> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://aontachtmedia.ie/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Scrapping The Triple Lock Marks Ireland's Final Surrender To Imperialism
- URL: https://aontachtmedia.ie/scrapping-the-triple-lock-marks-irelands-final-surrender-to-imperialism/
- Published: 2026-11-07T21:23:42.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-07T21:23:42.000Z
- Description: What the abolition of the Triple Lock reveals is that we have entered a new period in which even symbolic gestures towards neutrality can no longer be tolerated. As the world accelerates towards war the ambiguity granted by imperialism to small states such as Ireland has expired.
- Author: John McAnulty
- Tags: Critical Analysis

**Neutrality concerns swept aside by Coalition**

Anyone seeking to understand the Triple Lock mechanism and the drive to remove it could do no better than listen to Irish defence minister Helen McEntee. Irish troops are currently deployed as part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) but the mission ends at the end of this year. A new EU mission to replace UNIFIL was passed by EU Foreign Ministers last month, however, Minister McEntee said: "We will not be able to do that if the Triple Lock is not reformed.” Why not? Well, the UN mandate was for a peacekeeping mission. The new force will be involved in peace enforcement duties - that is, war.

The Irish government frequently presents its UN role as an example of neutrality. In reality the peacekeeping missions were meant to freeze conflicts in place. UNIFIL was unable to prevent Israeli invasion and massacre, but the Israelis didn't like having witnesses around. The US pressured the UN to end the mandate and the new expeditionary force is to be a peace enforcement mandate, actively involved in a war alongside Israel and the US and the local Aoum regime to suppress Hezbollah and Lebanese resistance. The driving force behind Irish military action abroad is not neutrality. It is capitulation to the wishes of the US and fulfilling any requirement given to it. Ending the Triple lock will enable Ireland to swerve 90% and link into the widespread ethnic cleansing in South Lebanon. It plans to go on to deploy against Russia.

The prospects are grim. Irish troops will be involved in global war on the side of imperialism. Ireland itself will become a target. Society will be increasingly militarised and democratic rights suppressed. The budget shows a determination to cut workers’ living standards at a time when the government has guaranteed €4 billion to support the Ukrainian war budget and doubled the size of the military budget.

Supporters of the Triple Lock believed that by maintaining a narrow focus and appealing to a broad sentiment in favour of neutrality that they could push the government back. This proved to be incorrect. The main response was that of opposition TDs holding placards in the Dáil and taking them down when instructed to do so by the Ceann Comhairle.

There are further political and legal steps that can be taken within the framework of neutrality. They should be taken, but we must also pivot towards building a movement based on opposition to imperialism and war.

**Ireland’s rush to war**

The vote in the Dail to abolish the Triple Lock mechanism marks an advance in the militarism of the Irish state and its participation in military alliances. This is not because the Triple Lock had any power in itself. It was always more about symbolism than substance, a useful fig leaf for the Irish political class. This goes all the way back to its creation in 2009 as a means of securing approval of the Lisbon Treaty after it was initially rejected due to concerns over military neutrality. However, it has not impeded the rapid militarisation of the Irish state over the past four years or its increasing integration into the military structures of the EU and NATO. 

What the abolition of the Triple Lock reveals is that we have entered a new period in which even symbolic gestures towards neutrality can no longer be tolerated. As the world accelerates towards war the ambiguity granted by imperialism to small states such as Ireland has expired. What is demanded now is total subordination. In abolishing the Triple Lock the Irish state is signalling its willingness to cede to that demand. 

**Debate** 

The Dail debate on the abolition of the Triple Lock reflected this reality even if it did so in a dishonest and distorted way. Everything was the opposite of what was stated. This approach was epitomised by Minister for Defence Helen McEntee who presented the abolition of the Triple Lock as a bold assertion of independence by a small state rather than a capitulation to imperialism. She told the Dáil that it was “absolutely crazy” that five countries, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, have a say in where Ireland sends its military personnel. McEntee said the changes contained in the proposed legislation were “necessary if we want to ensure that as a sovereign country, we have the independence and the ability to make our own decisions about where we deploy our troops”. She added: “No other country in the world has this mechanism. No other country in the world allows another country or a superpower to decide for them.”

