Brian Stanley: Challenges NATO alignment, triple lock and 12-person cap

So I've asked you some questions around the drones and around the United Nations and I did want, I did have a question or two just around NATO and our alignment. The, you know, we're not members of NATO and the government said we're not going to join it, but, you know, we are involved, realistically, we are involved in a number of NATO-led missions, is that correct? And, you know, we're very much aligned with them in some ways militarily and we supply resources, not directly to NATO, but maybe to countries where, you know, we're on the same side or the states on the same side as NATO. And is it a situation that, to me, it looks increasingly over the last 40 years that, in actual fact, the NATO chiefs are probably looking at us and saying, well, we don't really need us, we don't really need these Irish, this Irish state as members because they're so closely aligned with us. We're there, we're in the NATO box all but in name. Is that not the case, Minister? Just briefly. No, I don't think so. I'm just saying that was a matter of fact. No, I don't think so and, in fact, I met with the Deputy Secretary General of NATO recently at the Munich Security Conference and I think they are keen that we would do more with them, that we would participate more and that, obviously, again, in line with our position, that we do actually bring something very valuable to the table. But we are very closely aligned with them in terms of, you know, how we do our business and, you know, in actual fact that the leadership of NATO may actually accept that, you know, while we may be neutral in name that we're that closely aligned with them, that we don't really have to be a member of this. That's my point. Would you agree with that? I mean, the decision was taken and I think it would have to be a wider conversation as to whether or not we decided to change that relationship. We have a relationship through what's known as a partnership for peace. That's correct. And I think that works well, but I think within that relationship and that structure, there's more that we can do and I would be keen for us to do that. But I think we need to have those conversations and we need to have those discussions here as to what that looks like and how we could participate more within that structure. And could I just ask you, you know, I just want to welcome the, you know, the improvements to the Defence Forces, the fact that in terms of capability, but also the terms and conditions, you know, generally that's happening and, you know, some of that's been addressed. I don't want to go back over that, but just to welcome and support that as a neutral country, I think that we do need to be able to have a level of capacity to defend ourselves. Could I just ask you a very simple question? Currently, if Ireland had to, if the State had to involve itself in a rescue mission of Irish citizens abroad, something like what you had in Afghanistan or that, how many, very simple question, how many members can be deployed? What's the upper limit? 12. Yeah, currently 12. 12. So in always and ever in a rescue mission or humanitarian issue, we can only deploy 12. Okay. That's fine. Can I just deal with the triple lock for a second? That, in reply to a parliamentary question last week to me, you said that the triple lock is a statutory mechanism rather than a constitutional one. It's not enshrined in the Constitution. It originated as a political commitment during the Nice and Discipline Treaty, not as a constitutional requirement, and you might not say that it doesn't require a national plebiscite. Okay. And I want to disagree with the comments from Deputy, or from Senator Crockwell in relation to, we'll kick it around. I think that's the problem with things, we kick things around. But in actual fact, there was two solemn national, not government, not just government, but national declarations on behalf of the Irish people attached to both Nice and Lisbon. And you will recall at the time that both treaties were rejected by the Irish people and government, not just people outside of government, but government identified at the time that the central issue was, and was accepted, was the issue of neutrality, triple lock, etc. And whose guarantees, absolute, solemn declarations, solemn guarantees, stitched into a national declaration, as appendixes to those treaties, that the triple lock would be protected. And now we've reached a point where, you know, that it's not enshrined in the Constitution, except that, technically it's not, but it's not a constitutional or legal obligation. Do you not see that there may be difficulties in your minister? Deputy, what I'd say is I'm not proposing to change the triple lock by ministerial direction. This is a change that would have to take place with the support of both houses of the Oireachtas, and each of us represents people in our constituencies, and it's incumbent on all of us, I think, to engage with those whom we represent, to have these conversations, to highlight in particular the fact that... But my point is, minister, with respect. But the point is, though, the time that you spoke of, the commitment was given at a time where we didn't have members of the Security Council blocking these missions from going ahead. And the bill itself and the legislation is specific to how they're deployed. So the solemn commitment