Brian Stanley presses on NATO role and triple lock referendum
Brian Stanley questioned Mr. Donnery on proposed changes to peacekeeping rules, whether NATO would be included as a multilateral force, and the status of the triple lock. He said he favours military neutrality and warned that changing the triple lock without a referendum could break public trust.
Mr. Donnery confirmed that NATO could be included among multilateral forces referenced in the proposed changes, answering "Yes" when asked directly. He also stood by his earlier statement that "the credibility of the NATO alliance has been, perhaps, fatally undermined."
Stanley recalled the triple lock phrase was devised during the 2001 Nice referendum and was appended to the Lisbon Treaty as a national declaration. He described the triple lock as a solemn commitment and asked whether altering it should require a referendum; Mr. Donnery replied he did not think a referendum was necessary, saying the change was not at a constitutional level.
Mr. Donnery characterised the shift as a major change but insisted it was not a fundamental constitutional alteration. He reminded the committee that the triple lock was introduced by a previous government as a cast-iron guarantee and that critics at the time had called it "smoke and mirrors."
Stanley warned that pushing the change through without public input could break citizens' trust, citing voters who supported the earlier referendums. Mr. Donnery argued that changing circumstances require governments and legislation to adapt, noting long-standing global conflicts and shifting security dynamics.
NATO inclusion confirmed
Mr. Donnery confirmed that NATO could be included among multilateral forces referenced in the proposed changes, answering "Yes" when asked directly. He also stood by his earlier statement that "the credibility of the NATO alliance has been, perhaps, fatally undermined."
Triple lock and referendum concerns
Stanley recalled the triple lock phrase was devised during the 2001 Nice referendum and was appended to the Lisbon Treaty as a national declaration. He described the triple lock as a solemn commitment and asked whether altering it should require a referendum; Mr. Donnery replied he did not think a referendum was necessary, saying the change was not at a constitutional level.
Debate over constitutional significance
Mr. Donnery characterised the shift as a major change but insisted it was not a fundamental constitutional alteration. He reminded the committee that the triple lock was introduced by a previous government as a cast-iron guarantee and that critics at the time had called it "smoke and mirrors."
Public trust and changing circumstances
Stanley warned that pushing the change through without public input could break citizens' trust, citing voters who supported the earlier referendums. Mr. Donnery argued that changing circumstances require governments and legislation to adapt, noting long-standing global conflicts and shifting security dynamics.
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 →
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh Demands Inquiry Start Over Epilim Delay
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue urges health review of wind farm guidelines
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Calls to Abolish TV Licence, Proposes Tech Levy
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy urges protection for teachers wearing keffiyehs
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Warns bill would criminalise protest and solidarity
Transcript
I'll try and keep my questions direct, and if the answers can be kept short, it's not, you know, I don't want to be abrupt with you, but obviously time, time is very short. Mr. Donnery, just in relation to your opening statement, you're saying that, in specific, the four changes, which is out in a very clear way, that this will bring about, and the last one you say, in specifying the kind of multilateral force, with which such deployments might serve, including the UN, EU, OSCE, and any other regional body. Does that include NATO? Yes or no? Yes. Yes, okay, thank you. And in the first paragraph of your statement, you say, significantly, the credibility of the NATO alliance has been, perhaps, fatally undermined. You stand by that statement? Absolutely. I think the principle is correct. So can I clarify, so you're saying, so you're setting out here that NATO could be one of those regional bodies, and you're setting out very, very clearly that the credibility of it is possibly fatally undermined. As a collective security organization, certainly. Thank you. And just in relation to the document that you submitted, on page four, and, you know, from my point of view, I mean, I'm in favour of military neutrality. I don't have a big issue in terms of the 12 to 50. I don't understand the logic of that, or the 12 to 30 or 40 or whatever, in relation to rescue missions, in relation to the other areas that set out. It's, you know, it would seem like a practical measure. But in that, on page four of it, you say that peacekeeping needs have changed further legislation, again amended in the 2006 Act, and what that provided for. And it says, approved or otherwise, or sanctioned by resolution of the Stewardy Council or General Assembly. Or General Assembly, yeah? Okay. And you're referring to the triple lock. It's a phrase devised during the 2001 Nice Referendum Treaty, which I remember and was involved in. But that was, it was a national declaration med. And, you know, it was, it was, and as you say out, it was appended to the Lisbon Treaty at that time. The Lisbon Treaty. And it's what got the Lisbon, I think people would admit that. It's what got the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty over the line. And my problem with it, as a politician, is that here's a solemn commitment, a national declaration, appended to treaties. And all of a sudden, you know, it's going to be changed without a referendum. Do you think there should be a referendum to give people a say in this fundamental change? No, I don't, because I don't think it's that fundamental a change. You don't think it's a fundamental change? I think it's a major change. I don't think it's a fundamental change. No, I don't think it's a constitutional level change at all. No. So the Irish people who took that at face value twice and went, turned a one-third, a one-third far to a two-thirds far, actually flipped over twice on it and got referendums through. Do you think that it's okay, from a democratic point of view, to disregard that? Well, I think, frankly, when situations change, I think when situations change, it requires governments to change and legislation to change. I mean, I recall that the triple lock was introduced by a Fianna Fáil-led coalition government who said it was a cast-iron guarantee on neutrality. And many people who opposed the Nice referendum said the triple lock was a nonsense, was an empty formula and was smoke and mirrors. So, you know, people change their positions in terms of the circumstances. And in relation to circumstances, when I was growing up, we were, there was the threat of the Cold War. You know, there was, it wasn't long after the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a whole lot of very dangerous things happening. I know there's a lot of nutters out there at the moment in positions of power. But what I would say to you is that, you know, that the, there's never been a time in my lifetime that there hasn't been danger, whether it was the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal bombing of Iran, the slaughter of children and women and men in Palestine, etc., etc., etc. You know, so there's always been conflict. Would you agree? Yes, but I think we're in a much more dangerous situation now. Again, this is an argument we can have about the stability of the Cold War versus the instability of the post-Cold War year. But it's a very, very different, different... But do you agree, yes or no, that the trust of people has been, would be broken if we do this without giving people a say? Is the trust of the people of this state, me included, you know, and over every citizen? In terms of those two treaties, that our trust is broken. If this major change, to use your term, is pushed through without a referendum? Genuinely, I don't. No. You don't? I'm Deputy Stanley.