Brian Stanley warns amendment could erode military neutrality

Yes, and just in relation to, you know, I think that, you know, we have to respect the witnesses to come in, you know, you obviously have come in from different positions and that's the reason we have you here, but just as one member of the committee, I would like to know whether, you know, I would like to be aware, because I wasn't aware until the last half an hour of Deputy, or of Mr Tong's involvement in lobbying, just to say that, but you're entitled to, I want to hear your point of Yoda. Even though I disagree with you, probably on a lot of what, you make some good points, but some of what you're saying I would disagree with. Just in, one point you make that I disagree with is, there are point 18, you said that Ireland's tradition of neutrality will similarly be unaffected by the proposed amendment, okay? And I just picture in the scenario, just pick up a little bit on what Deputy Connolly there has just referred to, in a situation where we're in, we're part of an alliance with Germany, Britain, France, those countries, you know, not alone who have, they didn't actually sit in their hands in relation to Israel and Palestine. Palestine, but in some cases are actively supplying the weapons and materials that are being used in the slaughter of civilians and other logistical help and intelligence help to the Israeli terrorist state, I would say, of Israel. You know, and if we were, if we were part of some regional force, this ill-defined regional force, with a mandate to protect international security, which Mr. Trump uses, Mr. Netanyahu uses phrases like this, international security. I hear him regularly, this, you know, so, a force that's not defined, clearly defined, under what mandate, and what we know from previous conversations here, that we would be subjected to command of one of those larger countries, or of the legs of NATO, which I clarified it could be under NATO, you know, to, on a mission to strengthen international security, why, surely that would affect our military neutrality? Can you not see the contradiction in that? Well, I mean, again, that particular paragraph was referenced, in fact, there's, there's a very different understanding of what neutrality is. Just say clearly, Mr. Tong, that you say, Ireland's, you make the statement very clearly, because I read it twice last night, Ireland's tradition of neutrality would similarly be unaffected by the post-amendment. The tradition as defined by consecutive governments, which is, as Joe Noonan has said, is very, very narrowly defined, as non-membership of, that doesn't change. But as defined in our 1937 constitution, and, you know, copper-fastened, and stated, in a national declaration, as part of the Nice Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty, would that not be correct? I don't understand the question, I'm sorry. Okay, I'll leave it at that. Could I just ask you, Mr. Noonan, just in relation, just very quickly, just in relation to, we've been operating under multilateralism, you know, as part of the UN, as imperfect as that may be. And one question I have for you is this, do you believe that, you know, that by, we are being pressured, and there is a lot of pressure, you can see that building up in terms of, you know, the other must move. But do you agree that being, for want of a better term, being a patsy, and going along with what the bigger powers want, that we will actually lose respect internationally, instead of standing as a neutral state, and maintaining the level of respect that we have gained? Deputy Stanley, you're gone over your time. Yes or no? No, sorry. I will be yes. We will lose respect. The other witnesses? Do you want to, just yes or no? No. No. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to Deputy O'Connell, followed by Deputy O'Mara. Thank you. There's been a lot of talk from everybody here and yourselves in terms of the importance of trust, and I understand from Mr. Murphy's contribution that it really is that the Doyle and the Oireachtas and the government that ultimately is the protector of our neutrality as opposed to the UN Security Council from your outlining of the history there. If that is the case and the people that we are trusting, ultimately, as Mr. Nunez pointed out, is the people who get to elect the parliamentarians. And from that perspective as well, Mr. Nunez talked about the pressures that we come under as a country, particularly as a small country. I think we have done very well, particularly recently, in terms of those pressures. We've been taking a leading role in highlighting the plight of Gaza against all the external pressures and have potentially suffered quite significantly politically in terms of burning that political capital, but yet we're still standing firm on it. So I think we have demonstrated, even in recent times, our ability to withstand those external pressures. I would also like to highlight that in our electoral system here, that nobody is entitled to a seat, nobody is handed to a seat. Everybody got here by fighting fairly hard for it. So I think all of our parliamentarians have the ability to fight and stand up to external pressure. I think the electoral system ensures that everybody here achieves that. So I suppose my question for the three of you is, do you not have trust in our parliamentarians to make the right decisions in these type of circumstances we're an ask to deploy? Thank you. The Constitution is what I go back to, really, and that is entrusting parliamentarians with certain powers on behalf of the people. And it's set out in Article 29, 1, 2, and 3 principles that were intended to guide the exercise of those powers in relation to war. And in 2003, the High Court said they were merely aspirational. So I would like to see them being given legislative force. So in terms of Senator Klein's request for suggestions, I will go back to that. I think you're quite right to highlight the fact that we have stood up very well under immense pressure. I think, I go back to the point I made earlier, that if we have this here at the moment, that is oddly a protector against susceptibility to pressure of a certain kind. I think if we take it away without being very clear of what we're putting in its place, we're making a mistake. And I think the assurances that were given very categorically in the beginning of this process on behalf of the department. Sorry, can I just interrupt you? I'm just watching the clock, so I'd just like to hear a response from Professor Noonan. Those assurances cannot be relied upon. Mr Murphy, do you trust our people to elect the right parliamentarians, and the parliamentarians then to withstand? Yeah, absolutely. And that's the issue I've been saying, is that from the very beginning, it was seen that the Oireachtas and the Doyle were the protectors of the sovereignty, were the protectors of neutrality, were protectors of the independent foreign policy that Ireland could assert. And in fact, that Doyle may actually have to decide to withdraw from the United Nations in the event that he had made decisions which were not consistent with what we wanted. So, the UN was not seen as the harbinger and the protector of our neutrality. It was actually the Doyle who was seen as the protector against the UN. Professor Tonner, just a short answer. Short answer, yes. Thank you very much.