I thank Deputy Stanley for this excellent and important motion. I will start with a quote from the Fianna Fáil Minister of State, Deputy Troy: 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 of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, on that? I will repeat the quote, if the Minister of State wants: 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 of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, agree with that? Is that the Government position? I will try again.

Sentiment score: -0.03

This is from 5 March. Is this the Government's position or not? 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. He was summing up a debate on the Middle East on 5 March. There is a problem with the Government, if that is its position. What does the triple lock do? It means that we cannot send troops except where there is a UN mandate or authorisation. That is precisely what the triple lock does. The Minister of State, Deputy Troy, was correct in what he said. The deployment of forces outside the framework of a UN mandate or authorisation is against international law. That is the truth. The reason the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, does not want to answer whether that is the Government's position is revealing. The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock because it wants to send troops abroad outside the framework of international law. There is all this talk of vetoing this, that and the other. The triple lock means we can only send troops within the framework of international law. That is all it does. The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock because it wants to send troops outside the framework of international law. That is the reality. Another Fianna Fáiler said that for decades, Fianna Fáil was clear that the triple lock, which makes military deployments contingent on a UN mandate plus Dáil and Cabinet decisions, was critical to our neutrality. He said that was the unambiguous position under every party leader since Seán Lemass. He said that suddenly, and without discussion, the triple lock was anathema. Those were the words of former defence Minister, Deputy Willie O'Dea. Why is this happening now? Why is the Government trying to get rid of the triple lock while pretending to the rest of us that this has nothing to do with reality? It is not telling the truth to people. It is redefining neutrality, as has happened again in the Minister's speech today, as simply being that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. In other words, the Government says that we could have sent troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq, which would have been possible if not for the triple lock, but can still say Ireland is neutral as long as it does not join NATO. It can join the joint expeditionary force, send weapons to Ukraine, train Ukrainian soldiers, participate in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which meets at NATO headquarters, and buy billions of euro of weapons from French arms manufacturers. It can do all that, while saying it is neutral because neutrality has been redefined by the Government to simply mean not signing on the dotted line to become a member of NATO. Why is this happening now? The Government's answer is to point to Ukraine and Russia, and more vaguely to other conflicts internationally, and to say that the triple lock, for which one should read "the UN system as a whole", because the triple lock means UN approval by either the General Assembly or the Security Council, is no longer fit for purpose. We look around the world and know where that attitude leads. Look at Gaza and Lebanon. Look at attacks on UN peacekeeping troops by Israel, including our own troops. There has been mass murder of UN and humanitarian workers on a scale unprecedented in history and genocide carried out openly and unpunished before the eyes of the entire world. The reason the Government and large sections of the media want to get rid of Irish neutrality is not because people here are more unsafe. We are a small, geographically isolated country that would never conceivably be able to defend itself militarily. It has no colonial past or history of military aggression. Neutrality is our best defence. That argument makes no sense. What this is about is that the ruling classes have been fattened up by decades of US foreign direct investment and corporate tax haven bonanzas, and now think of themselves not as a part of a post-colonial periphery but instead want to be a part of the western imperialist core. They want to get in on the act of the intervening in weaker countries and profiting from the military industrial complex. They want to be big boys in the big boys' club in the European Union and NATO, not down in the General Assembly with other post-colonial countries. That is why we have the development of a military industrial complex in this country. It is why the Minister of State repeatedly used the phrase "a referendum is neither necessary nor appropriate". Why is it not necessary or appropriate? Of course it is not necessary for the Government. It just wants to get rid of the triple lock. Why is not appropriate? The people do not believe the Government. They do not agree with the Government and it knows that. The Government should allow the people to decide. If it is so confident on this issue, it should allow the people to have a plebiscite on its proposal to get rid of the triple lock.

Sentiment score: -0.02