At the outset, I want to join many colleagues in acknowledging the exceptional service of the men and women of the Defence Forces currently deployed overseas. As we know, their work in peacekeeping missions often takes place in challenging and dangerous environments, as demonstrated most particularly in south Lebanon, and continues to reflect our enduring commitment to international peace and security. I am deeply conscious, not least because I met many of those members and their families in recent weeks, of the sacrifice they and their families make in serving their country and advancing the cause of peace. I fully recognise the strong public interest in and deep attachment to Ireland's neutrality, as well as the strength of feeling it continues to generate. I also acknowledge that there are genuine concerns and, in some cases, misunderstandings regarding the impact the proposed amendments to the Defence Acts, including changes to the provision commonly referred to as the triple lock, may have on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Just a few seconds ago, we heard from a Deputy who said Ireland should not be dictated to by other countries while at the same time saying that we do not need to amend the triple lock, the very thing that allows other countries like the US, China and Russia to dictate exactly what we do. Let me be absolutely clear. Ireland's long-standing policy in regard to our neutrality remains unchanged. We do not participate in military alliances or mutual defence arrangements and I am being very clear when I say there are no plans by the Government to alter the position. That commitment has been made repeatedly on the floor of the House and I again explicitly reaffirm it today. I want to again address a fundamental misconception at the heart of the motion before the House. The triple lock is not a defining feature of our neutrality. It is not set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann and it is not a constitutional requirement. Rather, it is a legislative mechanism grounded in the Defence Act. It governs the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas, primarily in the context of UN-mandated missions. The triple lock evolved from political commitments during the Nice and Lisbon treaties process and we all accept that. I disagree with the idea that we would not have a discussion many years later in a space where we have elected representatives who represent all of our constituencies and are living in a changed global environment. It is not a constitutional principle. This is an opportunity for all of us, as elected representatives, to discuss the situation we find ourselves in. It is quite simple. We cannot operate in certain missions or certain missions that are due to end because of our triple lock. Amending the legislation underpinning this does not require a referendum. I am fully of the view that such a proposal would be neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of what we are discussing. The Government is committed to progressing the defence (amendment) Bill, the general scheme of which was approved on 4 March. This legislation will consolidate and update existing provisions relating to overseas deployments and will modernise the framework in which such decisions are made. It will be reflective of the current global security environment, an environment in which no new peacekeeping mission has been proposed since 2014. Due to the veto of other countries, since 2014 we and UN peacekeeping missions have been blocked from progressing. The core objective of the legislative reforms proposed is to strengthen our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and to allow us to make our own decisions in terms of deploying our own troops. Crucially, it will ensure that decisions regarding the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas to peacekeeping missions are determined solely by the Government and Dáil Éireann, the sovereign representatives of the Irish people, rather than being subject to the veto of the permanent members of the UN, countries like the US, China and Russia, countries that are actually involved in conflicts-----

