I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "notes that:" and substitute the following: — Ireland's policy of military neutrality, our strong reputation of international diplomacy, and our tradition of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance abroad; — the importance of public, democratic consultation in shaping Ireland's future defence policy; — the importance of safeguards, protections and oversight in ensuring Irish military deployments are in line with our policy of military neutrality; and — the Government plans to remove the current Triple Lock mechanism and raise the number of troops that can be deployed without Dáil oversight to 50; acknowledges: — that the Triple Lock mechanism requires (i) Government approval, (ii) Dáil approval, and (iii) a United Nations (UN) mandate through the General Assembly or Security Council for the deployment of more than 12 Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas; — that the Triple Lock mechanism was introduced to protect our military neutrality during the adoption of the Nice and Lisbon Treaties; and — that the UN mandate has played a significant role in shaping Ireland's approach to international military engagement and cooperation; calls on the Government to: — recognise that the Triple Lock and neutrality are intrinsically linked; — uphold the policy of neutrality and the Triple Lock as set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960 and the solemn national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon Treaties; — abide by the principal of multilateralism and not allow the State to become part of any regional military alliance; — hold a national plebiscite, to take place before any legislation to amend the Triple Lock mechanism is brought before the Dáil, to allow the Irish people to express their view on whether a United Nations mandate should remain a requirement for Ireland to deploy peacekeeping troops overseas; — ensure that the plebiscite presents a balanced and informed choice, reflecting the role of the Triple Lock mechanism in Ireland's approach to international deployments to date, the considerations around its impact on peacekeeping operations in the future, and any scope for the removal of the Triple Lock mechanism to result in potential non-neutral military deployment; and — commit to respecting the outcome of the plebiscite and ensuring that any subsequent policy decisions reflect the will of the people while upholding Ireland's commitment to military neutrality, multilateralism, and international cooperation.". I thank Deputy Stanley, his colleagues and his team for bringing forward this motion. It is long overdue that we have an opportunity to speak about neutrality and the triple lock in the Chamber. I acknowledge the efforts of the many volunteers in the Irish Neutrality League and other organisations who work so hard on this issue. Uplift is doing amazing work to mobilise communities across Ireland. I am very proud to be a member of the parliamentary wing of the Irish Neutrality League. As Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned, when it was originally formed, the league included as members heroes of mine such as Countess Markievicz. It is an area in which we are working really well across the Opposition. We do not all hold the exact same position but it is approximately the same. We certainly oppose the defence (amendment) Bill being put forward by the Government. This is an area on which not just left-wing Opposition parties but the full range of Opposition Members are in unison. I appreciate the Minister of State's attendance in the Chamber and acknowledge her indication that the Minister for Defence will be here presently. However, at this stage, I expect the Minister will not arrive until 11.45 a.m., when she will make a closing statement. That means she will not have the benefit of hearing the unity of voices across the Opposition benches in defence of our neutrality and in opposition to the Government's attempt to dismantle it. That is why I tabled my amendment. It is not in any way intended to compete with the work of Deputy Stanley. Since I have been in Dáil Éireann, one of the most cynical practices I have witnessed is the Government's response to Private Members' motions. People outside the Chamber do not really understand what goes on. I find it offensive that the Government tables an amendment whereby it takes the entire text of a motion put forward by the Opposition in a spirit of genuine debate and replaces it with a self-praising, self-aggrandising and totally contradictory statement. That is what the Government does every time. Of course, it does so because it does not want to have to vote against what is proposed, which, in this case, is support for neutrality. The Government wants instead to vote for its own hollow position. I tabled this amendment because I want the Government TDs, including Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Independent Members, to say to us that they do not support neutrality because that is the position they hold. I will go into that in more detail. I will use my remaining time to talk about the narrative the Government is putting forth in this area, which is comprised of myths. I propose to bust a few of those myths with the aim of countering some of what I am hearing from that side of the House. The word I want to use is one my late dad was really fond of and that is "bolloxology". I hope the Chair will pardon my language. The rationale for the Government's stance does not make any sense. It is important to pick apart some of the myths it tries to hold. When we do so, we see they mean nothing. There is nothing in them. The first myth is that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock. The Fianna Fáil manifesto spoke about seeking sensible reform. The Fine Gael manifesto did not even mention reform of the triple lock. Since then, the Government has said it is putting forward a defence (amendment) Bill to enable a shift from having a mechanism that does not work towards an approach based on the principles of the UN Charter. Of course, there is no legal comparison between adhering to the principles of the UN Charter versus the actual legal mechanism of the