Paul Murphy Accuses Government of Redefining Neutrality

Tanaiste, you should be honest with people. You should have the courage of your convictions, to argue for what you are in favour of. Instead we had a very dishonest presentation of what you are trying to do. We have had a dishonest presentation for the last two years. For people out there, anyone who is watching, who listened to that speech, you would have the impression the government is committed to defending neutrality, modification of the triple lock does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality, in fact you are going to go even further, you are going to enshrine, make it better, reinforce our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and you would have the impression that it is the opposition that are intolerant of democracy. No, no, that's true, Taoiseach, is it? No, no, it's not, I'll tell you why it's not true. One, who is intolerant of democracy? Taoiseach, yeah, yeah, no, no, you have the floor. I will, thank you. Exactly, our behaviour at the consultative forum. What was the consultative forum? The consultative forum was not a democratic institution, Taoiseach, you proposed a democratic institution, you proposed a citizens' assembly, so the citizens could come together and discuss it and come up with an outcome. And then, Taoiseach, you ditched that democratic proposal and you replaced it with a hand-picked group of people with a predetermined outcome that I predicted in advance to recommend to get rid of the triple lock. Taoiseach, that's not democracy. I'll tell you what democracy is. Democracy is people standing for election on the basis of a certain platform, winning votes on that basis and then proceeding to implement it. So, you stood for election in 2020 general elections on a certain basis. What was that? It was on the basis of a promise, this is a quote from the Fianna Fáil manifesto, to quote, fully maintain neutrality and the triple lock. And you won votes on that basis. And then, you put it into the programme for government. Taoiseach, that's democracy. What is intolerant of democracy, Taoiseach, is for you to tear up your election promises because you think, got it, now's the chance to get rid of our military neutrality. Secondly, you would lead the people to believe that you have no intention of touching neutrality whatsoever. Sure, it's one of these big myths, the idea that you're interested in getting rid of neutrality. Again, Tóniste, that's not true, is it? You are not telling the truth to people. Because we can go back to the time of when Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine began. And what was it that you said? You said then that neutrality is a policy issue that can change at any time. And then you said that there needs to be reflection, quote, on military non-alignment in Ireland and our military neutrality. Not so much commitment neutrality there, is there? You weren't the only one. You weren't the only one. The Taoiseach at the time, Leo Varadkar, said exactly the same thing. Simon Coveney said exactly the same thing, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. And so, what happened then was that the government decided, this is our moment to try and get rid of military neutrality. What happened then, and the reason you ditched the proposal for the Citizens' Assembly, is because you ran into the roadblock of public opinion. Public opinion, despite all the attempts to massage it, to say we need to have this mature debate, and so on, maintained steadfastly in favour of neutrality. You could not shift it. It didn't change your attitude, which is a long-standing attitude of Fine Gael in particular, what you previously described as a long-standing ideological obsession of Fine Gael, to get rid of the triple lock. You can go back 20 years to their policy document beyond neutrality. It didn't change your plan, but it changed the presentation of your plan. So now, no longer would you try to get rid of neutrality. Instead, you would simply try to redefine what neutrality means, and as part of that, tear up the triple lock. And that's what's reflected in your speech today. How you define neutrality today is simply, Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. That's it. So, according to you, Irish troops could have been sent, and perhaps would have been sent if it wasn't for the triple lock, could have been sent to participate in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, yes, yes, because as long as we did not formally participate in NATO, you are saying that that is still military neutrality. You are redefining neutrality in order to say, as long as we're not formally in NATO, we can join in all the missions, we'll send the troops abroad, which is what this is actually about, getting rid of the triple lock. That's your actual agenda, we are still neutral. That's what your agenda is here. Don't tell me about dishonesty, Tornister. Because, Tornister, do not tell me about dishonesty. Will I please, just hold it, please, please, just for a moment, please. Deputy Murphy has the floor, but I'd like to leave my tone down in his comments a small bit. But at the same time, I expect to Tornister as well. Yes, thank you. So, the Tornister doesn't like hearing the truth. So, the Tornister tells us today that the proposed modification of the triple lock does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality. That wasn't always your position, Tornister, was it? Was it the case that in 2013, that you said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality? Not something peripheral, not something separate, but at the core of our neutrality. You said in the Dáil, and you were absolutely correct when you said it. And why is it at the core of our neutrality? Because without it, and this gets to the heart of it, this is your actual agenda, without it, a government, which will have a majority in the Dáil, would have been able to send troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq. And according to your own definition, we'd still be neutral in doing so, as long as we didn't formally join NATO. That's absolutely what this is about. I want to tear up some of the other dishonest presentations by the Tornister. The Tornister said that if we get rid of the triple lock, we will no longer need to seek the permission of Russia, China, United States, United Kingdom, or anyone else. Exactly. 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 Security Council and seek a vote of the Security Council in order to authorise that. Tornister, that's not what happens, is it? What the triple lock is about is saying that we can send troops on peacekeeping missions where they are authorised by the Dáil, by the government, and by the UN. This notion, not through the Security Council, wrong, wrong. And that's, again, you're engaged in a very dishonest debate because you're not referring to the 2016 Defence Amendment Act, which changed that. This is not about the Security Council. The notion of any country having a veto is a complete and utter red herring. You go to the 2006 Act, which is explicitly about dealing with this issue, and it changed it. It said UN approval, which is explicitly not just UN Security Council authorisation and UN command, but also, I quote from the Act, an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved, or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council, and this is the important bit, or the General Assembly of the United Nations. There is no Security Council veto. It's a black and white in our current law. And 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 wherever else, and there was a veto at the UN Security Council, but it was passed by a vote of the General Assembly, by a majority vote of the General Assembly, that would meet the terms of the triple lock. That is true, Tawnistat. So, actually... You're talking about the single registration. But you're talking about... No, but Tawnistat, Tawnistat, you are... No, no, no, Tawnistat. You are talking... You present it as if we rely on a veto and a decision of the Security Council. No, it's not true. It is in black and white in the law. Black and white. Not just the UN Security Council, but the UN General Assembly. And so what this is actually about is, 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. Do you accept that? So, therefore, there is no veto. No, it's what we're proposing. No, that's in the law now, the 2006 Act, Tawnistat. It is. There is no such thing as a veto. It's an absolute red herring in this debate. The other thing that's dragged in as an example of how we need to be able to do it is the idea of, well, we have to go and get citizens from abroad and we're currently black from doing it. Again, that's a red herring. It's not true. In the 2006 Act, there's a series of exceptions set out where the triple lock does not apply. One of them, F, is undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency. That covers it. So, the Tawnistat is not able to come up with any examples where this triple lock prevents us sending troops. And that's because the truth is that this is about sending troops on US-led missions, NATO-led missions, into the likes of the... It absolutely is. Final thing I'll say to you, in terms of Shannon Airport, your policy is hear no evil, see no evil. It's to say, no, no, don't worry, there's no weapons going through Shannon Airport. A US general on his way to Israel was on a combat, a transporter, a C-17 in Shannon Airport, last month, and you did not inspect the C-17. Your time is up, thank you. Your time is up, Deputy. Deputy, will you have a bit of manners, please? Your time is up. You've got your ten minutes. So, look, look, I wasn't here. I'm chairing. I'm chairing now. You sit down there now. You sit down there now. Now, Sinn Féin, please. Deputy Matt Carthy, Deputy Cronin, Asnody, Vardell, Amarokou, and Conway Welsh. Can you hear that, please? Tawnistat. I expect more from you, Tawnistat. Tawnistat.