Sentiment score: 0.27

-----we are trying to keep peacekeeping troops on the ground for. The practical reality is that the veto power exercised or indeed threatened by permanent members of the Security Council can and does prevent action, including in circumstances where there is broad international support. For Ireland, this can create and in fact does create real and immediate consequences. In the absence of a UN mandate, deployments cannot proceed. They must cease, regardless of our position or of the will of this House. Deputy Heneghan asked why we are doing this now. I will give examples. We know very clearly that the troops I met in Limerick a few weeks ago will be the last operational mandate or battalion sent out to southern Lebanon for a peacekeeping mission that has been in situ for decades. We have a very proud tradition of sending thousands of members overseas over those years to protect people and keep them safe. The dynamic has changed and it is a very difficult situation now for civilians and our troops with that mission ending by next year. We will have no mandate to be able to support the people on the ground. We heard Deputy Callaghan speak and, like her, every peacekeeping troop or member of the Defence Forces I have met wants to continue that operation on the ground. That will not be possible. I will mention as another example Operation IRINI, which is an EU-led mission in the Mediterranean. We have our own troops on that mission. That is coming to an end on Sunday. It is not being renewed. We will not be able to keep our troops there as part of any new mission that is being progressed. This is what we are trying to do. We have members of the Defence Forces who train, are highly skilled and are highly experienced. As missions are not being renewed because the UN Security Council is not operating in the way it should - we all know that - we are having to take back our troops and we are not able to continue the fantastic work we are so proud they have been doing for so many years. The legislative changes I am proposing will address this issue directly. It will remove the requirement for the UN mandate as part of the decision-making framework while retaining robust safeguards. People want to know that there will be robust safeguards; that there will be Government approval and Dáil approval, where appropriate; and that this will continue to be required. All deployments will remain fully consistent with international law and with the principles of the UN Charter. Under these reforms we can continue to participate in missions such as Operation IRINI, which I have just mentioned. It is coming to an end and we will no longer be able to be part of it. On the question of any further potential missions in south Lebanon - I know our troops want to continue their work there - if the EU or any other regional organisation proposes such a mission, the House can decide to be part of that. I think that is a role the House should take on. I emphasise that even though the reforms to the triple lock legislation are often portrayed as altering our neutrality, they will not change our neutrality. I will repeat what Deputy Callaghan said: we were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. Amending it does not change the fact that we are a neutral country. The reforms do not signal any move towards participation in military alliances, nor would they do anything to expeditionary operations or diminish our commitment to the UN or to multilateralism. On the contrary, we will continue to regard the principles of the UN Charter as the foundation of our international engagement and we will actively support efforts to strengthen and reform the multilateral system. I have briefed and engaged directly with Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, on our intended approach. Our position and our ongoing commitment to the UN are well understood within the UN system, just as our peacekeepers are highly valued and appreciated. The UN does not see this as Ireland pulling away from the UN. This does not come across, nor does the UN believe that this is Ireland pulling away. The UN understands the need for us to be able to deploy our troops and to support the many missions they feel they cannot support because of the veto. Ireland's reputation as a peace-builder and as a contributor to conflict resolution, peacekeeping, human rights and disarmament is well established and will continue to guide our approach. We have all touched on the security environment. We can see that it is different from previous decades. We are witnessing increased geopolitical tensions, a weakening of established multilateral mechanisms in certain instances and the emergence of new and complex threats that do not respect national borders. Against that backdrop, it is both prudent and necessary that we ensure our legislative and policy frameworks remain fit for purpose. This includes ensuring the State has the capacity to respond in a timely and effective manner to emerging crises, whether they arise from conflict situations, humanitarian emergencies or risks to Irish citizens abroad. The ability to act when required and in line with our values is an essential component of a credible and responsible foreign and defence policy. Our participation in overseas missions, whether it is under the auspices of the United Nations, the European Union or other regional arrangements, has always been grounded in clear legal authority and a principled commitment to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Nothing in the legislative proposals alters that fundamental position. Rather, what is being proposed is a pragmatic adjustment to ensure Ireland is not unduly constrained in circumstances where international consensus may be blocked for reasons completely unrelated to the merits of a particular mission. They may be completely unrelated, and we have seen that happen. In such situations it is reasonable that we retain our sovereign capacity to determine our own course of action, subject to the appropriate democratic oversight. Our international reputation, as we all agree, has been built over many decades and it is one of consistency, independence and willingness to contribute constructively in support of peace and stability. Our Defence Forces personnel are widely respected for their professionalism, their integrity and their dedication in challenging environments. Ensuring we can continue to deploy such personnel, where justified and where appropriate, is in keeping with that proud tradition. By next year, there will be hundreds of troops who will not be able to participate in a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon in a way we have done for decades. This is because of the triple lock. What we are proposing here is to make sure we can continue to deploy our troops. I will touch on one other point.

Sentiment score: 0.27

Some commentary has been made on our investment in defence and in security. Being a neutral country does not mean that we should not invest in our capabilities to defend ourselves or that we should not be able to engage with other countries so that we are working collectively together. That does not in any way impact on our military neutrality.

Sentiment score: 0.25