McEnee cited Irish troops that were based in southern Lebanon for decades having to leave because of decisions made outside of Ireland. This was in reference to the UNIFIL mission which had seen Irish troops, along with others, act in the role of peacekeepers (or more accurately as observers) in the frozen conflict between Israel and the Palestinian factions and later Hezbollah. She omitted to mention that it was the United States who pulled the plug on this mission in order to give Israel a freer hand in attacking southern Lebanon and expelling its population. 

McEntee told RTÉ's This Week programme that despite the ending of the UNIFIL mission:

 "I want us, and I know our troops in particular want, to be on the ground and working with their colleagues... Our troops want to continue that presence on the ground, and to continue to be able to support the Lebanese Armed Forces."

Minister McEntee said Ireland wanted to participate in a new EU mission to replace UNIFIL that was passed by EU Foreign Ministers last month but would be prevented from doing so “if the Triple Lock is not reformed." The impression created is that the EU mission is really just a continuation of UNIFIL and that the Triple Lock was presenting an unnecessary bureaucratic blockage. However, this is quite misleading. What is being proposed by the EU is not peacekeeping but assistance to the Lebanese government to suppress the armed resistance and remove any opposition to Israel’s occupation of parts of southern Lebanon. 

McEntee has identified other areas where Irish military personnel would be engaged in what she categorised as “peace enforcement” such as the EU mission in Bosnia and a NATO led mission in Kosovo. While the Irish military already has small contingents within these missions their numbers would increase significantly in the wake of the Triple Lock being abolished. McEntee says she would also like to see the Irish Naval Service contribute to an EU mission in the Mediterranean. Ireland previously contributed to Irini, including sending a ship to the Mediterranean in 2023\. At the time, the mission had a UN mandate to prevent the smuggling of arms into Libya. However, that mandate was withdrawn last May, forcing Irish personnel to pull out of the mission at short notice. Irini has since been retooled to target Russia’s “shadow fleet”, a collection of hundreds of vessels that are used to evade sanctions on Moscow’s oil exports but are in no sense illegal under international law.

Of the many things referenced by the Irish government to justify the abolition of the Triple Lock it is the alleged threat posed by Russia that features most prominently. The Dail debate was littered with unfounded claims about Russian designs on Europe and the alleged “hybrid war” being conducted against European states. The Irish government is fully signed up to the proposition that Europe is at war with Russia and is prepared to make its contribution to that fight. The abolition of the Triple Lock clears the way for the Irish state to offer increased military support to the EU, NATO and any ad hoc collection of states to prosecute that war.

**Alliances**

The most substantial criticism of the vote to abolish the Triple Lock came from former President Michael D Higgins. In an interview with the Irish Examiner Higgins claimed that the removal of the troop deployment measure was designed to place Ireland in military alliances. He also said that the government was being dishonest about how it was presenting the move: 

“I think that it’s less than honest not to give the full story when you’re talking about going into preparatory alliances, and I really do feel that because I dealt with senior army people in my 15 years as president.”

The critical point being made here is that military alliances exist not only at a de jure level but also at a de facto level. Indeed, this is what we have already, with Ireland integrating itself into the military structures of NATO and the EU despite not yet having the status of a full member. That NATO Supreme Commander General Alexus Grynkewich can describe Shannon Airport as "a very important logistics hub" for US military operations is evidence that a de facto alliance already exists. The so-called Coalition of the Willing, the ad hoc alliance of states that has stated its willingness to insert a military force into Ukraine, and of which Ireland has declared itself a member, is a prime example of what could be called a “preparatory alliance”. 

