Richard Boyd Barrett: Warns Triple Lock Changes Threaten Neutrality

In my view, your government is waging a very thinly veiled, stealth war against Irish neutrality and that the move to remove the triple lock is part of that very conscious and deliberate campaign by this government to undermine our traditional neutrality. Can you please explain why you are getting rid of the triple lock and is it not just clearly that a move to undermine Ireland's traditional neutrality and involve us in the wars of big powers? I would reject that assertion and that won't come as any surprise to Deputy Boyd Barrett has said out in the programme for government, the government does intend to reform the triple lock legislation whilst also ensuring that amendments to the legislation are in keeping with our values and our policy of military neutrality. I really do hope, and I might be shouting into a black hole in relation to this, but I really do hope we can actually have a debate which can actually respect that we all want to maintain military neutrality, at least I do, the government does, you do, and actually have a discussion about the detail of the legislation around the triple lock. I think simply conflating the two does a disservice to the men and women of Oakley and the Heron, I think it does a disservice to our defence and security obligations as a country, and I think it does a disservice to peacekeeping and the role that our peacekeepers can play abroad. Because you can be militarily neutral and also say that you don't believe the UN Security Council should have a veto on where your peacekeepers go. Those two things are absolutely, completely and utterly consistent with each other. You may have a different view, but that's my absolute view. Now what I would say, and I said it to Deputy Gibney earlier, I want to engage constructively in this, I want to get the legislation right, but I do not believe the current legislation in relation to the triple lock is fit for purpose. And I do believe, and I've said very clearly, that amendments I bring forward will want to keep with our values and our policy of military neutrality. So please don't tell the people of Ireland that I'm wishing to get rid of military neutrality. That is not my position. Don't misrepresent me, don't misrepresent my party and don't misrepresent the government of Ireland. The triple lock though does set out a number of mechanisms in relation to how Irish troops may participate in overseas peace support operations. I believe a new process is needed to replace the current system that underpins the deployment of Irish troops abroad, because that does effectively allow the UN Security Council members to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement by veto or by a threat of veto. The previous government had approved the drafting of the general scheme to amend legislation on how we deploy our troops overseas for peacekeeping, but also for other purposes, including evacuating operations of Irish citizens abroad. And it has been many times in this House, deputies have rightly highlighted important issues about how we get our people, our citizens, not troops, back from overseas in times of great danger and in a volatile geopolitical situation. The next step now is to present draft heads of legislation to Cabinet to publish them and then let's go to an Iraq this committee, if and when we can get these set up quickly, let's go to an Iraq this committee and let's scrutinise this and get it right. I don't trust Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael with Irish neutrality. For example, the Department of Defence has just contracted a US defence agency based in the Pentagon in order to redesign the Irish defence forces. On the blurb on their website they say this company, this US Pentagon based company is grounded in, quote, American values. Maybe the values of Donald Trump as he has put out the video you may have seen about Gaza and statues of Trump and dollar signs being made by Trump in Gaza or should we trust you given the fact that millions of US troops have been allowed to go through Shannon Airport, a neutral country, to prosecute wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, the fact that you have involved us in PESCO and the EU militarisation project, which is in turn aligned with NATO, dominated by the United States, by Germany and Britain. Why would we trust you with neutrality? I mean to come in here Deputy Connolly and talk about that I don't have the trust and respect of the Irish people, I got elected to Dáil Éireann, same day as you, so did my colleagues. Together we formed a majority of the people's representatives. We put in our manifesto that if we were elected to government we were going to reform the triple lock. We told the Irish people before the election, so we don't need any caustic remarks that if people in this House don't like the way we vote that somehow or other we've lost the trust and respect. I wouldn't accuse you of losing the trust and respect and I have the trust and respect of my constituents and it's been just renewed a couple of months ago and we formed a government. This is democracy in action, it's not just democracy if you like the outcome. And we don't need a citizens assembly, we have one, here it is, this is the citizens assembly, the place, the national parliament where the men and women elected by citizens of this country get sent to debate and discuss issues. And if we could do it in a respectful manner I think it would be very productive. There's a number of times, I think Deputy O'Leary asks a follow-up question, they get asked a lot and I'm going to run out of time now but I'd like to say it in the next answer, in relation to, am I okay? Oh I have another bit, sorry, because there was a couple, thank you, I'm trying to answer the question. In relation to, there have been a number of occasions already where I believe the current security veto, I want to say that it's not UN, it's the UN Security Council veto. It's the Vladimir Putin veto that actually has a real ability. Vladimir Putin has no right to say where men and women of Oglet and Heron go on peacekeeping missions, none whatsoever. Anyway, I won't comment on his elections but he certainly wasn't elected to this at all. There have been a number of times, for example in 1999 when a permanent member of the UN Security Council vetoed the renewal of the United Nations preventative deployment force. As a subsequent EU peace operation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a Security Council mandate, Ireland wanted to participate but we were unable to participate in that. More recently in 2015 the EU established a security mission in the Mediterranean known as Operation Sophia. The mission did not have a UN mandate until 2016, as a result Ireland was delayed participating by over a year. The same concerns as regards Operation Althea have since arisen where a potential UN Security Council member Vigio would have resulted in Ireland having to withdraw from the mission. And finally in 2017 the Maritime Analysis Operations Centre Narcotics, which is an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the EU, requested a naval service ship to assist with maritime drug interdiction operations and though Ireland is an extraordinarily strong supporter of that centre and indeed was one of the founding members of the centre, a ship couldn't be sent there because there wasn't an UN Security Council mandate. The point of the UN part of the triple lock is that we do not deploy troops in conflicts between the big imperial powers. So you are right, Putin is a nasty imperialist aggressor. But isn't it interesting that you do not call Trump a nasty imperialist aggressor when he's just said to the Ukrainians, we might consider, you know, giving you a few weapons, but only if you give us all those raw materials in your country, or while he's trying to do a real estate deal on top of the broken bones and bodies of the victims of genocide in Gaza. You don't mention him as an imperialist. Or the German new chancellor, German chancellor, who's inviting Netanyahu, a wanted war criminal, to Germany, who are also involved in NATO. You don't mention them. And that's the truth of it. Because you want to get rid of the triple lock, so we can deploy Irish troops to get involved in conflicts headed up by military alliances dominated by the United States, by Britain, by Germany, people who are every base potentially and often in reality as that. Catherine Connolly? Catherine Connolly, I agree with Deputy Connolly on this. We should continue and we do continue to champion the UN and champion reform of the UN. I fully agree on that. I am a huge believer in international law and the workings of the United Nations. At a time when that is under threat from others who are looking inwards, who do not believe in multilateralism, we should be even louder in our promotions. I do not disagree on that. But I also recognise the reality, as I am sure you do, that UN Security Council reform is not exactly forthcoming from some of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. I have been very clear, Deputy Boyd-Barrett, I have given specific examples on the record of this House as to where I would have liked to see Irish troops be able to assist in various missions that are in line with military neutrality that they could not because of the current reality. I have put them on the record of the House. You can go back and scrutinise them, check them out. They are the examples. I have a longer list I can provide to you as well. I have also, by the way, been very clear on our position in Ukraine. We will have a debate on Ukraine immediately after these parliamentary questions. I think everybody knows from President Zelenskyy down the support and solidarity that the Irish government and the people of Ireland have provided to Ukraine. Others can have their position on Ukraine. Ireland and the European Union have our position. I spent Sunday and Monday with European foreign ministers working extraordinarily hard to make sure we backed, in a unified way, the Ukrainian UN resolution. And we did. And we deviated from the US and we proudly deviated in terms of standing up for our values and not amendments or resolutions that didn't recognise Russia as the aggressor and the importance of the UN charter. I think we would be having a really interesting debate in this House if there was a conversation about what should be in the content of the legislation to amend the triple lock. But I find it underwhelming and disappointing that at a time when I am giving you real examples of real challenges that have been faced by the men and women of the Defence Forces, you are not saying let us tease through these. You must not have been listening, but I will give them again in a second. I will give them again in a second. I gave you them now. Do you want them again? Do you want them again? The United Nations Preventative Deployment Force in 1999. 2015, the Mediterranean operation known as Operation Sophia, the Maritime Analysis Operation Centre Narcácex mission, Operation Altea and indeed the UN authorisation for a Unifor Operation Altea in Bosnia-Herzegovina that we nearly had to miss out in two. They are examples. I hope you heard me that time because I have already given them. But let me give them again. But maybe you don't want to hear. Because you don't want to engage. You want to jump up and say, Fianna Gael and Fianna Fáil want to get rid of military neutrality. No, we don't. And you might not trust us. But let me assure you, the people of Ireland, when they went out to vote in the election, do not trust people before profit with our foreign policy or our defence policy. Given that there's three deputies, you have the opportunity to come back in for a minute each, if you wish. Every single opinion poll has shown the majority of people are in favour of neutrality. Whatever, whatever, whatever. And they also, in their hundreds of thousands, protested, for example, about decisions of previous Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael governments to allow millions of US troops go to Shannon Airport to assist US-UK-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered based on lies put out by the US. You's allowed that. Why would we trust you? Why would we trust you when you have NATO generals, at least twice in the last couple of years, down overseeing our troops in Cork? Why would we trust you when you have a US Pentagon-based contractor just employed by the Department of Defence, imbued with US values, to redesign our defence forces? Why would we trust you when you're involving us with the PESCO Alliance, which is aligned with NATO, dominated by the US, the UK, France and Germany, some of the biggest imperial powers with brutal records of war-moldering? Why would we trust you? I am having an out-of-body experience here, because I am in favour of Irish neutrality. The Government of Ireland is in favour of Irish neutrality. The Government of Ireland values Irish neutrality. I spend a significant amount of my working week now travelling the world explaining to colleagues, to partners, to counterparts why we value Irish neutrality. Do you know what else I also value? This place, the democratic mandate of the men and women who get elected to Dáil Éireann in terms of decisions in relation to our defence forces. The idea of seconding that out to anybody else is ludicrous in itself. The idea of seconding it out to anybody else that includes Vladimir Putin is downright illogical. We need to be able to have a sensible debate where we publish legislation, which none of you have even seen yet. You are all against what you haven't seen yet. We need to then send it to an Oireachtas committee and we need to then scrutinise it. I welcome Tipid O'Leary at least being willing to do that. I take the point about how were people in favour of the triple lock at one moment in time and not now, but I would respectfully say the world has changed. There was a time when we used to invite Russian presidents to this country and shake their hands and welcome them and engage. He is now invading a country on the continent of Europe. The context has changed. In terms of the defence and security obligations that we have, we have an obligation to do that. On the OTB, again I do not wish to be misrepresented, I have spent all of Monday in Brussels at an EU-Israel Association Agreement where Deputy Connolly, not only have we not made progress, we have made progress. We have actually agreed unanimously as 27 member states to language that I think even you might be very supportive of in relation to the differentiation between the State of Israel and the illegally occupied territories. That is what our incredible diplomats, our incredible civil servants aided and assisted and directed by the Irish government have managed to achieve at an EU level this week in terms of the importance of a two-state solution, standing up for UNRWA, providing more money for UNRWA, standing up for our international courts, standing up for international law and differentiating when it comes to trade between the illegally occupied territories of what should make up the State of Palestine and differentiating between that and the State of Israel. Thank you. Moving on to question 10, which is being taken alongside question 40. I would like to ask the Minister of Defence, in the context of Storm Eoin, the specific protocols and contingency plans in place to ensure Defence Forces assistance in future natural disasters, the criteria that are used to determine Defence Forces deployment in such emergency situations, and if you will make a statement on the matter. Thank you. Thank you very much to Deputy Daly for raising this important and timely question in the aftermath of Storm Eoin, something that I know brought so much devastation to so much of our country and indeed particularly perhaps to your own part of the country in terms of the West and the North West region as well. At the outset, Cahirlac, I would like to take the opportunity on the record of this House to recognise the contribution made by our civil defence units and by our defence forces in helping those worst affected by the recent Storm Eoin as Minister for Defence and as their Minister. I want to thank them for their service and for all that they have done. I am particularly grateful to the civil defence volunteers who were on stinting in supporting their local communities. I had the opportunity with Tiffany David Maxwell to visit the civil defence in Monaghan and see firsthand what those volunteers were undertaking and yet again it was a reminder to all of us in this House and to people across the country that we collectively owe the volunteers of the civil defence a huge debt of gratitude. In relation to the defence forces, while they are not the primary response agency for non-security related emergencies, they were requested to provide assistance to the appropriate lead department in the event of a natural disaster or emergency situation in their age to civil authority role. With regard to Storm Eoin, the defence forces received an accommodation request for assistance under GTF mechanisms from a number of agencies and they did provide assistance ranging from air patrols of electricity lines by the Air Corps, their readiness to support the National Ambulance Service, they provided accommodation for prison staff during the red warning phase, they provided provision and transportation of equipment and supplies, notably generators, to the affected areas. My colleagues in government and I are very mindful of the impact of this storm and indeed looking to the future we have made it very clear to the state service providers that any lessons learned must be incorporated into future planning and to the development of the necessary resilience to minimise such impacts should a comparable weather event occur of this magnitude again. I understand that the review process would be led by the Department of Housing and local government on my own department, through the Office of Emergency Planning, will engage in the same. Finally, Cahirlac, I suppose, and again, probably understanding the frustration of a lot of your constituents, the Deputy Daley, who may have been without power and water supply for significant periods of time, in relation to this storm, I suppose a lot of the technical expertise that was required may not have been expertise readily available to the defence forces, but was available to other agencies, but we were trying in every opportunity possible to provide practical assistance in terms of transporting of equipment, providing accommodation and, like I say, the civil defence very much being on the ground, helping those, particularly those most vulnerable members of communities.