Sinn Féin wants 111 changes to Bill reforming ‘triple lock' Irish troop deployment
Government
is set to square off with Opposition parties over proposed amendments to its plan to reform the
'triple lock' mechanism
for deploying Irish troops overseas.
Public sessions were held by the
Oireachtas
defence committee
as part of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Government's plan to remove the need for
United Nations Security Council
approval of Irish peacekeeping missions with more than 12 troops.
The Government contends countries like Russia have the power, under the UN Security Council motion requirement, to veto Ireland's participation in missions.
The defence committee must publish a report on the proposal before it is sent back to the Dáil and Seanad for further consideration. A draft report has been circulated and amendments have been proposed by Opposition parties.
READ MORE
Sinn Féin has submitted 111 amendments to the Bill. The committee is due to meet in private this week to discuss its recommendations and conclusions, which have not yet been agreed.
While the committee is chaired by Sinn Féin's
Rose Conway-Walsh
, Government TDs and Senators have a majority of the membership.
Sinn Féin's defence spokesman, Cork South Central TD
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire
, is seeking to insert a recommendation that the Government must drop the sectionthat would remove the UN mandate requirement.
Currently the UN mandate, Government approval and a Dáil vote make up a triumvirate of pre-deployment sanctions that have come to be known as the triple lock.
[
The triple lock - a guardrail of neutrality, or an abandonment of sovereignty?
Opens in new window
]
The Bill, as proposed by Government, envisages just Government and Dáil approval would be needed in future. The vast majority of the evidence heard by the committee during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage relates to this aspect, which is by far the most contentious part of the Bill.
The draft report outlines that the committee heard Ireland 'appears to be in a unique position globally' in explicitly requiring a UN mandate for the overseas deployment of military personnel as part of an international force.
It outlines that some witnesses and contributors - and a majority of public submissions received - 'were clear in their view that neutrality is a key consideration which is central to the proposed legislation'.
Sinn Féin is further arguing that the proposed legislation should be modified to recommend the convening of a citizens assembly to consider potential wording for a constitutional provision outlining and protecting Ireland's neutrality. The party wants a referendum to be held thereafter to 'definitively enshrine neutrality in the Constitution'.
The Labour Party has also sought changes, including in connection with its concern that each overseas mission could end up being litigated to ensure it is consistent with UN Charter principles. It wants to an amendment calling on the
Minister for Defence
to publish details about how the new arrangements will work.
It also wants safeguards against the dispatch of the Defence Forces in circumstances where it could give rise to liability for the crime of aggression before the International Criminal Court.
The party also wants a change to the Bill to the effect that the triple lock would only be lifted if a proposed mission was denied UN Security Council approval due to a veto from a permanent member.
It is asking for specific circumstances to be set out in the legislation where troops might be deployed under the new system and seeks for troops to remain under Irish command.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland's latest investment plan: A sceptic's guide
How do we make sense of all the billions announced in new State investment spending ? The key message is that the Government is going for it in terms of the sums it is committing – and this has big consequences. By doing so it is responding to economic growth and population increases, which have been well in advance of expectations. Here is how the numbers add up and the questions they raise. Where the money comes from : The State has allocated an additional €34 billion to its investment plans over the five years from 2026 to 2030. This is a big increase, with the overall total coming to just over €102 billion. About €20 billion of the extra cash is due to come from what might be called cash reserves – the €14 billion from the Apple tax payment, €2.5 billion from the sale of AIB shares and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund established by the Government. This still leaves a gap to be paid for, however, and this will be met by running down budget surpluses in the years ahead. There is also a commitment to tighter control of day-to-day spending to leave more cash for investment, though an increase of 6.4 per cent is pencilled in again here next year. Tariffs: Why has Donald Trump threatened the EU again? Listen | 47:35 The State will run down a lot of its financial leeway. Already the Department of Finance is facing a smaller budget surplus year than forecast in springtime. The budget sums will come under further pressure if economic growth slows sharply. Where the money will be spent : The Government announced the overall spending allocations, but not the list of projects involved, though some of the big ones, including the Dublin MetroLink , are