Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; an Tánaiste is not here.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste will be here very shortly and will be giving the opening response on behalf of the Government. In the meantime, I will be here. I will be sitting through the full debate.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will be here and will tell the Tánaiste what I have said. I am going to talk to him as if he was the Tánaiste, if that is okay.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I agree to rise to the position of Tánaiste for the next few minutes.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Fleming has the position of Tánaiste for five minutes.

An Cathaoirleach Gn?omhach:

As a formality, I have to ask Deputy Smith to move the motion.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann: notes that:

— the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin TD said in 2013 that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality and described the attempt to undermine it as "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael";

— Fianna Fáil's 2020 general election manifesto states that Ireland will "Fully maintain neutrality and the Triple Lock ... Fianna Fáil reaffirms its commitment to the retention of the triple lock of UN mandate or authorisation, Government and Dáil approval, prior to committing Defence Forces personnel on overseas service", and it concludes "We will fully maintain neutrality and the triple lock mechanism";

— the Programme for Government: Our Shared Future states the Government will "ensure that all overseas operations will be conducted in line with our position of military neutrality and will be subject to a triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil Éireann approval";

— in April 2022, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Simon Coveney TD, said about a possible change to the triple lock "I have yet to see an example of where Ireland has been prevented from sending troops to a part of the world where it wants to make a peace-keeping intervention in the Mediterranean, Mali or elsewhere";

— in November 2022, Minister Eamon Ryan said "I think the current system supports our country well. I think our position as a neutral country in the world actually gives us greater strength. I think the triple lock doesn't stop us engaging where we do have to engage";

— none of the Government parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Green Party, campaigned at the last General Election to end neutrality or the triple lock, and therefore they have no mandate for any such policies;

— the Government continues to edge us closer to a military alliance and European Union (EU) militarisation project that includes NATO, the United States (US), Germany and Britain, the countries that are arming a genocide in Gaza and which continue to sustain Israel's ability to commit the most horrific crimes;

— the National Consultative Forum on International Security Policy was designed to manipulate public opinion towards further undermining Irish neutrality by moving us closer to NATO;

— a large majority of the public continues to support neutrality despite intense pressure from establishment politicians to support militarisation;

— some Western political leaders are promoting militarisation and preparations for war, with the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, having claimed that we are in a pre-war era, Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of the NATO Military Committee, said "We are preparing for war with Russia" and the French President, Emmanuel Macron believes that NATO should be sending troops into Ukraine;

— global military spending is increasing rapidly, and according to NATO its members increased military spending sharply in 2023 to $1.34 trillion and 11 NATO members now spend 2 per cent or more of their GDP on their military, also, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Europe increased military spending by 16 per cent in 2023 to €552 billion and NATO countries accounted for 55 per cent of global military spending in 2023, far out-spending any other nation or bloc in the world; and

— this military spending means vast numbers of badly needed homes, schools and hospitals are foregone to fund warfare;

further notes that:

— Ireland's declaration to the Treaty of Nice, submitted as part of ratifying it, states that "the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European security and defence policy, requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law";

— the triple lock is the only legal provision that meant that a government that effectively supported the US in its invasion of Iraq, by facilitating the invasion of Iraq through its use of Shannon Airport, could not legally send ordinary Irish soldiers to go, fight and die in a war for oil and profit in the Middle East on behalf of the US;

— prevented by the triple lock from participating in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fianna Fáil instead allowed US warplanes to refuel at Shannon and started a process whereby Shannon became a de facto forward operating base for the US military, so that more than 3 million troops have passed through Shannon over the past 21 years;

— under the United Nations (UN) Charter, there are two legal ways the Government can send troops abroad;

— self-defence, which is provided for under Bunreacht na hÉireann and in which situation there is no need for the triple lock to be activated; and

— peacekeeping authorised by the UN Security Council, therefore anything within the UN Charter comes within the triple lock; and

— if the triple lock is removed, it will be EU-led missions without UN approval, that is, outside of international law, and US or NATO-led missions, opening the prospects of Ireland's participation in such disastrous wars as those in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

calls on the Government to:

— withdraw plans for legislation to end the triple lock;

— commit to a referendum on enshrining neutrality in the Constitution; and

— end the use of Shannon Airport by the US military.

There is a dark open secret at the heart of the political establishment in this country. The Tánaiste is embarrassed by the very idea of Irish neutrality. When the Taoiseach trots off to Washington every St. Patrick's Day to give shamrock to the US President, he dreads being asked why he is not doing more to support the American project and American freedom. The Tánaiste has a problem. The vast majority of Irish people want to keep neutrality so he has to try to manoeuvre around this sentiment. His latest move is to try to remove the triple lock so that he is free to send Irish troops, although not his own sons and daughters, to war at the beck and call of the US and the European Union. He has tried to prepare for this move. He even set up a commission chaired by a dame of the British empire. However, that move has backfired on him.

The Tánaiste only talks about military neutrality. He insists on inserting the word "military" before the word "neutrality". There is a reason for this. He wants to ignore how the Irish people think of neutrality and to gut the word of its real meaning. For the majority of Irish people, neutrality arises from our experience of colonialism. It is linked to an anticolonial sentiment. That is why we instinctively know which side we are on in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We do not want to support any empire. We know that behind the sweet talk of defending small nations lies a brutal arrogance. Do not tell me we have the left the world of empires and that history has left it behind. There are still colonies left, Palestine being one of them. There is a hierarchy in this world and it is based on military and economic power. That hierarchy is called imperialism.

The US Administration does not come to Dublin bearing gifts. We go to Washington to show our loyalty and support, or at least the Tánaiste and Taoiseach do. It made us laugh when the Tánaiste today claimed that he belongs to the western empire because it talks of freedom and democracy. Where is the freedom and democracy for the Palestinians? Where are women's rights in Saudi Arabia, which the Tánaiste's patron, the US, describes as its ally in the Middle East? Does he really think that in simply recognising the State of Palestine, as the Government did yesterday, he has done his duty in the face of genocide? Does he not know that 140 countries had taken this step long before Ireland and that even this step was forced on the Government by the tens of thousands who marched week after week? The plain reality is that the US empire does not stand for freedom and democracy. If it did, it would not be supplying Israel with bombs to murder and burn Palestinian children.

The Dáil recognises Palestine. Why then are we all using Hewlett-Packard machines in our offices? This is a company that supplies infrastructure that is vital for Israel's occupation. We say that we should boycott it. There is also AXA. No State agency should have a contract with a company that invests in Israeli banks and mining companies in the West Bank. We say that we should boycott it. As I asked yesterday, why is the Government fast-tracking visas for 100 Israeli engineers to fly here to work for Intel while, in the meantime, Palestinians who are fleeing genocide are left to sleep in tents on the banks of the canal? Why is the State supporting this? Intel is a strong supporter of the Israeli state. It has built its Kiryat Gat plant on the site of two erased Palestinian villages. Just weeks after Israel intensified its genocide against the Palestinians, Intel announced its largest ever investment in Israel worth $22.6 billion. I say we should boycott Intel. Why did the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment grant 32 licences to sell dual-use goods worth €70.4 million into Israel under the Control of Exports Act 2008? Why will the Government not name these companies?

We need to back up the recognition of Palestine with real sanctions. The Tánaiste should not just tell us that EU leaders are discussing sanctions. That means nothing. We are now seven months into this horrific conflict and EU leaders have done nothing. The plain reality is that the Tánaiste wants to remove the triple lock because he wants us to move from a sideline substitute in US imperialism to a full player. That is what he wants. He wants to send Irish troops abroad to fight wars on behalf of the US and the European Union.

Despite repeated requests from us to do so, however, the Tánaiste has refused to say exactly where he wants to send more than 12 Irish troops. He has asked his civil servants to come up with some obscure examples of where the triple lock has stopped him sending Irish troops. He needs to have the courage of his convictions and tell us where he wants to send the sons and daughters of working-class people to fight in wars for the benefit of western imperialism. He will not give us a referendum to testify that Irish people still want to keep their neutrality, which is the least he can do. He knows as well as I do that the chair of the NATO military committee has said we are preparing for war. He knows that the Polish Prime Minister has said we are in a pre-war situation. The Irish Times, in its own snooty way, recently declared that Ireland is at war but we are sticking our heads in the sand. I ask the Tánaiste to tell us where he wants to send Irish troops.

For our part, we are absolutely clear. We oppose both imperialist powers that seek to divide the world into their respective spheres of influence. I am openly opposed to the US empire and equally opposed to its Russian and Chinese rivals. I have been at many protests outside the US Embassy. My party was the first to organise protests outside the Russian Embassy over the brutal invasion of Ukraine. While I detest both imperialist powers, I have no time for the double standards of this Government. It took it seven months before it dared to raise the Palestinian flag at this House. It raised the Ukrainian flag immediately when it was invaded, and it is still flying here. Ukraine is right to oppose the Russian invasion but it is not the only country fighting imperialism. Why is the Government not denouncing the EU for not banning arms sales to Israel when it sanctioned Russia immediately after the invasion of Ukraine? Why are Fine Gael members of this coalition promising to vote for Ursula von der Leyen even though she has most brazenly backed Israel to the hilt? The Government's other way of getting around neutrality is to erode it bit by bit. It has allowed US troops to use Shannon Airport as a transit point, pretending this is just an economic arrangement when, in reality, it is a deliberate show of loyalty to the US empire. Now, the Government wants to send Irish troops to train Ukrainian soldiers. It sends helmets to its army and still pretends it is militarily neutral. We are sick of the Government's hypocrisy.

