12. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he plans to remove the triple lock by the end of 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49151/25]
Sentiment score: 0.04
I will bluntly ask this question of the Tánaiste. Where does he want to send troops that he cannot currently send them under the triple lock? Does he agree with the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the call of the so-called coalition of the willing, where he is willing to send Irish troops on the ground, presumably without an agreed UN peacekeeping mission? Otherwise, that would meet the requirements of the triple lock. Where does the Tánaiste want to send troops that he cannot currently send them?
Sentiment score: 0.14
Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
There is, it comes from the Government-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Deputy asked a question and I am answering it.
Sentiment score: 0.00
In answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, there is a cynical campaign of misinformation. It is coming from the Government. It is suggesting that we are going to get rid of the triple lock but there is no need to worry because we are going to stay within the framework of the UN Charter. That is not honest, unless the Tánaiste does not understand the UN Charter. There are two circumstances under the charter whereby a country can legally, under international law, send troops abroad: the first is self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, and the second is where it is authorised by the UN Security Council. That is literally what Article 53 states. When the Tánaiste said we are going to get rid of the triple lock but do not worry because we will stay in the UN Charter, it does not make any sense. For example, in the context of Ukraine, the Tánaiste said we will send troops to Ukraine but only in the context of a peacekeeping agreement. Is that a UN-endorsed peacekeeping agreement? In that case it would meet the requirements of the triple lock. However, if it is not, in which case presumably it is not a peacekeeping agreement when one of the warring parties, Russia, the invader, is clearly still at war, then we are sending troops to participate in a conflict. Is this why the Tánaiste in his answer regarding the heads of the Bill referred to maintaining the principles of the UN Charter?
Sentiment score: -0.01
That is not accidental because he is talking about the vague, broad principles in Article 2 of the UN Charter in contrast to giving a commitment to stay within the articles of the UN Charter, which are exactly the same as the triple lock.
Sentiment score: 0.59
Why would we not? Because of vetos-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
They are not-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
We are getting somewhere here. The Tánaiste accepted that the point of getting rid of the triple lock is to be able to send troops outside of the framework of the UN Charter - not just outside the principles but outside the articles of the UN Charter, which govern international law in respect of where troops can be sent abroad. That is the reason to get rid of the triple lock. The Tánaiste may say that we are only ever going to send troops on missions that are called peacekeeping missions. Does he know what Putin called his invasion of Ukraine? He said it was a peacekeeping mission. When the US led the invasion of Iraq, it was for humanitarian and democratic reasons. When the US invaded Afghanistan, it was the same. These days, no country ever says it is doing something for its own imperialist interests. Countries always dress it up as peacekeeping. The top civil servant in the Tánaiste's Department admitted to me at a committee meeting that if it were not for the triple lock, Irish troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Tánaiste's political commitment that we will only send troops on peacekeeping missions is not worth anything under this Government. The Government will be gone at a certain point and we will have new governments. If we get rid of the triple lock, there will be no legal requirement that we will be within the framework of international law.
Sentiment score: 0.22