triple lock. It is like going before a judge and acknowledging guilt of a crime but proposing to interpret the law as one sees fit. It is just meaningless. The principles of the UN Charter are important but they do not serve the purpose served by the triple lock. That is why it was baked into legislation. The claim that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock is the first myth we need to bust. In fact, it is trying to completely remove it, as is clear from its proposed Bill and the debates that have happened to date. The second myth is that the triple lock is not central to our neutrality. We have heard from multiple members of the Government on this point. I see that great quote from the Taoiseach has aged as well as a Trump tweet does in saying the triple lock is core to our neutrality. I will read some of the similar things he said from around that time. He said, "It appears Fine Gael is arguing Ireland is failing in its European responsibilities and is allowing Russia and China to have a vote over our peacekeeping activities." This is the very same argument the Taoiseach still holds. He said, "This is nothing more than an out of touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the fact of Ireland’s international standing." That captures what a lot of us are trying to get across. We punch above our weight in diplomacy, human rights and the values we hold around solidarity and social justice. That is where we are good. We cannot compete with the military might of other European and global powers. We never have been, and never will be, able to. The triple lock is what serves us in allowing ourselves to be militarily active, to have Óglaigh na hÉireann and to allow them to engage in peacekeeping. We have the longest-standing unbroken peacekeeping record of any country in the world. All of it has been done under the Blue Helmet and Blue Beret. That is what the Government is trying to take away. That is what it is saying is militarily neutral. The third myth I want to bust is that Europe is not on a path to militarisation. One of the Minister’s colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, went apoplectic a couple of weeks ago when I suggested that in another debate and said I was scaremongering, fearmongering and causing concern among people. I cannot understand how the Minister can stand here and say we are not on the path towards militarisation. We have appointed a European Defence Commissioner who talks about a European defence union, and not covertly but completely openly. We have completely diverted European funding towards military spending and away from social cohesion. We made changes to the multi-annual financial framework which means those countries that have an arms industry will benefit the most from the future of European Union finance. That means the bigger countries, the ones which do not need it as much, are now going to be getting, and benefitting from, European funding. This also means those businesses which are not contributing to the defence space are also going to find it harder. On the idea that Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, the Government cannot hold these positions. They are nonsense. We can all see it with our own eyes. To suggest the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock, it is not central to our neutrality anyway and Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, if we start to cut those pillars out from underneath the Minister's argument, we get to the final one which is that the Minister says the Government continues to support Irish neutrality. That is the guts of this statement and I suspect what we were going to hear from the Minister, Deputy McEntee. I cannot think of enough examples to say why that does not hold water anymore besides the Defence Act and what the Minister is putting forward as the abolition of the triple lock. We have seen the Government cosy up to NATO and the former Minister for Defence talk about the purchase of weapons above what many have talked about are the absolutely urgent issues of reforming and improving terms and conditions for our military personnel. The Government has absolutely trounced any neutrality in terms of our airspace and airports in allowing the use our airspace and Shannon Airport to transport arms and personnel for other military powers. The Government cannot hold that it stands for military neutrality when all it has done since it has been in government and during previous terms is chip away at that neutrality. What this Defence Act and the removal of the triple lock will do is put a final nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality. We on the Opposition benches will not let that happen. We are going to fight tooth and nail for this along with the Irish people. All of this brings me to one of the things that irks me most about this argument is the Minister talks about sovereignty and says our sovereignty is under threat because of the veto of the UN Security Council. I know the UN Security Council and the UN more broadly needs reform. I totally accept that; we all do. However, when the Minister talks about that sovereignty, it absolutely undermines the meaning of the word, which is under threat in Gaza and Ukraine, and which can be protected by the upholding of the international global order which is what the Government is trying to walk away from by removing the triple lock. Removing the triple lock is not just signing a piece of paper; it is saying to the UN and smaller nations across the globe that we are done with multilateralism and we are going retreat to our regional bloc and work with Europe because we are into the whole militarisation game it is pushing and we do not believe anymore that our benefit to the world is in the space of human rights, solidarity and social justice. For me, the question around sovereignty is another myth that we need to bust. Finally, the triple lock is emblematic of that sovereignty because it is what the Irish people said they wanted in the Nice and Lisbon treaties when they knew that this day would come when we would be pulled towards a European defence union. I ask the Minister to put it to the people, just as this motion sets out.

Sentiment score: 0.10