Professor Andrew Cottey:

I will address each of the three points.

On the neutrality question, international law is a tricky thing. As members will know from domestic matters, depending on which lawyer is consulted, a variety of opinions can be obtained on any given legal issue. That is the case also with issues relating to international law. The key thing differentiating neutrality from not being neutral is membership of a military alliance, and that specifically involves a security or mutual defence guarantee. Article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty is such a guarantee but there has been recognition in the Lisbon protocols that it does not effectively apply to Ireland, so Ireland would not be bound to provide military assistance to other EU member states.

On the reference to a "common defence", in the linguistic theology of all this stuff "common defence" usually refers to deep supranational integration of armed forces in the EU. My broad logic, in line with arguments successive Irish governments have made over the past decade and more, is to the effect that Irish neutrality is protected by the existing arrangements.

On the hypothetical question of NATO membership, whatever about the legal side, it seems politically inconceivable that, if any Irish Government were to propose NATO membership, the issue would not have to go to a referendum. Whether it would also require constitutional change could be debated.

On putting a stronger or clearer definition of "neutrality" into the Constitution, I refer to my earlier point on the lack of clear or agreed meaning of "neutrality". If one tried to come up with a definition of "neutrality" to put in the Constitution, one would rapidly conclude it is not possible. I am not persuaded by the argument that a definitive definition could be written into the Constitution.

On the triple lock, I would take a broader political perspective. I am a big supporter of the UN. It is strongly preferable, if Ireland is to deploy forces overseas on peacekeeping or other missions, to have UN endorsement. However, I do not think the UN should be placed on a pedestal or considered a perfect institution. The Security Council is made up, above all, of the five permanent members and the veto. The General Assembly has often been a byword for ineffectiveness because any General Assembly resolution needs to be approved by a majority of two thirds of member states. The third element, UN approval for deployment of forces overseas, should be removed. I would be in favour of amending that element of the triple lock. People refer to Russia’s veto, which is problematic. I would also point to a Chinese veto, as well as an American or French veto. As a British citizen, I feel a little strange commenting on this but it seems strange that, 100 years after independence, Ireland would want to put itself in a position where, in some sense, the United Kingdom might have a veto on the overseas deployment of the Irish Defence Forces.

I am not hugely expert on cybersecurity but we can think in terms of two levels. The EU has a range of policies and institutions to provide cyber defences to EU institutions and elements of co-operation among member states but, in practice, cyber defences are still primarily a national matter. That is worth bearing in mind. Members will be well aware of debate on the adequacy or otherwise of Ireland’s national plans for cyber defence. Ireland needs to up its game, notwithstanding the measures taken in the last few years.

Subject to correction, I think Ireland is still not a member of the cybersecurity centre of excellence based in Tallinn, Estonia, which is a joint EU-NATO initiative. The Government should look to that because it would be one way of helping to build national cyber expertise and strengthen national cyber defence capabilities.