Ireland is witnessing major demonstrations against the effective abolition of the country’s long-standing neutrality, driven by a plan for militarization within the EU framework.

On Saturday, approximately one thousand people took to the streets of Dublin to protest the government’s plan to dismantle the “Triple Lock” system. The Triple Lock is a constitutional mechanism requiring that any mission involving twelve or more Irish soldiers must be approved by a UN Security Council or UN General Assembly resolution. This provision is intended to help preserve the country’s historic neutrality, which is deeply rooted in its history under British colonial rule.

Anthony Coughlan, an emeritus professor at Trinity College Dublin and spokesperson for the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, told German Foreign Policy that refusing to participate in foreign wars, especially alongside the United Kingdom, is “a fundamental element of the national sentiment of the Irish people.” The government’s attempt to break with the tradition of neutrality by abolishing the Triple Lock is seen partly as a consequence of Irish leaders’ integration into EU institutions.

The de facto breach of neutrality: UN charter requirement removed

The Irish government is preparing to abolish the Triple Lock system to allow for greater flexibility in the future deployment of Irish soldiers. To this end, it has introduced a draft bill called the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025. The bill’s core provision is that the deployment of Irish soldiers abroad can be done without the approval of the UN Security Council.

As a concession, the bill states that deployments must simply be conducted in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The aim here is to open up a broad and flexible range of military actions by facilitating missions for peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and “strengthening international security.”

Future missions involving more than fifty Irish soldiers will still normally require not only a government decision but also a parliamentary resolution in the Dáil. However, this latter requirement can be waived if the mission is extended, as the government has discretionary power in this matter. Furthermore, missions involving fewer than fifty Irish soldiers will no longer be subject to parliamentary approval. Indeed, sending troops will not be limited to the UN; it will also be possible within the framework of the OSCE, the EU, and any other regional organizations, provided it is deemed consistent with the UN Charter and international law. NATO also claims to be a compatible organization in this regard.

Growing backlash against the erosion of neutrality

Opposition to the abolition of Ireland’s Triple Lock system is steadily growing. Last Saturday, around one thousand people demonstrated in Dublin against the removal of legal restrictions on military interventions and for the preservation of Irish neutrality. The protest was organized by a broad alliance of opposition parties, including Sinn Féin, and non-parliamentary organizations campaigning together under the slogan “United for Neutrality.”

Speakers included Alice-Mary Higgins, an independent senator in the Irish Senate (Seanad Éireann), and Mary Lou McDonald, the president of Sinn Féin. In May, opposition politicians declared they would “fight to the end” to protect the country’s constitutional neutrality and the Triple Lock. Protesters on the streets chanted slogans such as, “Protect our neutrality!” and “Save our Triple Lock!”

Irish neutrality: A rejection of British colonialism

According to the Irish Neutrality League, Ireland’s neutrality means that the Irish state “adopts the principle of impartiality by refraining from providing support or assistance to any of the parties in a military conflict, thereby reducing the likelihood of prolonging or escalating the war.”

Historically, Ireland’s neutrality is rooted in its experience under British colonial rule. The Irish Neutrality League argues that as a “post-colonial nation,” Ireland suffered under “imperialist conquest and occupation” and has no moral inclination to do the same to other countries. Coughlan asserts that opposition to wars in distant lands and membership in military alliances is “a fundamental element of the national sentiment of the Irish people,” adding, “There is very little desire to join wars shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain.”

Polls show a high level of support for neutrality. Most recently, a survey conducted by The Irish Times in April 2025 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents favored neutrality.

Ireland’s contradiction as an EU member

There is a direct contradiction between Ireland’s neutrality as an EU member state and the EU’s own stance. This conflict has existed since the EU signed the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). A common military policy was established with the Treaty of Nice, signed in 2001 and effective from January 1, 2003.

This contradiction is seen as the main reason the Irish people initially rejected the treaty in a referendum. The public approved the treaty in a second referendum only after the government accepted the “Triple Lock” safeguard. According to this arrangement, the deployment of more than twelve Irish soldiers abroad is not possible without, firstly, government approval; secondly, the consent of the Irish parliament; and thirdly, a supporting resolution from the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly.

The problem of public resistance to EU militarization was repeated with the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in 2007, which only came into force on December 1, 2009. This treaty provided for the transformation of the ESDP into the more comprehensive Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). It was also initially rejected in a referendum but was approved in a second Irish referendum after the government reaffirmed the role of the Triple Lock.

Stealth militarization: The state disregards the public

The Irish government has, in practice, undermined the country’s constitutional neutrality on numerous occasions. For example, Dublin has allowed US military transport planes to stop over at Shannon Airport on their way to war zones in the Middle East.

