There is no clear rationale for the sudden suggestion that we should now remove the statutory requirement for UN approval for Irish participation in peacekeeping missions. Indeed, it is unclear why this suggestion is being made now—it is not based on any recommendation from the recent Consultative Forum, nor was any particularly compelling reason provided by anyone in government.

In seeking to justify his announcement in the Dáil in response to my question to him there on Thursday, the Tánaiste merely said that he does not want to see Irish participation overseas dependent on the decision of the UN Security Council, because this means that Russia, as one of the five permanent members, has effectively got a veto on where Irish troops serve.

But this purported justification is fundamentally misconceived. First, the legislation underpinning the UN approval requirement specifies that authorisation can be provided either by the Security Council, or by the General Assembly—where there is no Russian veto. 

Second, while it is an imperfect institution, in reality the UN represents the only legitimate international agency capable of authorising multilateral peacekeeping missions in which we might ever wish to see Irish troops serving.

The UN was founded as a global peacemaking and peacekeeping body, emerging out of the carnage of World War II. We may wish to see its processes reformed, and I am no fan of the Russian regime nor indeed the concept of a Security Council veto; but nobody, including the Tánaiste himself, has offered any practical or realistic alternative.

Indeed, as we watch with increasing distress the development of the horrific conflict in the Middle East and the awful rising civilian death toll in Gaza, we might reflect on the vital importance of the UN, and the immense bravery of UN aid-workers under fire. 

In truth, the UN and its agencies have played a uniquely brave and heroic role in seeking an end to the conflict and the restoration of vital aid supplies to the Palestinian people trapped in an increasingly hellish situation.

So this is patently not the time to start unravelling the well-established Triple Lock procedure, or to set out on any pathway that might undermine our strong adherence to the principle of military neutrality. 

We have always recognised that military neutrality does not mean political neutrality; we have stood firm as a nation with the people of Ukraine since the brutal Russian invasion of their country, and we stand solidly with the people of Gaza now, while condemning the grotesque massacre of civilians in Israel by Hamas on  October 7.

We can continue to express solidarity with oppressed peoples in conflict zones around the world; we can continue to send our troops abroad on peacekeeping missions; and we can continue to assert a voice of moral authority internationally, all while maintaining the Triple Lock.

Thus, we in Labour believe that there should be no change to the current Triple Lock protections. Starting to undermine these would represent a dangerous path that has the potential to undermine our longstanding position of military neutrality. 

We would instead like to see the principle of military neutrality enshrined in our Constitution, and we have previously put forward the wording for such an amendment.

In addition, we are calling on the Tánaiste and the Government to act now to address the recruitment and retention crisis in the Defence Forces. We need to secure decent pay and conditions for members, and to deliver effective infrastructure to make us less reliant on other countries. 

The real defence and security crisis lies in the failure by this government to support Irish peacekeepers and Defence Forces personnel sufficiently. Removal of the Triple Lock is a red herring.

• Ivana Bacik is Labour Party Leader and a TD for Dublin Bay South constituency