Brian Stanley challenges 'principle-based pragmatism' and triple lock

Thanks very much, and thanks to the witnesses, Ray, Karen and John, for your presentations and your earlier papers that we received and read. I just want to focus in for a minute. There was a speech yesterday given by the Minister for European Affairs and Defence, Minister of State Thomas Bourne, and he was speaking at an event hosted by the Irish Institute of International and European Affairs. And at that meeting, he referenced Article 29 of the Constitution, which correctly says, and incorrectly quote, that it doesn't permit Ireland-China and the EU mutual defence pact, and just bear with me for a moment. But then he went on to say that I believe that we must approach security and defence from a policy of principle-based pragmatism. And he said, we need to champion, and I'm quoting directly, champion legislative form governing the deployment of the Irish Defence Forces, which is amended in the triple lock. Of course, amended in the triple lock, when you stop being a triple lock, it's not amended, it's abolished. And he then went on to say that he kind of phrased, quote, principle-based pragmatism, unquote, as a policy for how he views Ireland's, how he views its security and defence into the future. He noted that the upcoming June meeting of the European Council will follow the NATO summit in The Hague. Quote directly, the timing of the NATO meeting will underscore the fact that coherence and complementary to NATO will be part of the picture. And he said, he finished by saying then, but in taking a principle-based, pragmatic approach to our security and defence, I believe that we should continue to partner with NATO in line with our existing principles in the framework of the Partnership for Peace. And at the same meeting, Mr. Broso, I won't try and pronounce his first name, he works in the European Commission's Defence Industry and Space Department. The European Commission's Defence Industry and Space Department. And he said that, he said that it's also to, he outlined the trust of matters at the moment, it's to boost the defence industries in the EU so that they can increase the manufacture of equipment and weapons. And he said that, along with other speakers at the event, stressed the need that the need for defence capability must run in tandem with a major expansion of Europe's military industrial base. So I just said, read that just for context. The issue of, I want to particularly focus in on the issue of whether a referendum is required or not. And Karen, in your paper, you said out, you know, clearly that you put out an argument that it does, you know, you said that you quote the Minister on the 8th, sorry, to tarnish the Minister of Defence on May the 8th, where he said that in relation to a public plebiscite and the question that wasn't required, that it doesn't require a national plebiscite, that there had been a number of calls proposed triple lock. He said, and then you argued that, you went to make the argument that the government's proposed changes to triple lock does require a referendum, as it exists beyond national legislation. And the key point, as I understand from the government's point of view, where the government is coming from with this, is the government rather simplistically believes, and this is what you say, that because it's clever enough not to put the triple lock in the protocol attached to the Lisbon Treaty in 2013, and because triple lock is not in the constitution, just it's not required to hold a referendum. And then when you, and just to reference Thomas Burns, Minister Thomas Burns' speech, principle-based pragmatism seems to be, this is, and it actually, the article refers to the fact that he's coined this phrase, this is going to be the buzzword. And I don't say this in any way to be a confrontation, I'm just quoting directly what the Minister's saying. But, you know, when we look at the solemn declaration made in Seville in June 2002, it said that the government of Ireland has made a firm commitment to the people of Ireland solemnise in this declaration that a referendum will be held in Ireland on the adoption of any such decision and on any future treaty which will involve Ireland in departing from its traditional policy of military neutrality. It said Ireland reiterates that participation is contingent of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, includes those carried out under European security and defence policy, requires the authorisation of the triple lock, the three triple lock. So I would ask you just, Karen, to comment on that, you know, because there's clearly, what you have here is that, you know, we're not joining NATO, but we're now partners with NATO, and we have been for some time, you know, according to all of this, according to some government, quote some security sources, you know, to outline how we've been partners for a considerable period of time. And everything now is based on principle-based pragmatism. And how the problem is, is that the case being put forward is, well, we're not abandoning military neutrality. Thank you, Deputy Stanley. Sorry for reading all of that note, but I just want to set the context of where we're at today or this week. It's a great use of the government code words, wordplay, in terms of this term principle-based pragmatism, iterated by the Minister for State, Thomas Byrne TD, that you cited. Actually, states have to adhere, and that includes the EU, to law. So the other kind of phrase is rules-based international system. No, international law. International law is what the EU and the Ireland have to adhere to, and the government. So principle-based pragmatism, that's just a code word for we don't want to adhere to international law. So you said that the Minister of State said NATO is part of the picture. He said that, you said, at the Institute of International European Affairs, which is an EU-funded think tank, at that same location, a Swedish official said Sweden is a member of NATO in all but Article 5, and has been for the last 20 years. So the reason why the government wants to get rid of the triple lock is because, effectively, Ireland is, similar to Sweden, prior to Sweden actually officially joining NATO, unofficially, through the back door, a member. But the government can't actually officially join because it knows that only 13% to 14% of people in Ireland are in favour of that. So they'll mention the PFP, but, you know, that's essentially the reason to abolish the triple lock, because the triple lock stands in the way of NATO and EU missions that won't have a UN Security Council or UN General Assembly mandate. You mentioned the military-industrial complex. The EU plans on spending up to €800 billion in relation to supporting a military-industrial complex. You said, also, for me to speak about the requirement for a referendum, because the triple lock is part of national policy. It is a matter of very acute national importance to the people, and we know this because it exists under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as an agreement in the international system, because, as I said in my paper... Can I ask just a few... Yeah, as I said... I appreciate that it was a long question, but just... Yeah, as I said in my paper, that it has legal standing, arguably. And as a result, see, what the government is trying to do in abolishing the triple lock through amending national legislation, it's using a legal parliamentary procedure to do an illegal act. And essentially, that national declaration actually must be put to a referendum. And, yeah, the way the EU works is a fait accompli, the accomplished fact. So the EU has already put in place everything it needs. It's already been done, and in a way, this discussion is moot. But we do require a referendum, and I would, as I say in my address last sentence, that I think the President of Ireland and his Council of State would need to seriously look at the legal implications. Could you ask, can you see this being challenged in court? Yes, I do. In the Supreme Court or High Court? Yeah. Similar to the Crotty case in 1986? Absolutely. Thank you. I can't see it being challenged. Not just there, but also at the EU level, and also at the international level. I'm going to have to conclude there now, because we are tight now to fit everyone in. Thanks, Deputy Stanley. Thanks.