Brian Stanley Demands Answer on 2002 Treaty 'Solemn Declaration'
Brian Stanley pressed ministers and witnesses over a 2002 commitment by the Taoiseach relating to the Nice and Lisbon treaties, asking whether it was a solemn declaration to the Irish people and whether it remained binding. He also questioned differences between the 1960s Act duties and the current bill's language on peacekeeping, conflict prevention and international security.
Stanley repeatedly asked whether the 2002 commitments, including references to the triple lock that he said swung public opinion, were accepted as a solemn declaration by those who changed their vote from a two‑thirds rejection to a one‑third acceptance. He sought a simple acceptance that the declaration had been taken seriously by the electorate.
The exchange focused on whether commitments made by the Taoiseach and Government in 2002 should bind future governments. Stanley pressed that those who changed their vote had taken the pledge as a solemn declaration, and the record shows interruptions and a request to withdraw a previous remark during the discussion.
Stanley referenced changes in the European security environment — mentioning Crimea 2014 and Ukraine 2022 — to argue that national policy has evolved and that post‑2022 governments may respond differently. Respondents noted that commitments made 23 years ago are not necessarily unending obligations for current governments.
Stanley quoted Sean Lamasse's description of the 1960s Act duties as being "of a police character on behalf of the United Nations" and asked whether that differs from the bill before the House, which uses terms such as peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. The transcript captures agreement that the 1960s legislation is different from the broader language in the proposed bill.
The debate included clarifications, procedural interruptions and multiple interventions from other speakers who sought to emphasise differences between past and present legislative language. The session documents both direct questioning of witnesses and short procedural disputes over remarks made during the exchange.
Line of questioning
Stanley repeatedly asked whether the 2002 commitments, including references to the triple lock that he said swung public opinion, were accepted as a solemn declaration by those who changed their vote from a two‑thirds rejection to a one‑third acceptance. He sought a simple acceptance that the declaration had been taken seriously by the electorate.
Solemn declaration debate
The exchange focused on whether commitments made by the Taoiseach and Government in 2002 should bind future governments. Stanley pressed that those who changed their vote had taken the pledge as a solemn declaration, and the record shows interruptions and a request to withdraw a previous remark during the discussion.
Security context cited
Stanley referenced changes in the European security environment — mentioning Crimea 2014 and Ukraine 2022 — to argue that national policy has evolved and that post‑2022 governments may respond differently. Respondents noted that commitments made 23 years ago are not necessarily unending obligations for current governments.
1960s Act comparison
Stanley quoted Sean Lamasse's description of the 1960s Act duties as being "of a police character on behalf of the United Nations" and asked whether that differs from the bill before the House, which uses terms such as peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. The transcript captures agreement that the 1960s legislation is different from the broader language in the proposed bill.
Procedural and witness exchanges
The debate included clarifications, procedural interruptions and multiple interventions from other speakers who sought to emphasise differences between past and present legislative language. The session documents both direct questioning of witnesses and short procedural disputes over remarks made during the exchange.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Martin Daly
Martin Daly criticises CHI governance over children's hip surgeries
Mattie McGrath
Mattie McGrath: Ballapurine special class left in limbo
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan demands redress for West Bank orphanage survivors
George Lawlor
George Lawlor on fair pay for performers in the streaming era
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan criticises guillotining of Tenancies Bill
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell on Sovereignty, Neutrality and EU Assistance
Transcript
Could I ask Mr Bourke, the commitment given in 2002 by the Taoiseach of the day regarding Lisbon and the East Treaty, that swung one-third of the population. We had a two-thirds rejection, roughly, and then it swung it to a one-third rejection of those treaties. In one word, do you accept that as a solemn declaration to the Irish people? Sorry, I couldn't make you out there at Deputy Stanley of Policies. The declaration, the commitment given by the Taoiseach of the day and the Government of the day in terms of getting the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon treaties passed, those commitments given regarding the triple lock, do you accept that they were taken by those people who changed their mind by, you know, roughly two-thirds, one-third, swung the other way, as a solemn declaration to the Irish people, to people of this state anyway? I think the evolution of policy of this state has happened since, you know, the end of the Second War. I think 2014 Crimea, 2022 Ukraine, I think major land war in Europe has changed the security situation for Ireland and the European Union, and so I think you have to be able to respond to that. What I'm asking you is a different question. Do you accept that that was a solemn declaration to the people of this state that swung from a two-third, one-third, the other way around, right, that swung a third of the population that voted to go a different direction? Do you accept that they accepted that? Do you believe that was a solemn declaration and they took it as a solemn declaration to the Irish people, Irish people living within this state? I think commitments made by politicians. I think commitments made 23 years ago by politicians are not something that I have to say that that should be an unending commitment, therefore, into the future, you know, that a current government post-Ukraine 2022 cannot change policy. And that's not something that really I want to kind of speculate about the intentions of Brian Cowan, whoever it was at that time. I took it as a solemn declaration. Can I just, because it's a very short time, can I just... Deputy Stanley, can I just ask you to withdraw that previous remark? Okay, I'll withdraw it. The Deputy is saying something there. Can I just add something that might help this? We're fixating very much, the solemn declaration included, the government included, there was a change to the fact that the defence policy would be consistent with the national character and decisions made at national level. That hasn't changed. So I think you're being a little bit disingenuous on what you're saying there, Deputy. Just one other question. It doesn't hinge on the triple lock. In relation to the 1960s Act, in relation to that, Sean Lamasse outlined it, you know, a very active Taoiseach and well respected, that he said that the duties were of a police character on behalf of the United Nations. Do you accept that that's very different than what's proposed now in this bill, where it's peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security, which has been outlined already, could mean a lot of things? Do you accept... Sure, please. Do you accept that they're two different things? Yes or no. I'm not... I'm sure of the question, sir. I can't really... I can't make it out. Sorry. The question is really straightforward. I thought I was talking in very clear language. It's out of date. You're just quite quiet, so I can't hear you. Sorry. So the legislation from the 1960s Act was very clear, outlined by Sean Lamasse, saying that for duties of police character on behalf of the United Nations. And what's being proposed now is very different in the bill that we're being seen now. It's conflict prevention, strengthening international security. Can you get... That's not... They're very different. It's incorrect. It's incorrect to say that. No, I'm asking... I'm quoting the bill. Okay. I'm going to cut it off. Mr. Murphy, yes, are the two different things I'm asking? Yes or no? 1960, is the legislation different? Yes, the two different... 1960, yes it is, yeah. They're very different. They're very different. Thank you. Mr. Crockwell. Thank you. Just to tag, we have served on at least four different peace enforcement missions. I've moved on to... Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Thank you. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell. Mr. Crockwell.