Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire: Government moving to remove Triple Lock

The Triple Lock Neutrality Protection is something deeply valued by the Irish people. It was the basis on which the Irish people were encouraged to vote for European referendums, on the basis that the Irish people value their neutrality and an independent foreign policy. The government proposes to get rid of the Triple Lock. It's not reform, it's not change, it's getting rid of the Triple Lock, and ultimately a government that commands a majority will be in a position to deploy troops on any international force that they see fit. There is growing concern around that, including in these Houses. I want to ask the Minister for an update in relation to this legislation. For the question, and I appreciate we've had these discussions on a number of occasions, and I look forward as the legislation comes through the Houses to debate this, because I think it's important that we do have these discussions, and that we have a debate as to what exactly is in the Bill and what is not in the Bill, and what the intention of it is, and I appreciate that there are very strongly held views on this matter, so I appreciate a chance now to discuss it prior to the Bill moving forward. I do want to set out, though, and be very clear what the Bill does not intend to do, and that is not to remove Ireland's military neutrality. We're very clear, as a government, we're very clear that the purpose is to adjust and to amend the Defence Act so that we can continue to either dispatch our Defence Force personnel for service outside of the state, or make sure that they stay as part of the peacekeeping missions that they're currently part of, and we know that that is being impacted at the moment because of the triple lock. So this is not to remove our military neutrality, this is not to align us with any other military force, this is to make sure that we can continue to deploy our service personnel, our men and women of Óglaibh na hÉireann, overseas for peacekeeping missions. Government approval for the text of the Defence Amendment Bill was received on the 9th of June. The Bill was published on the Oireachtas website and will be progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. Obviously we're on the last day, but my intention is that we would bring it as early as possible in the new term. While the precise timeline will depend on the schedule, my intention remains to see the legislation enacted and commenced at the earliest possible opportunity. I think we had said initially by the end of this year, I intend and hope to move it as quickly as possible. The principal reform proposed in the Bill is the removal of the requirement for a United Nations Security Council mandate as part of the existing triple lock mechanism. The two other elements, which would be a government decision and the approval of Dáil Éireann, so it's not just any government that would require the approval of Dáil Éireann, will remain in place. It is the government's view, and it is very much my view as well, and I've outlined this previously, but again happy to do so today, that the current arrangements effectively allow the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UK, Russia, China, the US and France, to effectively veto any new mission or to potentially close down a mission, as has happened, as has been the case. I don't believe that any other country should have the ability to constrain Ireland's sovereign decision-making through the use of a veto or indeed the threat of a veto. No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in the 60s, nor did a country have a vote on the Defence Acts in 2006. No other country will have a vote on this Defence Amendment Bill. It will be decided here. These are the tests that we set sovereignly in this Parliament. That's all about it. All of this crack is neither here nor there. These are our decisions about where we see fit to deploy Irish personnel. And that is ultimately what this is about. All the objects that the government talks about achieving. The world is changing, we need to invest in our defence. Not prevented by the Triple Lock. We should invest in our defence. We should be strong on neutrality and strong on defence. I absolutely agree that. You talk about the need to ensure that our Defence Forces personnel have the ability to deploy internationally and are not prevented in terms of rescue missions. Absolutely, I have no problem with Head 7. No problem at all. Actually most legislation is fine, it's just Head 8 that is a fundamental problem and a fundamental change. Now that is recognised by your coalition partners, or at least all apart from two or three at the top of that political party. They are very concerned because they know that this will potentially constrain our ability to have an independent foreign policy because it does undermine our neutrality. Perhaps you might conclude that it does not end it in the final assessment, but it does undermine it potentially. Deputy, I would ask you a number of questions. Firstly, do you trust Óglaidh na hÉireann? Do you trust our Defence Forces? Because if you do, then you trust them to make the decisions. So the Triple Lock, as amended, will ensure... No, no, no, no. No, no, listen to me. If you trust the Defence Forces to make a recommendation, because that will still be included in this, the Defence Forces will make a recommendation, will assess the type of mission that we're talking about, in the way that they currently do now, they will make a recommendation to government. Do you trust the people of this country to elect the people that they want to be elected? Do you trust them to make that decision? And that's how we democratically form a government here. So the Triple Lock, as amended, would ensure that we have recommendations from Óglaidh na hÉireann, who know what they're doing, who have for decades deployed their troops on peacekeeping missions, troops that we respect, we know are highly trained, are well respected across the world. They will continue to make those recommendations under the amended legislation. It would then be put to this House where we, as democratically elected people, who form governments in a democratic way, unlike other countries in Russia and other places that now have a currency in how we deploy our troops, we would then make that decision and there would be oversight. So there's nothing here that's suggesting we're going to start sending troops off to war. It would be under a UN exact same status as the current peacekeeping missions. It would have to be recommended by our defence forces. It would have to be approved by people who are democratically elected in this country, not the likes of Russia or China or anybody else who shouldn't have a say in how we deploy our troops. You said that it would be on the same basis as currently. Well, that's plainly not the case. You're getting rid of the requirement for a UN mandate. And I tell you who I don't trust. I don't trust the likes of NATO-aligned organisations such as Partnership for Peace. And frankly, given the trajectory of their political positioning on the Middle East, there are many people at the top of the EU that I don't trust in terms of their foreign policy objectives, given the cover that they gave for Israel in recent years in the context of the genocide. I do trust the defence forces and I do trust the people of this country. I would ask you, if you trust the people of this country, given the fact that this was the source of the basis on which many people were asked to vote during the Nice and Lisbon referendums, if you trust the Irish people to make this decision, and I do, then why do you not put it to a referendum, given that this was already the subject of referendums? This was central to the basis. It was. You know that quite clearly, that yes, the decision in relation to Lisbon and Nice was based on things such as the Seville Declaration, and it is the reason that I expect a lot of people to change their mind, because they were given reassurances. Reassurances that are now disappearing into dust because of the policy of your government. This is why we need this debate, because to be quite frank, we are talking about amending legislation. The triple lock is not in our constitution. Our treaties are in the constitution. The triple lock was never part of our constitution. We were a militarily neutral country before we voted for the treaties, before we introduced the triple lock. We will continue to be a neutral country, but I think the attempt to try and suggest that we need to have a referendum to change our constitution for something that isn't in our constitution, it's trying to thwart what the actual debate is here. We are very clear, and if you look at the legislation, if you look, but on what? A referendum is to amend the constitution. This is not in the constitution. Deputy... The world has changed, and I trust... I trust... No, this is the debate that we'll have, but you can shout things down. No, I do have time, and I'm going to say this. The world has changed, and the people that I speak to recognise that the world has changed, and the people that I speak to do not like the fact that Russia have essentially removed all of our peacekeeping troops, or will do in the coming months, from UNIFIL, where we have been there for decades. That is because of the triple lock. That is what we are trying to amend and adjust, not anything else contrary to what has been suggested here.