4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if the triple lock will be retained in view of the support for it demonstrated by the outcome of the presidential election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60858/25]

Sentiment score: 0.17

The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock in order that it can send Irish troops abroad on EU or NATO-led missions. The Government will not tell us where it wants to send these troops. I oppose that. I defend our neutrality. I believe the majority of people do. However, I want to focus, at least initially, less on the substance of that but on the democratic question. The Government has refused, despite calls from many in the Opposition, to hold a plebiscite to allow the people to decide, so the closest thing we have to a view of the people is the presidential election. Neutrality was arguably the number one issue in the election, and there was a clear difference between the Government's candidate and the candidate I supported. Both said they supported neutrality, but the difference was that Heather Humphreys said it in the way the Tánaiste says it, which is to empty the word of any meaning. One candidate, Catherine Connolly, defended the triple lock; the other candidate opposed it. The candidate who defended the triple lock got 63% of the vote. That is an expression of people's will. The Government really has no mandate to proceed with this, particularly in the context of the promise to keep the triple lock being crucial in persuading people to change their minds in terms of the second Nice treaty referendum. People have voted for this effectively twice and the Government wants to get rid of it without allowing them a third vote.

Sentiment score: 0.09

Not to get rid of the triple lock.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Tánaiste speaks about his electoral mandate, and there is no question about that. The basis of his party's mandate is its election manifesto, which referred to "preserving our long-standing policy of active military neutrality" and maintaining military neutrality. There was no mention of redefining that or getting rid of the triple lock. Therefore, the Tánaiste does not have a mandate for what he is trying to do. There was the vaguest hint and glance to making such a change in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, but it did not refer to repealing the triple lock. The Tánaiste's party made no such commitment. This is precisely the point. We are not claiming that the presidential election was a referendum on neutrality, pure and simple, but we want a referendum on neutrality. We want a referendum on the triple lock. We want the people to be able to decide. Why is the Tánaiste so scared of allowing the people to have their view and their say on this? I would like to ask the Tánaiste about one point of substance. He repeatedly speaks about "the principles of the UN Charter", which are also mentioned in the heads of the proposed legislation. That is deliberate, is it not? The Tánaiste will not speak about a commitment to abide by the UN Charter or the articles of the UN Charter. Instead, he refers purely to the vague and broad "principles" of Article 2, which do not bind the Government to stick to international law.

Sentiment score: -0.01

The triple lock.

Sentiment score: 0.00