Neutrality and Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members]

I move: That Dáil Éireann: recognises that: — Ireland's proud tradition of military neutrality, and affirms the State's neutrality and non-alignment with military blocs to be a cornerstone of an independent Irish foreign policy; — our neutrality, the "Triple Lock" neutrality protection system, have served us well, allowing Ireland to play a constructive role in international affairs, contributing to nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, humanitarianism and United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions; — the distinguished service of Irish peacekeepers deployed around the world, and the contribution of every Irish man and woman who has served on such missions throughout the decades; and — nothing in the "Triple Lock" prevents us from investing properly in our Defence Forces and that it is the decisions of successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Government that has led to the neglect of our Defence Forces; notes that: — the destabilising effect of conflicts that are contributing to global and regional instability, including, but not limited to, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the continued Israeli occupation of Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, the US and Israeli war with Iran, the Sudanese war, and urges an end to acts of aggression in all conflicts, and for the primacy of international law to be respected by all nations; — Ireland's neutrality is an asset in an unpredictable international environment where major powers have undermined and disregarded international law; — no provision of Ireland's current "Triple Lock" system prevents the evacuation of Irish citizens from conflict-torn regions, participation in appropriate training, and nor does it prevent Ireland's participation in humanitarian missions; — the failure by successive governments to adequately invest in Ireland's Defence Forces and in our defence capabilities, leaving the State exposed to numerous threats; — this Government has chosen to make Ireland reliant, and dependent, on foreign militaries to shore up Irish defence vulnerabilities, as seen by recent arrangements relating to security for engagements held as part of Ireland's presidency of the Council of the European Union, including the presence of British ships off the Irish coast; — concerning reports that the Minister for Defence has directed officials to progress Irish participation in the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force Plus (JEF+), which will mean deeper military alignment with Britain and other NATO states; and — concerning comments by the Minister for Defence which indicate that Ireland could participate in overseas deployments that do not support a UN resolution, and that she is potentially making arrangements for same; and agrees that: — our "Triple Lock" neutrality protection is a core component of Ireland's foreign policy and is underpinned by assurances provided to the Irish people by successive Irish Governments in advance of multiple European referendums, such as the Nice and Lisbon referendums; — Ireland should be strong on defence and strong on neutrality and that this must be achieved by properly resourcing our Defence Forces, rebuilding our Naval Service, strengthen air and maritime surveillance, and developing radar capabilities; — participation in the JEF+ would be a departure from the position of military non-alignment and the Government must come clean on what discussions have taken place with the British Government in relation to this; — Ireland should be open to international co-operation to meet genuine security threats, but that co-operation is not the same thing as military alignment, and that participation in any military alliance, including any British-led military framework, would end our neutrality as we know it; — Ireland should engage with partners as a militarily neutral state, while investing seriously in our own capacity to defend our airspace, territorial waters and critical infrastructure; and — any move to alter the "Triple Lock" represents a step towards the complete abandonment of Ireland's policy of military neutrality, and participation in military alliances, as evidenced by the Government's intention to participate in the JEF+; and calls on the Government: — not to become a party to the British-led JEF+ military partnership; — to call a referendum on its proposals to scrap the "Triple Lock"; and — to accept that the "Triple Lock" is a core component of Ireland's independent foreign policy and is underpinned by assurances provided to the Irish people by successive Irish Governments in advance of multiple European referendums, such as the Nice and Lisbon referendums. Before I begin, I want to take the opportunity to express my concern in relation to Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and to condemn what has happened to him. It is appalling. I extend my best wishes to his family and hope he makes a strong recovery. Neutrality is a strength for Ireland and represents how best Ireland can play a useful role in the world. The motion we bring forward is calling on the Government not to end the triple lock. The motion recognises the profound instability in the world: Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the continued Israeli occupation of Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, the US and Israeli war with Iran, and the Sudanese war. Such conflicts will directly impact on the energy bills of workers and families this winter, but the response to this volatility should not be to cast aside the protections we have. The world we live in is not a reason to change, it is all the more reason to ensure we keep an independent foreign policy. The Taoiseach himself has said in the past that the triple lock is a cornerstone of an independent foreign policy. The Irish people have a deep connection with neutrality and a strong understanding of Ireland’s place in the world. They understand that Ireland is a small country with an outsized influence on the world. We have achieved that through the strength of our own peace process, our commitment to international law and the strength of our diplomats. It has been achieved by the huge credibility of our brave peacekeepers, who deserve our utmost respect and thanks. We have that credibility because of our history as a colony under imperialism. That is why we are moving a motion on this issue in the Dáil this evening, to protect our neutrality and safeguard the triple lock. These two pillars have allowed us to be a powerful voice for peace in an uncertain and volatile world. It is not difficult to see that in the future an Irish government could come under immense pressure to participate in deployments - of what kind, we do not know - and we will no longer have the protection of a policy that commits us to serving in UN missions. Indeed, as far as the Minister is concerned, it is a done deal. The Bill has not been voted on or debated in the Dáil, yet she has already given assurances internationally about what Ireland will do once the triple lock is dismantled. She has said we can be assured that Ireland will be part of a CSDP mission in Lebanon. To me, it is a contempt for the Oireachtas that it is a fait accompli, and it does not augur well for what comes after the triple lock if, effectively, she takes it upon herself to speak on behalf of the Oireachtas rather than the Government. The Minister has gone further than any proposal we have seen by proposing to sign up to become an observer member of the Joint Expeditionary Force, JEF+. The JEF is a British-led, effectively military alliance involving nine other NATO member states, and we propose to become an observer member, according to the Minister. According to the British Parliament’s own website, and the JEF is situated in the Britain: For all JEF Participant Nations, NATO is the foundation of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The JEF, from its inception, has been designed to complement both NATO and Participant Nations’ own response capabilities. The JEF needs to be ready to respond in scenarios ranging from below the threshold of NATO's Article 5 through to full-spectrum interventions during times of crisis or conflict, operating seamlessly with NATO. This is the organisation we propose to become associated with. Instead of investing properly and adequately in our defence capabilities, the Government has chosen to make Ireland more reliant and dependent, as we have seen in recent weeks, on foreign militaries to shore up defence vulnerabilities. The Irish people expect a government that is strong on defence and neutrality. That should be achieved by properly resourcing our Defence Forces, particularly rebuilding our Naval Service; strengthening maritime surveillance; and developing proper radar capabilities. Participation in a joint expeditionary force-plus, as an observer or otherwise, would be a departure from the position of military non-alignment. This is why we are moving our motion on this issue: to safeguard our neutrality, to call on the Government to come clean on its plans to join this military framework as an associate and to safeguard our triple lock, which has allowed us to be a voice for peace in an uncertain and volatile world. I am sure we will hear many of the same arguments and that the Minister will talk about sovereignty. Under our Constitution, it is the people who are sovereign. If Government Members are so certain of their position on this, and given Governments sought and gave reassurances to the Irish people during repeated referendums on the basis of the triple lock, then they should put it to the people - but they will not, because they know well what answer they would receive.

