Mattie McGrath defends triple lock and Irish neutrality
Mattie McGrath sets out his position in the House, insisting the triple lock and Irish neutrality are sacrosanct and calling for any change to be put to the people. He recalls the Civil Declaration and assurances given after the Nice Treaty and rejects moves to remove UN authorisation from Ireland's defence safeguards.
Policy position and demand for referendum: Mattie McGrath argues that the triple lock and Ireland's policy of neutrality are fundamental to national defence and international engagement. He says the Civil Declaration and the requirement for UN authorisation were promises made to the Irish people after the Nice Treaty and that reversing that commitment would breach those assurances.
Promise and public sovereignty: McGrath stresses that any proposal to replace UN authorisation with a broader international mandate should be put to the Irish people. He frames this as a question of democratic accountability, arguing the people are sovereign and must decide on changes of such gravity.
Critique of government stance: He accuses the government of avoiding a referendum because it lacks confidence in public support and is unwilling to allow the electorate to decide. McGrath points to public backing for preserving the triple lock and urges the government to heed opposition concerns and democratic accountability in the House.
Context and consequences: The address references past referendums and government assurances, emphasising the historical promise to safeguard neutrality. McGrath warns that removing the UN authorisation requirement would amount to a reversal of commitments given to voters and could have lasting implications for Ireland's defence policy.
Policy position and demand for referendum: Mattie McGrath argues that the triple lock and Ireland's policy of neutrality are fundamental to national defence and international engagement. He says the Civil Declaration and the requirement for UN authorisation were promises made to the Irish people after the Nice Treaty and that reversing that commitment would breach those assurances.
Promise and public sovereignty: McGrath stresses that any proposal to replace UN authorisation with a broader international mandate should be put to the Irish people. He frames this as a question of democratic accountability, arguing the people are sovereign and must decide on changes of such gravity.
Critique of government stance: He accuses the government of avoiding a referendum because it lacks confidence in public support and is unwilling to allow the electorate to decide. McGrath points to public backing for preserving the triple lock and urges the government to heed opposition concerns and democratic accountability in the House.
Context and consequences: The address references past referendums and government assurances, emphasising the historical promise to safeguard neutrality. McGrath warns that removing the UN authorisation requirement would amount to a reversal of commitments given to voters and could have lasting implications for Ireland's defence policy.
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 →
Brian Brennan
Brian Brennan: Is RTE Fit for Purpose After Scandals?
Charles Ward
Charles Ward: Defend Irish Neutrality, Back Sanctions
Peter 'Chap' Cleere
Peter 'Chap' Cleere: Demands Answers on RTÉ Pay Discrepancies
John McGuinness
John McGuinness: NAMA ignored families, demands answers
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: Calls for balanced renewables and stronger rules
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: EU must act now to end poverty
Transcript
My position is clear. The triple lock is sacrosanct. Ireland's policy on neutrality is equally sacrosanct and remains a vital cornerstone of our approach to defence and international engagement. I too want to compliment our peacekeepers who have worked all over the world in very dangerous situations right back, you know, over the decades. Following the initial rejection of the Nice Treaty, the government gave explicit assurances to the Irish people ahead of the second referendum. These assurances included the Civil Declaration which safeguarded Irish neutrality and incorporated requirements for UN authorisation with the triple lock. And that was a promise made to the people. Are we going to have any respect for the people what they were promised and told? But we seem not to. To remove this requirement now would represent a reverse level commitment made to the Irish people in 2002. Therefore any proposal to replace it with a broader or alternative international mandate should be put to the Irish people. Most definitely. It's the people are sacrosanct here. People are sovereign here and they should have the decision. Despite that, we often cannot be portrayed in media covers of what there is a strong public support for maintaining the triple lock. The majority of the Irish people believe preserving this safeguard. As a sovereign nation, it is the Irish people who should decide whether such a fundamental change is made. The government argues that a referendum is neither required nor necessary. No, because they're afraid of the referendum. Afraid of the people. And indeed, Teacher Martin went off on his roadshow some years ago to Cork and he got nowhere else he went with it. A nice ready-up and a fair person hand-picked to try and ready-up the people here for change. And it's the democratic decision of the people and nothing else can last. Failure to recognise our Act and the principles suggest two things. First, that the government may lack confidence that, as I said, electors would support its position. And second, that it is unwilling to allow people to have their say on an issue of such grave importance to the Irish people. I've listened to much of the debate this morning here and the opposition are in unison as regards the position here and the government should listen to that and take heed to democratic accountability to this House.