I make one call in the Dáil today, and the same call is being made in the Seanad. It is to stop US troops using Shannon Airport. Genocide Joe is totally complicit in the murder of Palestinians. We want to see a left government that really changes that. I say to my colleagues in Sinn Féin that we know Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will keep US troops in Shannon for as long as they can. Therefore, let us work together to evict Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This is a commitment we want to make before there is any general election - US troops out a Shannon at a very minimum.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are living in very dangerous times, when the norms of international law, even in warfare, are being breached on a daily basis. We only have to look at what is taking place in Gaza. The pictures and images of what Israel is doing to human beings - children, women and men - are incomprehensible. In that context, Irish neutrality has always been sacred. It has been sacred from the foundation of the State. The overwhelming majority of Irish people have supported neutrality because they understand that if our neutrality is eroded, we can be pulled into conflicts that are not of our making and in which our citizens will be maimed. We have seen in the past 100 years, in the First World War and Second World War, how countries were dragged into imperialist wars. It is, therefore, vitally important that our neutrality stays as it is and is not compromised. I believe it has been compromised and eroded, for decades and more, by language and deeds, in particular the militarisation of the European Union.

We only have to look at the European defence industrial strategy. This is a precursor to a European defence model and a European defence army. Hundreds of billions of euro are being spent on military hardware. Throughout history, when there has been increased militarisation, that equipment for war has been used eventually. We are now seeing this in the European Union. Irish troops are engaged in the European battle groups, which is very controversial in terms of our neutrality.

What is really worrying, particularly in recent decades, has been the development of economic blocs from competition into potential conflict. We have seen this in the Pacific, the Middle East and in other parts of the world. This is extremely dangerous not only for Ireland's neutrality but for world peace.

The use of Shannon Airport by American troops is a blatant breach of Irish neutrality. The Tánaiste will remember that America invaded Iraq illegally in 2003. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by American troops in the ensuing civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of that illegal invasion yet Ireland facilitated millions of American troops going through Shannon Airport. That is a blatant breach of our neutrality and it has to stop. Any government that describes itself as left-wing has to stop that blatant breach, and it is continuing with regard to Iraq.

Neutrality is sacred. It is very dear to the Irish people and those who love peace and do not want to be dragged into other people’s wars, as happened in the past. Our neutrality is so important in preventing us from being dragged into those wars and conflicts. The language and rhetoric being used by this Government about the triple lock and militarisation are extremely worrying. There is a potential that Irish troops could be involved in a European army and a European conflict, particularly given what is happening in Ukraine and elsewhere. On that basis, it must be enshrined in the Constitution that we can never, under any circumstance, be involved in military pacts or European wars given where the European Union is going. Neutrality is sacred, but that has to be enshrined in our Constitution.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the current state of the world, Ireland's place in the world and our country's policy of military neutrality.

Given the language used in the motion, it is useful to begin with an examination of what we mean when we talk about military neutrality. Simply put, our policy of military neutrality, as practised by successive Governments, means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. I have discussed this many times in the House and I am happy to clarify and put it on the record again. We have no plans to alter this policy. Our military neutrality means a great deal to a great many people. The history and instincts that inform it are important and valuable, and I understand that. Its birth was essentially the Second World War and the position of Éamon de Valera and the then Fianna Fáil Government to adopt a policy of neutrality on that occasion. It has evolved since then, particularly in the context of developing an independent foreign policy.

The fact that neutrality is and will remain our policy does not mean we can isolate ourselves from the international security environment we find ourselves in today. All of us, as serious-minded policymakers, must continue to observe and analyse the situation as it evolves and ensure that the application of our policies remains fit for purpose in changing circumstances. Ireland's foreign policy has always been grounded in the principles of international law, human rights, equality, respect, dialogue and engagement. We have correctly sought to position ourselves as a voice for good in the world, a champion of international humanitarian law, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, disarmament and non-proliferation and as a strong defender of a rules-based international order. I have not heard any of that in the contributions so far this morning. It has just been ignored. Deputies should look at our record over the last two to three decades in terms of our role internationally.

Most recently, this includes our role on the UN Security Council in pushing for humanitarian corridors in the most troubled parts of the world, in addition to peacekeeping. Our values must remain at the core of Irish foreign policy. The Irish people would expect nothing less from this or any Government.

There are many countries in the world with which Ireland shares similar values and whose foreign policy approaches are in keeping with our own. Some of these are members of military alliances or common defence arrangements and some are not. We work with any and all of them as the issue requires. A salient example of our close engagement with such partners happened just last week in the context of our recognition of the State of Palestine, together with Spain and Norway. We were right to do that in a co-ordinated way in terms of timing, co-ordination, impact, and in the context of the Arab peace vision.

The security of our people and country is one of the most important issues that any government must consider. I will talk about how this relates to our broader foreign policy and the reality of the world today. Across the globe and at home, Ireland and our EU partners face an increasingly challenging and contested security environment. Russia's illegal, immoral and ongoing invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 brought untold misery to countless Ukrainian citizens. It has had an impact in our country, which we discuss and debate here on a daily basis. It also shattered the collective European security architecture. In doing so, it brought home to many across Europe and beyond the cold hard reality of the world we live in today. In the same context, we know that Russia is demonstrating increasingly irresponsible behaviour beyond Ukraine, including through cyberattacks across the European Union. Russia and other foreign actors are also deliberately targeting European societies, including Ireland, with false and manipulated information. We need to call out these threats and work with partners to confront them.

In Europe’s southern neighbourhood, we continue to face a horrible and completely unjustifiable conflict in the Middle East which, again, is an issue that we discuss and debate here on a regular basis. The Government has been absolutely clear that this appalling war must stop. There must be an immediate ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and a massive scaling up of humanitarian assistance. As we have repeatedly said, we urgently need a political pathway towards peace that leads to a two-state solution, which respects the right of self-determination of both Israel and Palestine. That is where I disagree with the Deputies opposite who want the dismantlement of the Israeli State. That will not bring peace either.

In Africa too, hunger and poverty continue to drive conflict, instability and displacement. It is an issue that is rarely discussed in the House, but it is massive in scale and a major factor in our security in Europe.

Faced with the reality of this security environment, we cannot afford to tie our hands, to isolate ourselves, or to ignore our responsibilities towards our own citizens, our fellow EU member states, or other friendly partners. The motion put forward by the People Before Profit-Solidarity group is therefore problematic for a number of reasons. First, it demonstrates a complete failure to understand the policy of military neutrality. As I said, this means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. As implemented, it reflects our security policies and the interests of the State. The motion by People Before Profit and the remarks by some in the Opposition regarding the proposed amending of the triple lock are also deliberately erroneous, misleading and dishonest. There is no implication whatsoever for Irish military neutrality in the amendment of the triple lock.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You say it yourself.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is absolutely dishonest to suggest that.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You say yourself it is at the core of our neutrality.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt anyone. A little courtesy and parliamentary decorum is called for from Deputy Murphy from time to time.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A bit of honesty.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy hates when the truth is told.

In reality, the Government's proposed modification of the triple lock does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality. In fact, the proposed changes will serve to reinforce Ireland’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy, by removing the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions. It will mean that Ireland, which is militarily neutral, will no longer need to seek the permission of Russia, China, Britain, France or the United States to pursue our own sovereign, independent, militarily neutral interest or to participate in peacekeeping missions.

To Deputy Smith's point, we are simply saying we will amend the triple lock so we do not depend on empires. She spoke at length about empires, yet she wants them to have a restriction, through the Security Council veto, on the peacekeeping that Ireland could participate in in future. There is no logic to her position. In her world of empires, she still wants those very same empires to have a veto on whether Ireland participates in peacekeeping or not. I make no apologies for singling out Russia in particular, as its behaviour is singularly shocking. The Deputies do not have the same emphasis on Russia. They do not have weekly marches against Russia, although they will do the occasional formulaic protest outside its embassy-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And Biden's behaviour is okay?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will identify the United States all of the time. That is fine. I do not believe US foreign policy is correct in all areas, but I recognise the huge Irish-American diaspora. I do not believe in boycotting Hewlett-Packard or Intel. The Deputies opposite would cause the loss of thousands of jobs in this country, if their reckless policies were pursued. I do not believe in doing that. I do not believe that United Nations Security Council members should have a veto on our participation in peacekeeping. This is not in any shape or form an attempt to disengage from the UN. It is, rather, the opposite. It will allow Ireland to continue to seek to improve the UN from within, while addressing the fact that our involvement in international peacekeeping can currently be held hostage by the veto-wielding power of any one of the five permanent UN Security Council members.

Second, the Government has real concerns about the proposal to hold a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. The policy of military neutrality always has been, and remains, a deliberate policy choice on the part of successive Governments since the Second World War. However, the motion, if passed, would seriously constrain the Executive’s ability to exercise its policy-making authority in the conduct of external relations, as already set out in Article 29 of the Constitution. Indeed, we know from previous experience that inserting overly simplistic provisions into the Constitution on sensitive and complex issues does not serve the State well. I have yet to see any proposed wording about an insertion or amendment on what form of neutrality-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had a Bill.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----or definition of neutrality-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We proposed a Bill. You voted it down.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about a general debate. We know what happens-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had a wording.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please. You have ten minutes to reply.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----in referendums and so on.

Third, in the view of the Government, the motion fails to adequately reflect the reality of the situation in terms of the use of Shannon Airport. I know this is a hardy perennial for the Deputies opposite, but as the Government has repeatedly set out, all foreign military aircraft wishing to overfly, or land in, the State require diplomatic clearance. This is subject to strict conditions, including that the aircraft is unarmed and carries no arms, ammunition or explosives. It is also expressly prohibited for civil aircraft to carry munitions of war in Ireland without an exemption to do so by the Minister for Transport. A robust process is in place for such exemptions, which includes advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of international humanitarian law and Ireland’s international obligations.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are no inspections.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me reiterate once again that there are no transports of weaponry via Shannon or any other Irish airport to Israel, nor are the US troops transiting Shannon going to Israel or any other active conflict.

