that a majority here support giving Russia a veto on our foreign affairs. Shows what a cesspit of brain rot this site is
@Andrew Redmond: Wonder why this subject was not brought up when the U.S. and it Allies invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Not for a second condoning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the government of the day didn’t demand the end of the triple lock system. One invasion good the other invasion bad.
@Andrew Redmond: France, USA, UK and China also have a veto on our foreign affairs. I am sure the first three don’t bother you.
@Donal Desmond: amazing how america seems to always be on the right side of history with God on there side all the time
Is this for UK pensions or just another pilfered sound bite?
We need to have the ability to decide our own policy the UN is too divided to decide to take action. The triple lock takes much needed time which may prevent our ability to mobalise in a crisis ie an invasion and if one of the members our potential attackers is a UNSC member we may be delayed further. In defensive and offensive war speed can decide whether a country is still a country by the next day or not.
@Ciaran Burke: I think you need to do just a small bit of reading. The triple lock, which involves the UN, has nothing to do with decisions made by the Government and Dail to defend ourselves in the event of an invasion. In fact, under Article 28.2 of the Constitution, the Government doesn’t even need the immeidate assent of the Dail in the event of an invasion.
Once we keep on good terms with the Isle of Man we should be fine . Against anyone else we’d be f**ked in a day .
have your say