What is the purpose of Irish foreign policy if not to serve the interests of Irish people and stand up independently in the world? For generations, this State has maintained a policy of military neutrality. That policy has not weakened our voice internationally; it has strengthened it. Neutrality has given Ireland the space to speak for peace, for disarmament, for humanitarian action and for the importance of respect for international law. Ireland’s Defence Forces have served with distinction under the United Nations across the world. Neutrality certainly does not prevent this State from properly funding the Defence Forces. For years, successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments have failed to provide the Defence Forces with the resources they need. We now hear the false argument that neutrality is somehow responsible for weaknesses in our defence capacity. If we want a State capable of protecting and serving its people, then we must invest in it, rebuild the Naval Service, strengthen air and maritime surveillance, protect our territorial waters, airspace and critical infrastructure, and be strong on defence and neutrality. There is no contradiction between those positions. Genuine independence requires both. We are living through a period of profound international instability. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought war back to the heart of Europe. We have witnessed horrific suffering in Gaza, Yemen and the wider Middle East. Sudan continues to endure devastating conflict. In such circumstances, the answer cannot be for Ireland to abandon the independent foreign policy that has served us for decades. We must ensure Ireland remains militarily neutral, independently minded and willing to speak for peace even when that voice is inconvenient to the powerful. If the Government intends to deepen Ireland's military relationship with Britain and with NATO states, then it should come before this House and explain exactly what is being discussed. The triple lock is not some technical obstacle to be quietly removed; it is part of the framework underpinning Ireland's military neutrality. Successive Governments gave assurances on neutrality in the context of European referendums, including Nice and Lisbon. Those commitments should mean something. Neutrality does not mean indifference. It means independence. It means Ireland making its own decisions. It means defending our country while refusing to become part of military blocs. It means standing for peace, humanitarianism and international law. We should not surrender that independence. Retain the triple lock, invest in our Defence Forces and protect our neutrality.