In short, from a Government perspective, the motion as presented is ill-conceived, partisan and inherently problematic. It fails to demonstrate an understanding of what the policy of military neutrality actually means. It completely neglects the security risks that Europe and Ireland face today. The proposal, in respect of neutrality, is particularly ill-defined, inappropriate and would significantly restrict future governments in terms of broader foreign policy and, more importantly, security challenges, such as cyberattacks, subsea cables and so forth. People elect the Oireachtas and the Government to develop foreign policy and other policies. That is the sensible way to proceed.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then you should be truthful in your manifesto and say you want to get rid of the triple lock.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last year's consultative forum was a very important forum. What was striking were the attempts of the Deputies opposite to stop it from ever happening. That fundamentally undermined democracy itself. There is already strong intolerance of democracy from the Deputies opposite. It is their way or the highway.

Ireland's position on the Middle East over the past three decades and more has been principled, informed by the desire to get peace, and supportive of the humanitarian needs of Palestinians. We have raised the issue all over the world, including in the US, unlike Sinn Féin, which did not raise it at all with their colleagues in the United States. It has never, through the very large forums Sinn Féin has in the United States, really raised the Palestinian question as loudly as it raises it here.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the truth.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has always puzzled me why Sinn Féin's-----

An Cathaoirleach Gn?omhach:

Deputies, please.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----social media platforms were never used extensively to promote its ideas around Palestine. Those are the realities.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin's main focus in the United States is fundraising not raising issues around foreign policy.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste is over time.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the reality. That is a fact.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is different from what you just said.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are militarily neutral as a country. We are not politically neutral. We will stand for human rights, freedom, democracy, and the rules-based international order. This approach suffuses everything we do, whether it relates to the conflict in Gaza or the invasion of Ukraine.

Our international engagement is also underpinned by a significant investment in our security and defence architecture. This includes work to transform our Defence Forces by increasing annual spending to €1.5 billion.

I think I have run out of time. I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste should be honest with people.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He cannot be.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should have the courage of his convictions to argue for what he favours. Instead, we had a very dishonest presentation of what he is trying to do. We have had a dishonest presentation for the last two years. People out there, anyone who is watching this debate and who listened to that speech, would have the impression that the Government is committed to defending neutrality. The Tánaiste said that "modification of the triple lock does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality". In fact, he went even further and said the Government would enshrine it, make it better and reinforce our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People would have the impression that it is the Opposition that is intolerant of democracy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Intolerant of debate, yes.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

None of that is true, though, is it?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is true.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not true and I will tell him why it is not. Who is intolerant of democracy?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Look at the Deputy's behaviour at the consultative forum last year.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, please. The Deputy has the floor.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. The Tánaiste talks about my behaviour at the consultative forum. What was the consultative forum? The consultative forum was not a democratic institution. The Tánaiste proposed a democratic institution. He proposed a citizens' assembly so that citizens could come together, discuss it and come up with an outcome but then he ditched-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People cannot gather together at a university campus and have a debate. Is that it?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that democratic proposal and replaced it with a hand-picked group of people, with a predetermined outcome that I predicted in advance, to recommend getting rid of the triple lock. That is not democracy. I will tell the Tánaiste what democracy is. It is people standing for election on the basis of a certain platform, winning votes on that basis and then proceeding to implement it. The Tánaiste stood for election in the 2020 general election on a certain basis. What was that? It was on the basis of a promise, as contained in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, to "fully maintain neutrality and the triple lock" and he won votes on that basis. Then he put it into the programme for Government. That is democracy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then Russia invaded Ukraine.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is intolerant of democracy is for him to tear up his election promises because he thinks that now is the chance to get rid of our military neutrality.

The Tánaiste would lead people to believe that he has no intention of touching neutrality whatsoever, that the idea that he is interested in getting rid of neutrality is one of these big myths. Again, that is not true. He is not telling the truth to people. We can go back to the time when Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine began. What was it that the Tánaiste said? He said then that neutrality is a policy issue that can change at any time. He also said that there needs to be reflection "on military non-alignment in Ireland and our military neutrality". There is not so much commitment to neutrality there, is there? He was not the only one. The Taoiseach at the time, Deputy Varadkar, said exactly the same thing. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, said exactly the same thing.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Come on. They are not my quotes on it. That is dishonest.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government decided that this was its moment to try to get rid of military neutrality. What happened then, and the reason the Government ditched the proposal for a citizens' assembly, was that it ran into the roadblock of public opinion. Public opinion, despite all of the attempts to massage it and to say that we need to have a mature debate and so on, remained steadfastly in favour of neutrality. The Government could not shift it. The Government did not change its attitude, though, which is a long-standing attitude in Fine Gael in particular. This is an attitude that the Tánaiste previously described as the long-standing ideological "obsession" of Fine Gael to get rid of the triple lock. We can go back 20 years to its policy document, "Beyond Neutrality". The Government did not its plan but it changed its presentation of the plan. Now, no longer would the Government try to get rid of neutrality. Instead, it would simply try to redefine what neutrality means and, as part of that, tear up the triple lock and that is what is reflected in the Tánaiste's speech today. How the Government defines neutrality today is simply that "Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements".

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has always been the position.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it. According to the Tánaiste-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has always been the position.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the Tánaiste, Irish troops-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was the position ten years ago.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----could have been sent - and perhaps would have been sent, were it not for the triple lock - to participate in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. No way.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is outrageous.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, because as long as we did not formally participate in NATO, the Tánaiste is saying that is still military neutrality. He is redefining neutrality in order to say that as long as we are not formally in NATO, we can join in all the missions and send our troops abroad, which is what getting rid of the triple lock is actually about. That is his actual agenda-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

------we are still neutral. That is the Tánaiste's agenda here.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not. That is a very dishonest presentation.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a deliberately dishonest distortion, which Deputy Murphy is very good at.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please. One moment.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy has the floor but I would like him to tone down his comments a small bit. At the same time, I expect the Tánaiste to do the same.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. I apologise.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste does not like hearing the truth. He tells us today that the proposed modification of the triple lock "does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality". That was not always his position. It is the case that in 2013 he said that the triple lock is "at the core" of our neutrality, not something peripheral or separate, but at the core of our neutrality. He said that in the Dáil and he was absolutely correct when he said it. Why is it at the core of our neutrality? It is because without it - and this gets to the heart of the matter and is the Government's actual agenda - a government which has a majority in the Dáil would have been able to send troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq. According to the Tánaiste's own definition, we would still be neutral in doing so as long as we did not formally join NATO. That is absolutely what this is about.

I want to tear up some of the other dishonest presentations by the Tánaiste. He said that if we get rid of the triple lock, we will no longer need to seek the permission of Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom or anyone else.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a very dishonest presentation because people would be left with the impression that if Ireland wants to send troops abroad somewhere, we have to go to the UN Security Council and seek a vote of the council to authorise that but that is not what happens. What the triple lock is about is saying that we can send troops on peacekeeping missions where they are authorised by the Dáil, the Government and the UN. This notion-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The UN Security Council.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Wrong. Again, the Tánaiste is engaging in a very dishonest debate because he is not referring to the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 which changed that. This is not about the UN Security Council. The notion of any country having a veto is a complete and utter red herring. The 2006 Act, which is explicitly about dealing with this issue, changed it. That legislation says "UN approval", which is explicitly not UN Security Council authorisation and UN command. The Act refers to "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or [and this is the important bit] the General Assembly of the United Nations". There is no Security Council veto. It is in black and white in our current law. The current arguments that the Government is making about getting rid of the triple lock were the arguments that were made for the 2006 Act. This has been dealt with. If, for example, there was a regional peacekeeping mission into Gaza or somewhere else, and there was a veto at the UN Security Council but it was passed by a majority vote of the General Assembly, that would meet the terms of the triple lock.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not true.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is true.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, the Deputy is talking without having seen our legislation. Our legislation can be placed within the UN framework but the Deputy has jumped to conclusions again.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The Tánaiste is presenting it as if we rely on a decision of the Security Council but that is not true.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has not been a peacekeeping mission since 2014.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in black and white in the law. Black and white. It is not just the UN Security Council but the UN General Assembly. What is this actually about? If there was a regional peacekeeping mission, it could be endorsed by the UN General Assembly by a majority vote and Irish troops could then participate in it. Does the Tánaiste accept that?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, there is no veto.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are proposing-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is in the law now. It is in the 2006 Act.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is. There is no such thing as a veto. It is an absolute red herring in this debate.

The other thing that is dragged in as an example of why we need to do it is the idea that we may need to go and get our citizens from abroad but are currently blocked from doing so. Again, that is a red herring and is not true. In the 2006 Act there is a series of exceptions set out where the triple lock does not apply. One of them, in section 3(1)(f), is "undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency". That covers it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It did not cover it in-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste is not able to come up with any examples where the triple lock prevents us from sending troops. The truth is that this is about sending troops on US-led and NATO-led missions into the likes of-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You cannot be dishonest and say that.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It absolutely is. The final thing I will say is that in terms of Shannon Airport the Government's policy is hear no evil, see no evil. It is to say-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----do not worry. There are no weapons going through Shannon Airport.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy. Your time is up.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A US General-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Your time is up, Deputy.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----on his way to Israel-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to Sinn Féin.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----was on a combat transporter, a C-17, in Shannon Airport last week-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to Sinn Féin.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and the Government did not inspect it-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, your time is up.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for weapons being used in a genocide.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have a bit of manners please, Deputy. Your time is up. You had your ten minutes.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He took an extra two minutes.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not here.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He took an extra two minutes.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am chairing now. Sit down, Deputy.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No problem, but he took an extra two minutes.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to Sinn Féin Deputies Cronin, Ó Snodaigh, Mairéad Farrell, Ó Murchú and Conway-Walsh.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He took extra minutes.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has been interrupting me all my life.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would expect more from you, Tánaiste.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We tend to provoke each other.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I did not get a chance to speak yesterday, I first thank the Government for the official recognition of the State of Palestine. I also acknowledge that it stood up to the veiled threats from Israel in taking this important step. It is a start. There is a lot more to be done but at least I hope it has given some solace to the people of Palestine and Gaza. I also give my solidarity to the Tánaiste for what is happening on social media. Unfortunately, it is what I have come to expect from the immoral supporters of this genocide and Netanyahu's bloodthirst and depravity, all so he can avoid political accountability.