As Coughlan points out, Ireland also plays an active role in the EU’s foreign and military policy. On October 1, 2024, Micheál Martin, who was then Deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste) and Minister for Defence before becoming Prime Minister (Taoiseach), officially acknowledged that Dublin was considering joining the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), an air defense system initiated by Germany but covering all of Europe.

Prior to this, in February 2024, the Irish government signed the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) with NATO, which allows for greater information exchange, including intelligence. A member of the Irish government confirmed at the time that Ireland had access to NATO’s cyber defense systems, for example. Ireland is a “contributing participant” in the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCDCOE) located in Tallinn, Estonia. Dublin also argues that NATO cooperation helps protect Ireland’s own underwater infrastructure.

France has banned four Israeli arms manufacturers from the Paris Air Show, escalating diplomatic tensions over the Gaza conflict and leading to accusations of discrimination.

This decision marks the latest sign of escalating tensions between the two countries over Israel’s occupation and blockade of Gaza.

The booths of Elbit Systems, Rafael, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and Uvision were blocked off with black barriers on Monday after they refused to comply with the French government’s directive not to display offensive weapons.

In a statement, the Israeli Ministry of Defense declared, “This outrageous and unprecedented decision is the product of political and commercial concerns,” accusing France of trying to remove “weapons that are competitors to French industry” from the show.

“This decision was made at a time when Israel is fighting a necessary and just war to eliminate the nuclear and ballistic threat that endangers the Middle East, Europe, and the entire world,” the statement continued.

Diplomatic relations between Israel and France have deteriorated in recent months as French President Emmanuel Macron has intensified his criticism of the ongoing war in Gaza.

Macron is also spearheading an international initiative for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a move that Israel’s right-wing government is determined to block. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned this initiative.

On the other hand, Macron has supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran’s nuclear threat, endorsing its actions against Iran.

According to French officials, the French government repeatedly communicated the ground rules to Israel over the past few weeks. Four of the nine Israeli companies participating in the Paris Air Show complied with the order not to display offensive weapons, and their booths remained open. The Israeli Ministry of Defense’s booths were also open on Monday.

A French official stated that the Israeli companies, which design and manufacture everything from unmanned aerial vehicles and air defense systems to missiles and aircraft, would be allowed to reopen their exhibits if they made the required changes.

IAI’s CEO, Boaz Levy, said the company tried to negotiate with the organizers but found its booth “closed off by black walls built overnight” on Monday morning.

“This kind of behavior is unacceptable and discriminates against us as Israelis and Jews, as all other participants in this air show were not subjected to these restrictions,” Levy added.

This is not the first time France and Israel have clashed over aviation and defense exhibitions since the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023. After the French government decided that Israeli companies should not exhibit offensive weapons, dozens of Israeli firms were excluded from the Eurosatory exhibition in June 2024 and the Euronaval exhibition in November 2024.

The air show’s organizers announced that discussions are ongoing with various parties to “find a suitable solution to the situation.”

SIAE, a subsidiary of the French Aerospace Industries Association which organizes the event, stated that it had complied with “the instruction of the relevant French authorities to remove certain equipment exhibited at the Israeli stands” before the event.

SIAE added that the companies in question “still received permission to exhibit at the show.”

European natural gas prices have risen as traders prepare for the possibility of an escalating Israel-Iran conflict and the associated risks to global energy supply.

According to a report from Bloomberg, benchmark futures, which followed a volatile course in the previous session, increased by as much as 1.8%. US President Donald Trump demanded the evacuation of Tehran and later said that his early departure from the G7 summit in Canada had “nothing to do” with ceasefire efforts between Israel and Iran.

Although Europe appears to be in a good position regarding supply for now, its heavy dependence on the global flow of liquefied natural gas (LNG) makes prices susceptible to sharp movements if geopolitical developments pose a risk to international energy trade. The continent will need more fuel in the coming months to replenish its natural gas storage, which fell to a three-year low this winter.

The most significant threat comes from the possibility that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz if the war escalates, thereby blocking shipments from Qatar, the largest LNG exporter. As the strait is also a vital route for oil shipments from the region, traders are closely monitoring tanker movements.

According to Goldman Sachs analysts Samantha Dart and Frederik Witzemann, the impact of the conflict on international gas markets has been limited so far. Modest imports by China have made more fuel available for other buyers, such as Egypt, which rushed to find alternative suppliers after Israel cut off its flows.

Additionally, traders are following the European Union’s plans to phase out its dependence on Russian pipeline gas and LNG supplies by the end of 2027. This supply currently accounts for about 13% of the region’s imports. On Tuesday, the European Commission will announce its detailed proposals regarding the ban on these flows.

The Dutch front-month futures, Europe’s benchmark natural gas price, rose by 0.6% to €38.12 per megawatt-hour at 8:52 AM in Amsterdam.