Paul Murphy: Says Speaking Time Cuts Aim to Silence Opposition

Thanks a lot. Some of the most cynical arguments that we have heard in relation to the speaking time row over the past 24 hours has been the suggestion that the opposition is wasting time on this kind of unimportant thing when there's very, very important issues happening, like the housing crisis or Trump or whatever. You have commentators who have cheered on every step of the way while the government, Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael, have made developers and landlords rich and worsened the housing crisis, who now profess to care in relation to the housing crisis and we should be debating it. But the speaking time row is precisely about our ability as an opposition to hold the government to account. It is precisely about us having time to ask questions about the housing crisis, about appropriate education places for children with additional needs and about neutrality. Because what we have is a Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael, Lowry government that is determined to ram through a whole series of unpopular measures. That is fundamentally why they are undermining the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account. You want to get rid of neutrality. You know yourself, you know your own party leader said it, the triple lock is at the very core of our neutrality. You know that is going to be deeply unpopular and therefore you are halving the time of Taoiseach's questions, you're cutting time in private members' time, you're cutting time for order of business to stop the voice of opposition being heard in here so you can ram it through. I make a point that Micheál Martin said yesterday, repeatedly, not a single minute of speaking time has been taken off the opposition. Today, our group gets 13 minutes and 20 seconds in this debate. Next week, if you get away with it, we'll get 10 minutes. The same goes for all the other opposition parties. Our time is being cut to facilitate the Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael and the Lowry group. A fundamental point I'll make is that the triple lock is the expression of what is outlined in the Constitution. That Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states. That means that under Irish and international law, the only two situations where it's legal to use military force is in self-defence or under a UN mandate. And it's a joke that the government wants to get rid of the triple lock but still say, don't worry, we're going to operate within the UN Charter. The UN Charter is what is outlined precisely in the triple lock. For at least 65 years, from the Defence Amendment Act 1960, it said, clearly, an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly is what an international United Nations force needed. And that's a core meaning of Irish neutrality rooted in the colonial past and present of this island. And let's remember that the triple lock was endorsed by the people in a referendum. When we voted no to the Nice Treaty in 2001 because of worries about the drive of militarisation, the reaction of Fianna Fáil PD government, including Micheál Martin at the time, was to add an official declaration to it to include the triple lock. That was the solemn promise given to the people of this country, made by Micheál Martin. It promised us that Irish troops would not be sent overseas without the authorisation of the Security Council or the General Assembly. That's the reason the Nice Treaty passed the second time around. But you propose to get rid of it without going back to the people and allowing the people to decide.