I only have a little time so I will move straight on to the People Before Profit motion. I thank it for giving us the opportunity to debate it in the Dáil. Neutrality is the wish and desire of the majority of the Irish people, a majority the Government will go against at its peril. Irish people are not the GI Janes and GI Joes salivating over NATO. They are not the hand-picked academics, the lobbyists for the industrial arms complex, the safe pair of hands or those who said they felt ashamed of our neutrality at the consultative forum, while they beat themselves up and talk up battles and wars that you, I or they will never fight, never mind win. They are not a safe pair of hands. They are not safe at all and Irish people know this instinctively. They know they will talk them into conflicts that will impoverish them and kill their children, while the industrial arms industry that demands them hide in their bunkers and high-security compounds.

It will not come as a shock to the Government that Sinn Féin is in favour or protecting our neutrality as the strength it is and not the weakness the majority of the hand-picked panel on the consultative forum considered it to be. Tinkering with the triple lock flies in the face of what people were assured of around the referendums on the Nice and Lisbon treaties. It is a betrayal. Fianna Fáil has no mandate to remove it. It wishes to turn our forces from peacekeepers into active participants in conflict. On top of that, it wishes to strip them of the protection of the UN while they fight other people's battles. There are very few Irish mothers who would have their sons and daughters fighting for the benefit of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and her bureaucratic ilk. These are people who are making Europe complicit in Israel's war crimes by arming and funding it. This is all decided by an elite who will not be harmed or touched. Our neutrality is not for sale. Our people know by watching on their phones and other screens that there is already too much war in this world. They see it up close and personal and they see that it is innocent civilians and children who pay the price.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mar Theachta atá tar éis Billí a chur faoi bhráid na Dála cúpla uair chun an neodracht a shá i mBunreacht an Stáit, tacaím leis an rún seo. Seasaim i gcoinne iarrachtaí an Rialtais, agus iarrachtaí an Tánaiste, an Teachta Micheál Martin, ach go háirithe, creimeadh a dhéanamh ar sheasamh onórach an Stáit Éire a bheith neodrach. Nuair a theip ar an Rialtas sna reifrinn ar na conarthaí Nice agus Liospóin, tháinig sé ar sheift an ghlais thriaraigh agus gheall sé go réiteodh an fhoclaíocht a bhí ann chuile fhadhb agus nach raibh gá ar bith le reifreann chun neodracht a shá sa Bhunreacht. Feicimid anois nach raibh sa mhéid seo ach cleas trí-chárta seachas trí ghlas agus go bhfuil an Rialtas seo ag triail fáil réidh leis ina iomláine. Idir an dá linn, tá sé tar éis tuilleadh creimeadh a dhéanamh ar sheasamh neamhspleách agus neodrach na tíre. Despite claims to the contrary, successive Governments have not been hampered by the triple lock, as they gradually expanded our submersion into the EU military agenda, the centralised arms procurement, the increased investment of the arms industry and the gradual emergence of an EU army.

Since the triple lock was adopted by this State, there has been an increased use of Shannon Airport as a military stopover for the US with soldiers travelling to and from wars. We have joined the European Defence Agency. We have joined EU battle groups. This Government and other Governments have voted down Bills to enshrine neutrality in Bunreacht na hÉireann. They have backed the EU defence fund and the establishment of an EU military headquarters, have sent Irish Rangers into Mali and signed up to PESCO. Earlier, I heard the Tánaiste mention our proud record on the global stage and the proud history of Irish soldiers overseas. Why then did he instruct the disengagement and withdrawal of 133 Irish soldiers from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission to the Golan Heights? Surely it is a proud record that Irish soldiers, 2,700 of them, have served in that region. Why would he withdraw them at a time when, more than ever, there is an increased commitment needed for peace in that region?

The legacy of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments has been to erode the neutrality of this State and to weaken the Defence Forces to such a degree that the very basis and existence of some branches of the Defence Forces are now in question because this Government and previous Governments have continued to erode it to the point that we cannot patrol our seas or our skies.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas le People Before Profit, PBP, as é seo a chur chun tosaigh inniu. It seems very much that there is a war on neutrality at this time. There is a war on Ireland’s position on neutrality and a drum is being beaten by those who are cheerleading for war and those who want to militarise the EU and turn it into a geopolitical bloc. They keep telling us that we need to confront this nation or that nation but who are these people? Who are these people who seem to have the Government’s ear? Because one thing for sure is the Government is clearly not listening to the people on this issue. Despite Micheál Martin’s best efforts, he could not convince the Irish people to turn their backs on neutrality. Those who are lobbying for us to get rid of our policy of neutrality completely and utterly lack transparency. It seems that pro-NATO think-tanks are trying to influence our defence and foreign affairs policies. When they lobby a Minister, who seems all too keen to hear what they have to say, do they really have our interests at heart? Do they really have the interests of the Irish people at heart or are they technology and arms companies looking for a new customer? Anyone who stands back and looks at those who have been lobbying this Government in this regard can see clearly how it appears. I keep hearing how Ireland needs to prepare for the threat of this country or that country. These are countries which are very far from our borders and which have never invaded this island; countries which have neither threatened us nor objected to our neutrality. At times like this, I am reminded of the words of Nelson Mandela when he was criticised by members of the Israeli lobby in the US for his support for the Palestinian cause. He said the problem that certain political analysts make is that they assume that their enemies should be our enemies. We are a neutral country that threatens no one. I am deeply concerned by the increased militarisation of the EU and particularly the focus on dual-use, that is, military and civilian, exports.

I must also mention the use of Shannon Airport. It is clear how the people feel on that. It is clear from the protests we have seen and the increased protests we have seen at Shannon Airport as the Israeli genocide of the people of Gaza continues, the outrage people feel at its use and their deep concern about what is going through there.

It is clear the Government needs to stop going down the path it is on to try to get rid of our neutrality.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar an gcéad dul síos, táim ag iarraidh buíochas a ghabháil leis an bpáirtí Pobal Roimh Bhrabús as an rún seo. Sinn Féin recognises the EU member states' right to provide military support to Ukraine, a nation that has been invaded. I am extremely concerned, however, about the use of the EU budget to subsidise the European arms industry. I oppose Irish taxpayers' money subsidising the arms industry. Most of all, I oppose Irish taxpayers' money subsidising companies that are arming Israel to carry out a genocide in Palestine.

The European arms industry provides Israel with about one third of its weapons. When the EU budget is spent on something, that means that all Irish people through our taxes are contributing. That means that today, Irish taxpayers are subsidising the weapons manufacturers in Europe. This is happening at a time when arms manufacturers are making bumper profits. The profits of some companies have soared by more than 100% since Israel launched its assault on Gaza. No official from the Departments of Defence or Finance or the European Commission could explain to the finance committee how this was compatible with Irish law. The Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 bans investment of public moneys, direct or indirect, in a munitions company. The law is clear: any company engaged in the manufacture of munitions or components cannot receive public money. Yet Irish taxpayers are paying roughly €288 million into the European Defence Fund, a fund that subsidises private arms manufacturers. Ireland is contributing €12 million specifically to support the production of ammunition. Again, no official from the Departments of Defence or Finance or the European Commission could explain to the finance committee how this was compatible with Irish law. On top of this, no official could demonstrate any safeguard in place to show that Irish taxpayers' money was not going to weapons manufacturers that are arming Israel.

Senator Higgins and I specifically asked representatives from the Department of Defence if any companies that are supplying Israel with arms to carry out genocide are getting Irish taxpayers' money. They said they had no idea. I am asking the Minister of State today if he has any idea if that is the case. This is absolutely not acceptable. The Irish people want no hand or part in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people. We need this Government to respect our neutrality and our support for Palestine.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think people understand where the Irish people are on the idea of neutrality. We know our own history. It is a history of colonisation and of resistance and struggle against it. That is part of the reason why we have a shared relationship with the Palestinians. It is partly a shared history of oppression and resistance to that. It has been a good week for this State in its recognition of the State of Palestine. It is something that we proposed many years ago. What we have seen with Spain and Norway is welcome and hopefully we will see many more states moving in that direction. We also know that part of the reason we can do that is because we are seen as a fair player and that we are seen as independent and independent minded. That is because we are not engaged in any degree in any military alliances or alignments. That is the way this needs to stay. Any move away from the triple lock is seen by Irish people, and can only be seen by them, as a move away from non-alignment and neutrality and yes, that will put our peacekeepers in a different situation. Our peacekeepers have always faced danger but theirs is a proud history. At times like this I remember the sacrifice of Private Seán Rooney and many others. I commend his family and his mother, Natasha, in particular.

They were recently involved in project called "the rainbows room", which was opened in Ratoath Community College. That is in Seán's memory and that is all very positive. I also welcome the fact - and I seek further information in this regard - that the Tánaiste visited Lebanon, where he said that ensuring justice for Seán Rooney is at the top of his agenda. We also have to look after our peacekeepers in the sense that we ensure justice for Seán, and we also need to make sure that we maintain how our peacekeepers are thought of across this world: as independent, as from Ireland and as not aligned with others. That goes without saying.

