Gerard P. Craughwell: Scrap the Triple Lock, Not Peacekeeping
Gerard P. Craughwell addressed the Seanad on the confused debate over the triple lock, arguing its removal does not prevent Irish Defence Forces from serving in UN or EU missions. He clarified the distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement, referenced Chapter 7 of the UN Protocol, and urged an end to emotive rhetoric as Ireland approaches its EU presidency.
Gerard P. Craughwell disputed claims that removing the triple lock would bar Irish troops from peacekeeping. He emphasised that Irish peacekeepers have served under UN and EU-sanctioned missions and that the badge worn depends on the mission's sanctioning body.
Craughwell explained there is no war fighting in peacekeeping and underlined the legal framework for peace enforcement. He pointed to Chapter 7 of the United Nations Protocol as the authority that allows peace enforcement operations in which Ireland has participated since 1999.
He raised concerns about how Irish neutrality squares with security obligations for the forthcoming EU presidency, noting the Attorney General advised that the use of foreign troops may conflict with Article 15.6 of the constitution just days before the presidency begins.
Craughwell urged colleagues to remove emotive language from the debate over the triple lock and argued for a clearer, less theatrical discussion of how Ireland deploys its Defence Forces overseas. He concluded by calling for the triple lock to be reconsidered.
What he said
Gerard P. Craughwell disputed claims that removing the triple lock would bar Irish troops from peacekeeping. He emphasised that Irish peacekeepers have served under UN and EU-sanctioned missions and that the badge worn depends on the mission's sanctioning body.
Peacekeeping versus peace enforcement
Craughwell explained there is no war fighting in peacekeeping and underlined the legal framework for peace enforcement. He pointed to Chapter 7 of the United Nations Protocol as the authority that allows peace enforcement operations in which Ireland has participated since 1999.
Neutrality, constitution and the EU presidency
He raised concerns about how Irish neutrality squares with security obligations for the forthcoming EU presidency, noting the Attorney General advised that the use of foreign troops may conflict with Article 15.6 of the constitution just days before the presidency begins.
A call for clarity
Craughwell urged colleagues to remove emotive language from the debate over the triple lock and argued for a clearer, less theatrical discussion of how Ireland deploys its Defence Forces overseas. He concluded by calling for the triple lock to be reconsidered.
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.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: Will Water Funding Follow Rezoning?
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett: Trade Is Propping Up Occupation
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett: 'Legal spectre' can't shield settler goods
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Wealth Tax Urgent as 11 Billionaires Outweigh 3.5M
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett: EU moral bankruptcy exposed over Western Sahara
Cian O'Callaghan
Cian O'Callaghan: Exposes Galway lab backlog and contract breaches
Transcript
Thank you very much, Comhairleach. The rather confused issue of the triple lock is finding its way through the houses as we speak. And I listened to a debate about the removal of the triple lock will mean that Irish Defence Forces can never serve in a peacekeeping role again. This is factually incorrect. Irish peacekeepers have been participating in peacekeeping operations wearing the Blueberry of the United Nations or wearing the Oakleigh-na-Hearnberry or Llingarri Corbyn while serving overseas. That was in an EU mission sanctioned by the UN. If the UN sanctioned a mission on a regional basis, there is no blueberry. You wear the berry of your unit, your regiment, your army, whatever it is. The second issue is the issue of war fighting. There is no war fighting in peacekeeping. There is peacekeeping or there is peace enforcement. Ireland has been involved in peace enforcement since 1999. There is no, what do you call it, it is very, very clear. Chapter 7 of the United Nations Protocol allows for peace enforcement and that's what we do when we go overseas. So we need to take the emotive language out of what's going on with respect to the triple lock. The triple lock is mutually exclusive from our neutrality, although everybody in this house knows that I have serious issues with us declaring ourselves a neutral state. How the hell we can be neutral when we find ourselves in a situation that we're unable to provide security for the forthcoming EU presidency. And we note yesterday an article broke in the journal where the Attorney General was forced five days before we take over the presidency of the EU, the Attorney General was forced to come in and advise the security services that the use of foreign troops is contrary to our constitution, article 15.6 of the constitution. So I wonder how we're going to square that circle in the next couple of days. But we really need to be more upfront about how things are done, particularly on the peacekeeping side and the triple lock. For God's sake, let's stop making it emotive and just get rid of the thing. Thank you. Thank you.