that was made that's in our constitution around our military neutrality hasn't changed and won't be changed and can't be changed without a referendum. And I'm not suggesting that we change it or have those conversations. But I do believe that people want us to be able to continue in deploying troops, and at the moment we can't. So we do have to have the conversation. I'm not suggesting we have these changes without engaging with people, without discussing it here in the Chamber or the Committee or elsewhere. But it is a change that I believe will only just allow us to continue doing what we're doing now. And I actually think people, for the most part, support that. You did say, and you've said there just a minute ago, that we'll be changed by both houses, where the government has a majority. And the houses, you know, we're all elected. And that's fair enough. That's how it will be done. But it's a national declaration that was made on behalf of the Irish people, not just government. When you read those two declarations, and I read them very carefully, and I'm not a constitutional liar, but the language in them is very clear. Along with the intentions, and along with what was the statements that were made by governments, the government of the day, and the senior people in government of the day, including Brian Cowan, you know, then Minister. And what I'm saying is, is that I don't think it's as simple as saying that, you know, that there is no, that there may not be no constitutional implications here. What I'm saying to you is, these were two treaties that were put to the Irish people, rejected by the people of this state. Both were rejected. Both required commitments regarding neutrality and the strip hall lock. In relation to that, there was solemn commitments, solemn commitments stitched in as national declarations to these, and recognised by the European Union at the time, and still recognised by them, to, met on behalf, met by the Irish people, and on behalf of the Irish people. And the point I'm making is, is that the answer to the parliamentary question, I don't think actually deals with this, and there may be an issue here. That's my point. So, I believe that we don't... Do you see a question here? No, but I suppose my view is that we all represent the people of this country, and we live in a democracy. And I think it is incumbent on us to look at legislation that was enacted decades ago, as we do in many different areas, and see, is it fit for purpose? So, the legislation at the moment is quite simply not fit for purpose. It simply does not allow us to deploy troops. But this goes beyond legislation. This goes beyond, this goes way beyond it, Minister. These are two national declarations. It doesn't change our neutrality, and this is where we have to dispel this disinformation. Our neutrality is embedded in our constitution, and is embedded in the Nice treaties. We're not proposing to change them. How we deploy our troops is a matter of legislative... ..is a matter for legislation. And I think the idea that we wouldn't look at changing, or look to even change it, when the world has changed so much, when threats have changed, when people, I believe, want us to look at these types of things. I can't speak for everybody, and I won't try to speak for everybody here, but I do believe there is an onus on us to make sure that our Defence Force members and our personnel can continue to do what they've done for decades, and at the moment, because of this legislation... That may be the case, but it was a democratic decision, democratic decisions taken by the Irish people, not once, but twice in that decade, and what I'm saying to you is... On the Constitution, not on the legislation, though. And it's on national declarations, solemn declarations on behalf of the people of the state, underwritten by government and by the people. Thanks. I do just want to clarify one thing in terms of the question you asked in relation to humanitarian rescue missions, missions, as in Afghanistan. I understand that those numbers are unlimited, and that when there was the instance of having a rescue mission, that I think it was 30 troops at the time, so you're not restricted to 12 in the case of humanitarian rescue. I'll clarify that there are different limits on some of them, but I certainly believe that that's incorrect. I'll clarify. Sorry, could you just... And I heard the answer as well, and that's the reason I asked it, because can we just, maybe before the Minister goes, it's just as important that we clarify this, that what exactly is the current situation. I'll have to come back to you on that, just to be actually... To come back. The Minister said she... I don't want to... And assured, what's your opinion? I know what to be unlimited for humanitarian rescue missions. And that's in line with an answer that was given here by a senior military official. It's not correct. Yes, and specifically in relation to Afghanistan. Yes, humanitarian rescue missions. I'll clarify because I'm not sure if it is unlimited, but I'll 100% clarify if I have given... But before we leave, that was stated in this room by a senior member of the military, to what's here, that answer, that was unlimited in the case of humanitarian... No, that's... It's absolutely... Did I hear correctly? Yes, that is... That's my memory. My understanding of it, and that's the way it is, Minister being clarified by that.