Not only did Ursula von der Leyen stand solidly behind genocidal Israel, but she has also spoken quite openly - I will give her that - about what she sees as a need for a greater military industrial complex in Europe. This is not what the Irish people want. This is not what the Irish people need. We need to make sure there is no further move away from neutrality.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an important and timely debate on two issues that matter to the Irish people and I commend People for Profit-Solidarity on tabling the debate. I want to deal with each issue separately, the first of which is the announcement by the Tánaiste, which I have to say was a surprise and I was in the House the time it was made. He stated that it is his intention to alter the long-standing mechanism to authorise the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on overseas missions. That mechanism, as we all know, is the triple lock, which entails the support of the Government, a positive decision of the Dáil and acting on a UN mandate from either the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Tánaiste has confirmed to me in our exchange during parliamentary questions last week that, in effect, he proposes to remove one of those three pillars, namely, the United Nations sanction, and to effectively have a double lock. I have heard other voices from the Government sources, particularly from the Green Party, that there will be a third element, but that is not what the Tánaiste informed the House last week.

The Tánaiste’s justification was that current practice gives a veto power to Russia - in effect to Vladimir Putin - and China. That is the legal structure of the United Nations since it was created. The five permanent members have veto powers. This was true in Soviet times and when the United States vetoed resolutions on Israel. There is clearly a case for reform, but that is not what has been proposed. The Government did not say that we need to reform the United Nations. It wants to abandon the UN sanction requirement.

The other side of that issue is the impact this change will have on Ireland and our Defence Forces. The long-standing and international mechanism we have and that everybody in the world understands has been cited repeatedly as an assurance to the Irish people during referendum debates on EU treaties. I have cited it myself when saying that Irish troops could not be deployed on overseas missions without UN sanction. This is important. It is an important matter of trust.

Third, the triple lock mechanism was always seen as a layer of security for our troops who can act with the authority of the United Nations, usually while wearing the much-valued blue beret. Those Irish soldiers were not seen as acting on behalf of any particular geopolitical group or any particular interest, but on behalf of the United Nations. They were safer as a result of that understanding and that would be removed, were the triple lock to be removed.

Many want to undermine or belittle the United Nations. Israel's commentary on the General Assembly vote on the recognition of Palestine is the most recent and blatant example of that. Right now, the international order is being tested. The International Court of Justice, ICJ, and the International Criminal Court, ICC, are now coming under enormous pressure and strain. Ireland must be among the defenders of the international order. We have created many of these institutions. We are the founders of many of these institutions. Do they have their difficulties? Yes, but we must be defenders, warts and all, until there is something better to be put in their place. This is because those who want to undermine it now want destroy the well-established working international order. There is a real fear that these institutions will be fatally undermined by growing isolationist self-interest. That is a momentum that is gaining interest and we should not join it. Ireland should not throw in the towel and should not be seen to be going alone and removing yet another brick from the edifice that was so carefully constructed over the last number of decades since the Second World War. We should not contribute to this undermining.

The second issue is that of neutrality itself. When we last debated this issue, I quoted Ivana Bacik’s speech on her election as leader of the Labour Party. She said:

I am committed to Irish neutrality.

But I believe our non-aligned status isn’t about opting out.

It has to be about opting in.

Opting into humanitarian missions, to peacekeeping, to diplomacy, and to the prosecution of war criminals.

We are not, and we never have been, neutral against barbarism and aggression.

We are not neutral against aggression of any sort. I can see the dramatic change in attitude among our EU partners and non-EU member states which, some with very good reason, fear a growing imperialist Russia. They listen to the speeches of Vladimir Putin and they know that he wants to restore an imperial Russia. His speech on the eve of the brutal invasion of Ukraine indicated that he basically wanted to have Russian hegemony restored, not only over the Baltic states, but over many of the states of Eastern Europe that are now independent and free. They look at the savage invasion of Ukraine and believe to their core that Vladimir Putin will not stop there.

In that context, what is Ireland's role? That is the issue we should be debating here. We will come under pressure from our partners, which is understandable, and our long-standing neutrality will be challenged. They will demand that we contribute to collective defence, and we must have a thought-out, reasoned, understandable and reasonable response to that, which should be that we develop our own positive neutrality, invest in our own capacity to police and monitor our waters, our infrastructure and our airspace. Our neutrality is not real if we depend on the RAF to patrol our skies and can only have one naval vessel at sea at any given time to patrol our very extensive economic zone waters. That is not neutrality. Neutrality has in the past been an excuse to not invest in our own defence but real neutral nations are capable of at least monitoring their own skies and territorial waters.

There is a role for a nation like neutral Ireland. There is a need for it in this volatile and changing world where everybody seems to be more belligerent and fearful. There is a role for a neutral Ireland that can argue for peace and can have the reputation and the capacity to explain that clearly to our EU neighbours.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity, for tabling this motion, as well as the opportunity to discuss these two very important topics, namely, the triple lock and our neutrality. Despite the fact that the Tánaiste has said for several years now that we need to have a discussion about these issues, very few opportunities are presented to the Dáil to have this discussion. It is only when the Opposition tables the matter that we are given the opportunity. I therefore highlight the fact that the Government never gives us the opportunity. It speaks of security and it has provided consultation forums but it only provides its people to speak at them, so I welcome this discussion today.

Irish neutrality is not very well defined. It is not laid out in the Constitution and it has never been enshrined in legislation. However, we know that neutrality has been the effective State policy since the foundation of the State and it has served us very well. We have never signed up to any collective defence alliance, whether NATO or any other alliance, and while we did adopt the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, we rightly did not sign up to its collective defence mechanisms.

A line we have heard a lot in the past few years is that we are politically aligned but militarily neutral, which probably reflects the situation relatively well, but I would add that we are also grossly hypocritical in our approach. Never has that been more the case than in the response to Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine when compared to the response to Israel's absolute brutal attempt at the annihilation of the people of Gaza. One saw a rapid and collective concert of sanctions whereas the other response was slow, with the need to talk behind closed doors and to work through diplomacy while the genocide rages all the while. This has undermined our neutrality and left us looking hypocritical to those who are suffering the most.

Ireland's neutrality is not something that can be taken for granted. It cannot be a position that is taken and then remains unaltered in perpetuity. It must be defended, it should be defined and, where necessary, it can change with circumstances. It should be an active neutrality, not a passive one. Active neutrality means acting in the interests of institutions such as the UN, ICC and ICJ, which were built on the very premise of “never again” meaning “never again”, no matter who it is against or who we need to bring to justice. That is under onslaught at the present and the idea that we are removing ourselves from one vital component of the United Nations by removing the triple lock, as opposed to defending it and trying to push it forward and advance it, is incredibly unbecoming.

I listened to the Tánaiste. I would like to accept that he feels he is genuine in his sense that the removal of the triple lock would somehow not undermine our neutrality but he did not create a very compelling argument. In fact, much of this argument was deconstructed very quickly in the analysis that he wanted to present to the Dáil. It is incredible that without a mandate through a party manifesto or a programme for Government, the Tánaiste, and the previous Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, before him, would seek to remove this. In fact, the programme for Government explicitly said we would keep the triple lock. It is undemocratic in the extreme.

The discussion illustrates that strong consideration should be given to officially defining neutrality and having it protected in the Constitution. otherwise it seems to be at the whim of whomever is Minister for Defence at the time. By not having it defined in the Constitution, the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence is creating an argument for removing a very important component of our neutrality, although it simply falls down at the first sight of parliamentary debate. A citizens’ assembly on the matter would help us to explore the subject further but it should be one that starts off with a remit that is very much informed by what we know for sure, which is that the majority of Irish people support neutrality and want to see it maintained and protected, not undermined. The question should be how to maintain and protect it in a way that allows it to be dynamic and move with international developments.

Neutrality has been undermined consistently in the past couple of decades. For example, there is nothing neutral about aligning with other countries for our own security or to patrol our seas and skies. There is certainly nothing neutral about allowing US military planes to land at Shannon Airport. The story came out yesterday about a US general on his way to Israel to engage with a war criminal but we did not even have the self-respect to say we would like to know what was on that warplane. That is not the behaviour of a neutral state; that is the behaviour of a satellite state.

To be neutral, we need to resource the Defence Forces properly. We are currently well short of the establishment number and we cannot recruit fast enough to even maintain current numbers, never mind increase them. I want us to be realistic about what is required. Geopolitical developments of the past few years have shifted the world order and many of these developments have highlighted Ireland's deficiencies. We have no air surveillance or radar capacity, and we do not know what is above our skies or below our seas. As a modern, self-respecting republic, at a very minimum, we should have those things. That will impose a cost but it should not deter us. We should not rely on other countries to defend our airspace and have to call on neighbours to conduct patrols in our waters due to naval personnel shortages. That is no reflection on the proud men and women of the Naval Service, who do an incredible job in difficult circumstances and conditions. However, we should invest in them more. We are seen as a soft touch for transnational organised crime, with the international drugs trade using Irish waters as a gateway to Europe. We should not permit that to continue. We know that in recent years probing missions have used our airspace to test the resolve of other European countries. This is not neutrality, or this is not the kind of neutrality that will serve us well into the future. We should not see neutrality as a way of underinvesting in our Defence Forces and peacekeeping forces. As an island, we conduct the vast majority of our trade by sea so securing Irish sea lanes is vital. We should pay our Defence Forces properly and equip them to do the job we need them to do.

Neutrality is a fundamental principle of the Social Democrats, as are national security and, indeed, economic security and the advancement of global peace. As I said, Ireland's neutrality cannot be taken for granted. It must not be left undefined but, I repeat, there is nothing neutral about aligning with other countries for our own security. All of the parties on the left should be able to acknowledge this without attacking the bona fides of other left-wing politicians because they want to approach neutrality from a practical perspective as well as an ideological one. The practical elements of neutrality also need to be taken into consideration. Regarding that ideological approach, the triple lock has been a very important part of our neutrality since the 1960s and it is clear the Government has no mandate to remove it. We know that the majority of people in Ireland support neutrality, that none of the Government parties went to the voters in 2020 talking about altering the status quoand that they promised to maintain the triple lock in the programme for Government. We will be playing a potentially dangerous game with the removal of the triple lock at any point and, certainly, the way the Government is going about it will undermine democratic norms.

Regardless of what the Tánaiste and the Government believe are the merits of the arguments, this is something which absolutely must be mandated by the people. There is literally nobody calling for this. We are all out canvassing every night coming up to the local and European elections and we know the issues that are coming up at the doors. Would the Tánaiste be able to tell me that anyone is asking him to remove the triple lock? For someone who often talks about his unwillingness to move unilaterally, this is a very unilateral move being taken by the Government without any mandate from the population.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate I was reflecting on the fact that this is the first time I have been involved in a debate on this very important issue of neutrality since 2016, when I came into the House first, so I thank People Before Profit for bringing the motion forward. Neutrality has been treasured by our State since its foundation on the basis that we had made a principled decision and it is part of the Constitution that we remain neutral. However, that does not mean we do not engage with everybody across the world to try to build a better world. Neutrality has served us well internationally and served our reputation. It has also helped us to become a power, a force and an influencer within the United Nations. That is what is most important for a country like ours: that we can influence others.

Given what is happening in the world right now, we need to take stock of the turmoil and mayhem around us. These are very uncertain times. As a neutral nation, we have to be careful what we mean by being neutral. While we call it being militarily neutral, we should not be neutral when it comes to things that are being done wrong. That is why I welcome the fact the Government and Ireland have recognised Palestine as a state on its own. That sends a message that as a neutral country, we are not just silent. We have opinions and we need to get them out there.

We are a valid and respected member of the European Union. Our engagements within the Union will sometimes drag us towards a common policy on defence and how to deal with wars. However, we also have to maintain and respect the fact we are a neutral country, and I believe other countries that are part of other alliances respect that too.

I wish to reflect on how we decided to be a neutral country, what has happened in the world since then and how everything has evolved.

Right now, the world, as it stands, is a very small place and easily accessible for people. One of the things we find now is that Ireland is becoming a docking station for the transportation of illegal drugs across the world, and our seas are the same. While ours is a neutral country, we have to defend our seas and our shores to make sure we are not complicit in this trade. I acknowledge the fact that serious drugs funds have been made offshore in recent years, but our Defence Forces, including the Naval Service, need to be equipped properly in order that it is not just tokenism but that we can use our own resources to make sure we can defend our own patch against that type of subversive behaviour.

It is important that we have a discussion on neutrality for the simple reason that times have changed and emphases have changed. Our neutrality is core to the foundation of our society, and we should maintain it. That does not mean we cannot debate other alliances, provided that they are non-military. That is where the concern is as to whether we are now dropping our neutrality because we are engaging with other people who may have other alliances and we are trying to steer a clear path. At the outset, however, we have to state clearly from a Government point of view and from an Opposition point of view that neutrality is our bedrock.

Truly, we need to look at what role we want to play in the world in trying to restore peace to places that are in such turmoil at the moment. That should be our focus. When we look at the number of men, women and children being killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the number rising daily, and when we see the pictures of what is happening, I do not believe we can take any part in any kind of military activity in any country. It is absolutely abhorrent.

We need to look at our economic development and, as a country that has a fantastic reputation for pharma in Galway and for digitalisation and all that goes with that, we are a global centre for a lot of that activity. We should be proud of that, but I also believe we should not allow the dividends from that to conflict with our neutrality. We should not pay any price or cede any kind of ground on the basis that there is an economic price to pay for that. The words of the Israeli ambassador this week were very unfortunate and highlighted the fact that they are trying to use their connections with business across the world as an influence to say, "Do it our way or we will not trade with you." That is the wrong way to do business, and if we are doing business ourselves globally, we need to be able to hold our heads up high and we need to take on the business that we can support and that we know is not in any way connected with the violence going on in the world today.

We have a lot to talk about as regards neutrality and how we define it going forward. We definitely need to have more of a discussion on this, maybe a people's assembly and a referendum to make sure we copper-fasten this into the future.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to be here for this very important debate. I support this motion because the people are totally annoyed with what the Government is doing. None of the Government parties - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Green Party - campaigned at the last general election to end neutrality or the triple lock and, therefore, they have no mandate for any such policies. I ask them to hold a referendum and to tell the people the truth this time. The Tánaist, who is at the front of this removal of the triple lock, said in 2013 that the triple lock was the core of our neutrality and described the attempt to undermine it as "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael". Now Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Greens are joined together to do exactly what he said should not be done. Who can believe what they are saying? I have had a lot of respect for the Minister of State over the years, but this is totally ridiculous. We do not even have a properly resourced Army. A lot of the time, Defence Forces members have to get the working family payment to survive. We could not keep out the dogs and cats if a right invasion of them landed. That is the absolute truth. The Defence Forces are doing great peacekeeping work all over the world, and we really admire them for what they have done, but we should not be forced by Europe to go into this kind of a situation when we do not have an Army.

We applaud de Valera for what he did in the middle of the Second World War, when he stood up to Churchill and refused to go into an arrangement with him at that time. De Valera held his neutrality, and we applaud him for that. The Government parties should hold a referendum because the people do not trust them. They should tell the truth to them this time, not like what they did in the most recent referendums. They told them many blatant lies, but the people read it, even though all the Opposition parties here were combined in this. Look at all the things the Government parties have done to the people: carbon tax, the climate action Bill, the hate speech Bill, the nature restoration laws that they are going to implement and that their MEPs in Europe have voted for, and the nitrates directive. Many small farmers have to reduce the number of their cows. Water quality is important, but it must be recognised that something has to be done about our treatment plants as well because many of them are under capacity and some settlements have no treatment plant.

The Government's migration policy is a total and absolute shambles. The whole of the western world is laughing at the Government. One arm of the government is giving out tents and another arm is coming along and dumping them the following day along the canal. The Government parties have diluted the tourism product of Kerry and Killarney. Businesses are struggling over what they have done, and the social fabric of Killarney is totally changed by their migration policy because they have no policy, only to take as many as they can, with no cap and no idea of where they are going or where they will finish up. They are hurting and angering a great many people and they have it done already.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this very important Private Members' business-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae has downgraded us.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not social democrats.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is not much difference between the whole lot of ye anyway.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is big difference.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a big insult.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A river of blood.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would never say anything like that to Deputy Healy-Rae.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neutrality transcends mere non-involvement or detachment. It embodies a proactive stance in fostering human rights and liberty, shielding individuals from tyranny, championing peace and contributing to UN peacekeeping missions in regions such as Lebanon, the Congo, Chad and South Sudan. I pay a very strong word of thanks to the people who have worked in our Defence Forces over the years, whether at home or abroad. They have gone out and served our country with distinction. Some of them have very sadly lost their lives. There are families who will be looking at this and remembering their loved ones who put on a uniform, left here and came home after sadly losing their lives in the interest and in the voice of peace and of trying to save other people's lives and their way of life. We have to acknowledge that here today.

For decades, Ireland's neutrality has facilitated a positive global influence and I am convinced this principle merits incorporation into the Irish Constitution and EU treaties, rather than being eroded as it is under the current Administration. It is right to highlight the wrongs of the Government and to say that what it is trying to do is a further display of its detachment. A couple of months ago, the Government told everybody that they should take the mother out of the Constitution and vote "Yes". It was not only the Government, but Sinn Féin, Labour and everybody in here said it, except a small number of people, including the people on this side of the House. We said "No" and that the people were saying "No" to what the Government wanted. When the votes were counted, who was right? It was not the Members over there; it was the people on the ground who said "No". They were not going to be dictated to by Government. No government or person has a monopoly on being right but people in Ireland today are standing up for what they believe in and will not be dictated to by Government or anybody waving their finger and telling them they must vote in such a way.

When it comes to our neutrality, if the Government is going to tinker with it and is thinking of diluting the stance we have taken over the years, it should give the people of Ireland a say and have a referendum on it. I have no doubt in my mind what the people would say. They would say the system we have and what we have been doing is right, and that is the road we should continue to go down.

I recall times when the Army was needed by the State and it was always ready to stand with the people and work on their behalf. It is in no way right Army remuneration should be insufficient. I think of great people who left Kerry, even in recent times; for instance, the Quinn family from Blackwater, whose son went off in the peacekeeping missions. I thank those families for sending their young people abroad on all our behalf.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I pay tribute to People Before Profit for bringing it forward, rather than the Social Democrats. There has never been a more important time to protect and preserve Irish neutrality, so I support the motion fully.

It is incredible to see the significant U-turn all three Government parties have taken in their views on neutrality. Ten years ago, Deputy Micheál Martin described Fine Gael's attempt to undermine the triple lock as an "out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael". Now it must be an out-of-touch, ideological obsession on the part of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens. He is actively trying to do away with the triple lock as Minister for Defence. It is not only surprising but disingenuous to voters who were told by Government parties and in the programme for Government that overseas operations would be subject to a triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil Éireann approval. The Minister for Defence has made it clear in recent weeks that the new defence Bill will seek to get rid of the triple lock, openly contradicting the commitments he made to the public four years ago. In reality, the double lock is totally ineffective because the Dáil will do whatever the Government bids it to do. The Government parties will not stand individually as people; they will stand in such a way as to ensure a ministerial position comes calling for them. They will do the Government's bidding. Unfortunately, the Dáil is not independent of the Government, which is a breach of the Constitution. It is supposed to be an independent body in the overall scheme of things but because of the nature of government and how it works in the country, it is not. Effectively, we have a triple lock or nothing.

