Connect with us

Europe

Protests erupt in Ireland over plan to end military neutrality

Published

on

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.

Europe

Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget

Published

on

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.

Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.

The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.

“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.

Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.

“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.

Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:

“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”

The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.

Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.

The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.

Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.

The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.

Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.

The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.

Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.

Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”

He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.

A German government official said:

“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”

Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.

The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.

The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.

Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.

A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture

Published

on

The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.

Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.

Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.

“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.

The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.

Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.

The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.

“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.

Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.

However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.

A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:

“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”

The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.

“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.

On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.

“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.

The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.

“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.

The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:

“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”

Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.

With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.

“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.

While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.

The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.

There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.

“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.

In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.

“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.

Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.

However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:

“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid

Published

on

Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.

According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.

In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”

The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.

Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.

Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.

In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.

Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.

In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.

Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”

The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.

Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.

Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.

According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.

A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:

“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey