This goes back again to the triple lock, this time on the international implications. I ask the Minister whether the new Bill would have allowed Ireland to participate in Trump's illegal war on Iran. We heard from a top civil servant, despite seeming objections from the Minister and her junior Minister at the committee, that if the triple lock was not there, Ireland could have participated in the invasion of Iraq. If the triple lock is gone, and if the Minister gets through with her Bill, will there be anything stopping her making Ireland join Trump's war in Iran?
Sentiment score: -0.28
Waging a war?
Sentiment score: -0.60
There is something called international law. I will quote to the Minister what the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, said: "Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorisation is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear: it is wrong and it is illegal." Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy? All the triple lock does is ensure that we can only send troops where there is a UN mandate or authorisation. That is all it does. The Minister getting rid of the triple lock is about enabling her to send troops outside of the framework of international law. That is 100% what it is about. What is interesting is that the Minister speaks about how the new Bill is going to talk about the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Sentiment score: 0.07
Will it say that we will only send troops abroad in accordance with the articles of the UN Charter? The articles of the UN Charter are very clear. The Minister can send troops abroad in self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, or she can do it with a UN-authorised mission, which is precisely what the triple lock states. The triple lock enshrines in Irish law international law. It states that we can only send troops in accordance with international law. The only reason to get rid of it is if the Minister wants to send troops outside of the framework of international law.
Sentiment score: 0.07
I think the Minister is deliberately being a bit disingenuous by saying that, okay, this is agreed by legislation. She does not recognise the European referendums that enshrined this. We have the Seville declaration. It is part of international law. The Minister does not recognise that the people voted on this. That is forgetting about the recent presidential election where neutrality dominated the campaign. That is forgetting about all the opinion polls that show that people support neutrality and support the triple lock. The Minister might enlighten us then about the circumstances where she thinks it is legal to deploy soldiers abroad that do not have UN authorisation nonetheless are in the framework of international law? What is it that she is talking about? I cannot understand because the UN Charter is very clear. It is very clear about the circumstances where you can deploy troops abroad. You can do it in self defence or you can do it when there has been a resolution by the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. It is clear. That is precisely what the triple lock says. What I think the Minister wants to do is say that we adhere to international law but we do what we want and then we just say that it is in line with international law. When the US engages in its imperialist adventures around the world, it always says it is in line with international law. I think Putin claims that his invasion of Ukraine is in line with international law but there is a big difference.
Sentiment score: 0.24
I do not think they should be in the Mediterranean.
Sentiment score: 0.00