There is no doubt neutrality is under threat from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens. They are using every opportunity to undermine neutrality and hoodwink the public into agreeing to pieces that erode our neutrality bit by bit until there is nothing left. It is disappointing the Government does not even have the courage to come forward and say what we should do on behalf of the people. It will instead remove it bit by bit and we will wake up one morning and it will be all gone. We will be in the middle of a war and people will wonder how we got here. We will have got here because the Government did not have the courage to say this is what it wanted to do and put that forward. We need to actively ensure we do not sleepwalk into a situation nobody wanted or asked for. That is exactly what would happen if it were up to the Government, as proved by the consultative forum on international security, which was clearly an attempt to skew the public towards questioning our neutrality and towards the legislation to remove the triple lock that will come through the Dáil in the next few months.

Neutrality is essential to ensuring a peaceful resolution to disputes across the globe. We could, and should, play a significant role in facilitating this. We should not take direction from Europe, which has no interest in peace or progress and only wishes to conform to German and French military policy. We have nothing to add to military policy or might; what we have is a long-standing and well-respected neutral stance over the years and an honourable role we could and should expand on. Our focus should be on creating links between Europe and Third World countries and expanding our peacemaking capabilities. Ireland is recognised throughout the Third World as a former colony and one of the few members of the European Union that is a former colony and that understands at heart what former colonial countries feel. We could bring that to the heart of the European Union and to the former colonial masters, and put an alternative view there. That would be more valuable and worthwhile than blindly following Germany and France's views on military matters.

Our focus should be on looking after people at risk, taking in refugees and ensuring they have access to travel and a secure place to go. We will bring far more to a crisis by providing such assistance than we ever could through military assistance, though we could provide plenty of manpower for the European army, which is probably what the focus will be on in time to come. The focus should always be on assisting those affected, and this focus is taken away when military gain becomes the main priority. This would be the case if we were to join NATO or any type of EU military intervention. We need to enhance peace, not destroy it.

The Government amendment states: "under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders 1973 and 1989, it is expressly prohibited for civil aircraft to carry munitions of war in Ireland without an exemption to do so by the Minister for Transport[.]" That sounds very good but inspections of aircraft are supposed to take place to ensure the regulations are being followed and there is no record of a single inspection carried out in Ireland since 2020. Why has the Minister not carried out a single inspection in four years? It is probably because he is afraid of America.

The amendment goes on to state: "the process for the granting of such exemptions is robust and includes advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of international humanitarian law and Ireland's international obligations". How can the Minister stand by this when more than 1,000 such exemptions were granted in 2023 without a single inspection? Most of these exemptions were granted to the United States and Germany, two countries we know are actively arming states such as Israel. There is no record of oversight of items carried on aircraft coming through Ireland. This is outrageous and the Government stating we somehow have "a robust process" is laughable. It might be a robust and good process but the only way to prove that is by doing inspections. If the inspections are carried out and it turns out there are no arms being carried on planes through Shannon, that is well and good and it means our process is being respected by powers around the world. However, we know the reason no inspections are taking place is that weapons are being carried and it is better not to ask than to look for excuses. That is the reality of the situation.

The Tánaiste and Government's amendment is shocking when you think about it. The Tánaiste recognises "Russia's brutal... invasion of Ukraine... has fundamentally changed the geopolitical and security landscape in Europe". What about the brutalisation of the Palestinian people by Israel? That is not even mentioned. It is hard to find a positive in the invasion of Ukraine.

The one positive that has come out of it is that it has really shown the Irish people the hypocrisy in Government and EU policy where everything that Russia does to Ukraine is wrong but we turn a blind eye to everything that happens in Palestine and what the Israelis do. What the Israelis are doing in Palestine is the exact same as what the Russians have been doing in Ukraine. The hypocrisy of this Government and Europe denying that and looking the other way is altogether shocking.

The amendment then uses the words, "in common with other partners in Europe". I would like to know who those other partners are because in reality, Europe has dominated us right from the time we went into Europe. All we have to do is look at my own town and how the fishing industry there has been treated over the years. That is all to do with European domination, right up to Brexit when the French negotiated so that the French fishermen were looked after and they shafted everybody else. This meant that we were shafted once again by our so-called common partners in Europe. That is a load of rubbish.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

: I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that: — Ireland's policy of military neutrality is characterised by non-membership of military alliances, or common or mutual defence arrangements, and this policy choice has been practised by successive Governments since the Second World War;

— the Government reaffirms its commitment to this policy and reiterates that it has no plans to either join a military alliance or enter into a mutual defence arrangement; and

— the Government does not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution of Ireland is either necessary or appropriate;

recognises that:

— Russia's brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, blatantly violating the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law, has fundamentally changed the geopolitical and security landscape in Europe;

— in its wake, countries all over Europe have examined their foreign, security and defence policies;

— in common with other partners in Europe, Ireland therefore finds itself in an increasingly contested, dynamic and volatile international security environment, marked by violence and conflict in our immediate neighbourhood, including in the Middle East and Africa; and

— as a highly globalised country, Ireland cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events; acknowledges that: — the Government convened a Consultative Forum on International Security Policy from 22nd – 26th June, 2023, with a view to building public understanding and generating discussions on Ireland's foreign, security and defence policies;

— the Government remains committed to taking forward a number of actions in follow up to last year's Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, focusing in particular on opportunities for multilateral and international engagement and steps to tackle new and emerging threats, including through engagement at the UN, European Union (EU), and the NATO Partnership for Peace programme;

— Ireland has a long tradition of international engagement, including through participation in UN and UN-mandated, EU-led, and NATO-led peacekeeping missions and, in this context, the Government has approved the drafting of legislation which will govern the future deployment of the Irish Defence Forces as part of an international peacekeeping or crisis management operation;

— this legislation will reinforce our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions regarding our participation in peacekeeping missions, and will also allow for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas in roles such as the crisis management evacuation of Irish citizens; and

— Ireland will also continue to support a strong EU role in the maintenance of international peace and security and will engage actively in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, including through the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO); and further notes that: — under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders 1973 and 1989, it is expressly prohibited for civil aircraft to carry munitions of war in Ireland without an exemption to do so by the Minister for Transport, and the process for the granting of such exemptions is robust and includes advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of international humanitarian law and Ireland's international obligations; and

— under the terms of the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, all foreign military aircraft wishing to overfly, or land in, the State require diplomatic clearance from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and this is subject to strict conditions, including that the aircraft is unarmed, carries no arms, ammunition or explosives, does not engage in intelligence gathering, and that it does not form part of a military exercise or operation.".

I welcome the opportunity to hear the perspectives of Members of the House on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. We now need to focus on a more serious, sustained and informed discussion on our international security and policy choices. The security situation in Europe has changed significantly. This calls for a serious consideration of the State's approach to international security issues and the contribution we can and should make to the safety and security of Europe.

As Ireland is a highly globalised country, we cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events. It is important to be clear on precisely what we are discussing. Ireland's policy of military neutrality, as practised by successive Governments over many decades, means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. There are no plans to change this policy. The Government's countermotion explicitly reaffirms this position.

On a general point about the discussion, many of the Deputies on the other side quoted statements made more than ten years ago, in 2013, by different politicians and stated there had been no discussion of this matter during the last general election. I do not know what planet they have been living on. The world has changed since the last general election. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. In my lifetime, I have not experienced a war in Europe. Nobody in this building has ever seen a war on the Continent of Europe in their lifetimes. None of us in this building have ever seen one.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yugoslavia.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

NATO bombs.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had not seen one before the last general election. It has happened since, with Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Whether we like it or not, that has changed the international security situation in Europe, of which we are a part. That has changed fundamentally since the last general election. For people to refer to what people said on previous occasions is not acceptable. Since the last world war, Ireland has been privileged to be a peaceful nation in Europe where there were no military assaults on other countries in the European Union. Putin did it and it would be irresponsible of us not to respond to the change in circumstances or not to take any action.

I have listened to Putin's puppets over there today.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is shameful.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an issue of Putin's puppets versus the people of Ireland.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chair, I am complaining right now. The last time I complained about that I was told that I had not complained immediately. I am asking that that statement be withdrawn. It is out of order and against Standing Orders.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are puppets of Putin. You are on the wrong side of history.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State called us Putin's puppets. The Acting Chairman must ask him to withdraw it.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sit down, Deputy.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am making a request of the Chair. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle about this.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You had your opportunity, Deputy.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I get a response? The remark is against Standing Orders and I want it withdrawn.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the floor.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State just accused us of being Putin's puppets.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The Deputy had an opportunity to speak and there will be another ten minutes.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies opposite will have a wrap-up speech.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I moved the motion and I want the accusation that we are puppets of Putin to be withdrawn. Withdraw it now.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not direct my comment at any individual but if the hat fits, you should wear it.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You said the backer of the motion. I am no puppet of Putin.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You obviously feel the hat fits.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Withdraw that accusation.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, you had your opportunity. Please sit down. You had ten minutes and if you want, I will call this debate off.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a point of order. Sit down.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State must withdraw that remark.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sit down, Deputy. Have respect for the Chair.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Salient ruling of the Chair 417 states that Members may not say that another Member is taking orders or instructions from outside interests or its representatives, or speaking for such interests. That is what "Putin's puppets" means.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You made enough allegations earlier that I let go. Please sit down.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the salient ruling of the Chair. I am asking that the Acting Chairman get the Minister of State to withdraw the remark. It is very clearly against the rules.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will adjourn if you do not stop.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please adjourn the debate and check the rules. Salient ruling of the Chair 1417 states that Members may not say that another Member is taking orders or instructions from outside interests or its representatives, or speaking for such interests. That is what "Putin's puppets" means. It is very clear.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How dare he-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State withdraw or clarify what he said?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will specifically clarify what was said. I have listened to the debate over the last hour or so. At least 15 Members of the Opposition have spoken. I referred to Putin's puppets. I did not refer any specific individual. If an individual feels that I was referring to them-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He called all of us over here puppets.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, 15 Members of the Opposition spoke and I made a reference. If some people feel it relates to them, if the hat fits, they can wear it but I did not put the hat on anyone here today. I mentioned no name. I did not direct my comments at any individual.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He called us Putin's puppets. Telling lies

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a withdrawal.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a general remark and if a Deputy takes offence, that is up to the Deputy. Why would an individual Deputy think I was referring to them if they did not believe it themselves? I am still referring to no Deputy in particular.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are the Opposition. All of us who spoke this morning are liable to that accusation. The Minister of State has breached the order and he will not remove what he said. The order states that a Member shall not say that another Member is taking orders and instructions from outside the interests of the State.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not mention another Member.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You said that we are over here and you are over there.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We find ourselves in the same position as the Healy-Raes in demanding that you withdraw an accusation that we are Putin's puppets.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who said it so?