There really is no answer to the points made by Higgins and when asked to respond ministers have been evasive. Taoiseach Micheál Martin said the former President was being “unfair” and that Ireland has "no intention of joining NATO". He said he is asked every few years about the issue, and that in his view Ireland is "militarily neutral" and that it was also incorrect to suggest the EU is "war mongering”. Of course, this completely ignores the rapid militarisation that is underway across Europe and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric directed towards Russia by European leaders. Whole populations are being conditioned for war with Russia through a daily stream of propaganda. EU and NATO officials have openly stated their belief that Europe will be at war with the Russian Federation by the end of the decade. When it comes to Russia the Irish government is often amongst the most hawkish of the Europeans. 

Minister of State for Defence Thomas Byrne also responded to the comments by Michael D Higgins claiming that Ireland could not join a military alliance as the constitution committed the state to peace and friendly cooperation among nations. Again, this claim is misleading. Despite the common assumption, military neutrality is not in the Irish constitution. Rather it is a long-standing political convention that has been reaffirmed in legal judgements over the years. This fact has previously been highlighted by the Taoiseach in a claim that a referendum would not be required to change this stance and that a decision by the Irish government would be sufficient. 

Byrne also defended the EU claiming that nothing in EU law or any decision of the EU would have any impact on Irish neutrality. Such claims were immediately undermined by the fact that Bryne was making them ahead of a conference on Belarus that the Irish government was hosting as part of its Presidency of the Council of the European Union. This conference brought together EU officials and members of the political opposition in Belarus. 

These included Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus who was the figurehead of the Colour Revolution that attempted to overthrow President Alexander Lukashenka in 2020\. The regime change theme of such an event is very clear to see. It is just another element of the anti-Russian campaign pursued by the EU for the last fifteen years which has included the Maidan coup of 2014, and leading directly from that, the current proxy war in Ukraine. 

**Opposition**

The fact that the Dail vote on the abolition of the Triple Lock passed by a small majority having been delayed from the summer shows there is some nervousness in the ranks of the government on pushing this and also around the wider issue of potential Irish participation in military alliances. There is still a strong pro-peace / anti-war sentiment within the population and we see this reflected in the debates that take place in the political institutions. Surveys have shown clear support for military neutrality and opposition to the abolition of the Triple Lock. But the fact that the government is pressing ahead in spite of public opinion shows that sentiment in itself is not enough. 

The political opposition represented in the Dail are largely relying on parliamentary tactics to delay the passage of the legislation. The government wants all the Bill’s stages completed by the Xmas break and while any delay would be frustrating it would only push their timetable back by a couple of weeks. Beyond this there is the possibility that the President could withhold ascent to the Bill and instead refer it to the Supreme Court for a judgment on whether it is constitutional. Again, this is a delay and there is no reason to assume that the legislation will be found to be in breach of the constitution. While the argument that the Triple Lock was an attachment to the Lisbon Treaty and therefore cannot be abolished without a further referendum is a strong one it may not succeed in a legal system that has a record of finding in favour of the state. 

In constitutional terms the nuclear option would be for the President to resign rather than sign the legislation into law. Given that Catherine Connolly won an overwhelming victory for her pro-peace / anti-war platform just last year she could legitimately claim to have a mandate for such a course of action. Any election that ensues would then be a referendum on the question of military neutrality. If this scenario unfolded the Irish state would be thrown into an acute political crisis. However, there are no indications that Catherine Connolly and the parties that backed her presidential campaign are prepared for this. They are satisfied with making token gestures and being seen to be doing something rather than mounting any serious opposition.

The only means to oppose war and militarism is to build an anti-war movement that is based on anti-imperialism and has a clear understanding of the political economy of Irish society and where the Irish state fits into geo-politics. While the Triple Lock and military neutrality are issues that are worth raising, they are not in themselves sufficient to raise political consciousness to the level that is required to build an effective anti-war movement.