known. As ESRI professor Alan Barrett said on RTÉ radio, the normal approach in a National Development Plan (NDP) is to start with population and growth projections and then develop a list of projects that are based on this and outline how they relate to each other. Instead, departments are now to come up with their own priorities. The list should be published around budget time, we are told, but with the review well flagged for months, it seems a lot of last-minute haggling means it has not yet happened. As Taoiseach Micheál Martin said, previous NDPs might have been too long. But this one, right now, looks a bit flimsy. Surviving a downturn : Taoiseach Micheál Martin said at the press conference launching the strategy that the goal is to keep investing, even if the economy slows or hits difficulties. Slashing investment spending after the financial crash has had a big economic cost for the Republic. But with no details of the expected budget position next year – never mind in subsequent years – published in the summer economic statement, the other key document published on Tuesday, we have no feeling for how the Department of Finance sees all the numbers adding up. Budget surpluses will be smaller, it says, but we do not know by how much. We are not clear on the appetite to borrow to fund investment in the years ahead if the corporate tax take takes a heavy hit. In fairness, the Government will want to see the outcome of the EU-US tariff talks, which have big implications. If there is a bad outcome, we are told the €9.4 billion budget will be pulled back. That would be the acid test of where priorities lie. Delivering the projects : Senior Ministers spoke at length at the NDP launch about the barriers to delivery from planning and bureaucracy. This raises the obvious question of why they did not do much about them when they were in government last time around, including the multiphase approval processes for local authority housing, for example. A new Planning Act was passed, but only in the dying days of the last coalition. The fiscal council has noted that the State has consistently struggled to meet investment spending targets in recent years. And, as the document states, finding construction workers is a challenge. Now Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers is examining recommendations from an expert group on the delivery issue, and some important moves are on the table. Succeeding here is central to its plans and rebuilding credibility on project delivery.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the State's new investment plans: the work is only starting
The Government's plan to invest more to address the infrastructure deficits in the Irish economy is a move in the right direction. Shortfalls in housing, water, energy and transport are not only crippling competitiveness but affecting people's daily lives. The Government is correct to push ahead with its planning, despite the international uncertainty. A growing economy and a rising population have left recent administrations running to catch up. International investors have been increasingly outspoken about Ireland's infrastructural shortfalls. All of this needs to be addressed. And Taoiseach Micheál Martin is correct when he says that State investment spending must be protected no matter what. However, the plans published yesterday raise of number of important questions. The lack of any detail of the projects to be included in the plan is somewhat puzzling. Everyone knew in the final period of the last government and the opening months of this one that the review was due. So why has no list of projects been completed? Because of this, as Prof Alan Barrett of the Economic and Social Research Institute pointed out, we do not have any of the essential detail on how the projects all fit together. READ MORE There are, of course, a significant number of projects which we do know about and which will be funded by the money now being put aside. The focus on vital areas such as water, wastewater and energy is important. But with last-minute rows over housing in particular, it is unclear that the Government yet has a convincing plan in this key area. An updated housing plan, due in the autumn, needs to give a clear view . The Government is also – belatedly – looking seriously at the blockages and delays to project planning. This is welcome but long overdue. These issues have been hiding in plain sight in recent years, leading to extraordinary delays and additional costs in projects large and small. Too much time was lost here by the last government. This one needs to get serious on the issue of the delivery. This will be uncomfortable politically and it remains to be seen if the Government has the stomach for the necessary fights. The scale of the investment commitments being made are significant. And paying for it will use a lot of the leeway in the national finances and also the cash put aside from the Apple tax payment and the sale of AIB shares. This means a higher level of risk. To create the required leeway in the national finances – and ensure yet more cash is not pumped into the economy – the increased investment spending must be combined with much tighter control of day-to-day spending. This is the trade off. If this does not happen, then the scale of the financial risks facing the State will increase yet further. And they are already high enough.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