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you withdrawing the remark?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you do not do it now-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please. I have asked the question.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Calling us Putin's puppets-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Withdraw the remark for the order of the House.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the remark as a result of some Members feeling that the comment was directed towards them, which it was not specifically.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Smith, he has withdrawn the remark. Accept that now, please.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State should now continue.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had an interesting debate over the past hour or so. In particular, we had a very important debate yesterday on recognising the State of Palestine. On the issue of neutrality, the world has changed since the last general election. In my lifetime, I have never seen an invasion by Russia into Europe before. I have heard no------

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ukraine is not in Europe.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ukraine is not in Europe.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not in the European Union. It has preferred status to-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was part of Russia.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy Healy-Rae. I will have to ask you to leave if you do not stop. Let the Minister of State continue.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The UK is not in the European Union but it is in Europe. The European Union is not Europe and it is important to recognise that. Switzerland is in Europe but it is not in the European Union. I am not referring to the EU.

In the last few days, I have heard very little criticism in this House of what Hamas did on 7 October. We are very fair and proportionate. We criticise what Hamas did on 7 October and we also and more firmly criticise the actions of Israel and its barbaric slaughter in the Gaza Strip of thousands of utterly defenceless innocent women, children and men. When we talk about neutrality, we cannot ignore what has happened in the world since the last general election. In case the Deputies have not noticed, there have been changes since then. They talk about neutrality. I talk about military neutrality as part of this debate for the very simple reason that I, the Deputies and everyone else know the Irish people are not one bit neutral when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian people. We are not a neutral country politically or ideologically. We do not favour downtrodden people being overrun by military might, as happened in this country over many years. We are not neutral when it comes to a big, aggressive offender with mighty arms, trampling over lives and killing innocent people who are powerless to defend themselves. Similarly, the Irish people are not one bit neutral when it comes to Russia and Ukraine and what Putin has done in Ukraine. The Irish people are very clear. We support the Ukrainian people. We support Ukraine's early access to the European Union in order that, collectively, we will be stronger against the aggressions of the military might of Russia. Russia believes the longer this goes on, the better for it because it will wear down resistance.

Ireland has worked to make sure funding is put back in place for various projects, including for the people in Gaza. We are taking a lead with UNRWA and asking countries that have suspended funding to reinstate it immediately. I attended a meeting of the foreign affairs committee in Europe two weeks ago to put pressure on the European Commission which had withheld some of its funding to UNRWA while Ms Catherine Colonna's investigation was under way. The European Commission has agreed to bring forward and pay over the funding it had withheld. That is what we do.

We are not neutral when it comes to Israel and Gaza. We are not neutral when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. However, people think we are neutral. They should get real. The Irish people are not neutral. This Chamber is not neutral. Deputies should not talk to us about being neutral when some country is slaughtering the people of another country. We are not one bit neutral. When it comes to military action, as a small country of 5 million people, we have been taking part in peacekeeping missions around the world for 60 years. There has not been a single day in over 60 years that Ireland has not been involved in a UN peacekeeping mission. That will continue because people see us as fair-minded. We never participated in a war, invaded a country or supported any country during the world wars.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State was obviously in the House when I spoke earlier but chose to ignore what I said. He spoke of hypocrisy but his hypocrisy has been shown and thrown open today. I will repeat what I said. I made absolutely clear that I opposed both imperialist powers that seek to divide the world into their respective spheres of influence. I said I openly opposed the US empire and equally opposed its Russian and Chinese rivals. Maybe the Minister of State is deaf or maybe he chooses not to hear it but what he did here earlier was disgraceful. Thankfully, he withdrew his comments.

I have a couple of questions that I would like the world to repeat to this Government. When is it going to bring the Bill to end the triple lock before the Dáil? Clearly, and for very good reasons, it is not going to happen before the European and local elections. It is because the Government knows it would make it unpopular. If it is going to bring in the Bill before the general election, then make it a general election issue if it will not give the people a referendum. It should give us a new manifesto from Fianna Fáil which states it is ditching our neutrality and will bring the sons and daughters of working-class people to engage in combat in any part of the world it chooses. I repeat that question. Where does the Government want to send the sons and daughters of Irish people to take part in combat? The Government cannot and has not answered this.

Lastly, an important question was asked today that needs to be repeated. How does the Government know that US aircraft, such as the C-17 which carried UN general commander Erik Kurilla into Tel Aviv to engage in discussions with the Israeli military, are not carrying weapons or bombs? It does not inspect them. The Seanad will deal with this today in its motion on air navigation and transport and we fully support it. I thank all Members of the Opposition who spoke. I will give Deputy Boyd Barrett an opportunity to speak.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has resorted to McCarthyism. That is what we saw here today. It is absolutely unbelievable but it is not surprising it would have adopted the tactics of the Cold War merchants of the United States who sought to actively crank up inter-imperialist rivalry to the terrifying level that at one point we were on the brink of a nuclear war over Cuba. Those are the stakes. The Government should be honest on where it stands in that very frightening new international security framework, to use the Minister of State's phrase. Let me be clear about our position because it is crystal clear and consistent. We support neither Washington nor Moscow, neither London nor Beijing. We oppose all these empires and imperial military blocks equally. We have a record of it which, frankly, is very much better than that of the Government.

Fianna Fáil leaders have gone over and hobnobbed with Putin. We have never done that. In fact, we have comrades who are languishing in Russian prisons at the moment because they opposed Putin's bloody war in Ukraine. We just do not happen to believe escalating that conflict to the point of a possible nuclear war is a very good idea. We think it is terrifyingly dangerous. However, we are absolutely consistent, unlike the Government. There is one thing missing in the Government's amendment and in its characterisation of the new international situation that allows it to abandon solemn commitments, made in its parties' manifestos, in the Dáil and in the programme for Government, that it would retain the triple lock. Its justification for that is the new international framework but the only thing it mentions in its amendment is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is not a word about the various obvious other new contexts for this, specifically that the powers that dominate NATO are the ones that are arming to the teeth the state that is committing genocide in Gaza and that, even now, Biden refuses to say the action Israel took in killing 45 people in Rafah in a bombing of people languishing in tents who had fled from other parts of Gaza does not breach his red line. I think Putin is a monster and a tyrant. By the way, I said this in the Dáil long before the Government ever used words like that about Putin. However, what sort of monster and tyrant does not think the regime that slaughtered innocent people in tents who fled to Rafah from other places is not equally a monster and a tyrant? The amendment makes no mention of that or the regime that was capable of killing, directly and indirectly, 1 million people in Iraq based on a pack of lies concocted about weapons of mass destruction. The Government was silent about that and allowed 2 million troops to go through Shannon Airport to perpetrate that slaughter. Those were criminal actions based on a pack of lies.

We are consistent - we oppose war and empires. That is what Irish people feel about neutrality because we were victims of empires and, therefore, we should not align with them. We should stand with the oppressed of the world against these warmongering powers and empires.

As well as the Government's breaches of promises in its manifestos and statements in the Dáil, I draw the Minister of State's attention to a possible legal impediment to the Government doing what it wants to do in getting rid of the triple lock and abandoning further our neutrality, which is the national declarations made at the time of the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon. Those national declarations were launched with the EU in advance of those repeat referendums in order to assure the Irish public that under no circumstances would the triple lock be abandoned. They were not just verbal commitments; they were launched with the EU. Arguably, if the Government attempts to bring this legislation through, it will be in breach of international law. Think about that one, as well as the moral bankruptcy of saying one thing to people before an election and abandoning it afterwards. As Deputy Paul Murphy laid out forensically, there is nothing in current legislation or in the triple lock that prevents us from doing humanitarian or other missions that are genuinely about peacekeeping. We insist that there is a constraint on the Government, which should be in our Constitution, that prevents it from deploying the sons and daughters of working-class people in wars headed up by powers like the United States, Britain, France or Germany - the states that are complicit and up to their necks in the Israeli genocide in Gaza. The horror we are witnessing could be turned off like that if the United States, Britain and Germany stopped arming Israel.

The Government suggests that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a reason we should ally ourselves with powers like that. No, the opposite is the case. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the reason we should never have anything to do with these bloody imperial powers. We stood with the Afghani people when Russia invaded Afghanistan. That was a bloody, horrific war. We stood and protested with the people of Chechnya when Russia launched a bloody, murderous assault on its people. We stood with the people in Hong Kong when they fought against a crushing by the Chinese regime of their democracy. We stand with the people of Tibet against the Chinese regime. By the same token, we stand with all oppressed people - the Palestinians, the people of Yemen as they are being slaughtered by the Saudi regime armed by the United States, and people in Latin America who, time and again, were victims of the United States believing that South America was its backyard and was willing to arm militias to undermine democratic governments and movements in El Salvador, Nicaragua and so on. That is a consistent foreign policy. It is what I think people want. It would be an absolute betrayal of Irish neutrality and our entire history of resistance and opposition to empire and colonialism for the Government to do what it is trying to do, as well as it very possibly being a breach of solemn legal commitments made in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. The Government has been called out. It is interesting that the Tánaiste said we provoke him. We provoke you because we remind you of the facts and cut through the dishonest narrative the Government has used to justify its moves away from neutrality.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 29 May 2024. Now, later than scheduled, we proceed to Leaders' Questions.