I too want to condemn the attack on Michael Healy-Rae, say how appalled I am about it and send my good wishes to him for a good recovery and to his family. Mar Chathaoirleach ar an gComhchoiste um Chosaint agus Slándáil Náisiúnta, tá an-áthas orm inniu labhairt faoin nglas triarach. The Government needs to be honest with the Irish people about the triple lock. Its amendment to our motion states that the triple lock is not a determination or expression of neutrality. However, it is a safeguard and it underpins promises made to the Irish people during the second Nice and Lisbon referendums that Ireland would remain militarily neutral. Removing that safeguard raises fundamental questions about the future of our neutrality. If the Minister wants to persist with efforts to dismantle the triple lock, she needs to put it to the people in a referendum. I commend the brave men and women of our Defence Forces, particularly those who have served as peacekeepers in some of the world's most volatile regions. As Chair of the defence and national security committee, I visited the Curragh last week. I sincerely thank the personnel there who showed me around. I saw the consequences of decades of underinvestment by successive Governments. We finally and rightly are investing in military procurement but our barracks are still crumbling. Is it any wonder recruitment and retention remain such serious challenges? This is where the Government's focus should be regarding defence. Military neutrality does not mean military weakness. A neutral country needs credible, properly resourced defence forces and the triple lock is not a barrier to any of this. It is also not a blanket ban on overseas activity. It does not prevent our personnel travelling abroad to participate in military training, undertaking humanitarian missions, responding to disasters or emergencies or taking part in official ceremonies overseas. Neutrality is part of our national identity. It has served us well as an independent State. I believe the overwhelming majority of people want it to be protected. Instead of dismantling a safeguard of our neutrality, give people their say. Have a referendum.

There is some irony in the debate tonight. This week President Donald Trump visited Ireland. Uachtarán na hÉireann, Catherine Connolly, made it clear the Irish people reject the normalisation of war and genocide. Our President is brave. She is a believer in peace and she stands up for what is right. A short while later, our Taoiseach met with President Trump and never used the word "genocide" for what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but still the Government wants to send Irish men and women to fight in foreign wars by getting rid of the triple lock. Where is the bravery in that? We saw real bravery from our President. We saw real bravery last weekend from Macklemore, who stood up and said, "Free Palestine". For that, they tried to cancel him, but you cannot cancel an idea. You cannot cancel justice and belief. He and Aaron Rowe, Beoga and all those other people stood together and said they would not be silenced for calling out genocide. Aaron Rowe's haunting "John's Song" could not be more relevant to what we are talking about today. It is about a young man fighting in a war he does not want to be in. It finishes with this: Well, John, he never came home He died at 21 They couldn't find his body in the morgue But there's a headstone up in Thiepval And it's scribed as Private Geoghegan Son of Hugh and Ellen of Inchicore We do not want Johns. We do not want headstones, graves and letters for working-class Irish men and women fighting in foreign wars. We serve neither king nor kaiser, but Ireland.

What the Minister and her Government colleagues Micheál Martin and Simon Harris are doing to Irish neutrality is eroding it bit by bit. They might not say it explicitly but we can hear it in their words. They use language to change our position regarding neutrality. We can see it in the amendment they tabled tonight. Previously, Government talked about "neutrality"; now it always talks about "military neutrality". It is a small change, but a change. Previously, Micheál Martin said the triple lock was core to Irish neutrality; now, the Government says in this amendment that the triple lock is not a determination or an expression of our neutrality. Both cannot be true, so who is lying? I would like the Minister to address that in her closing remarks. She can couch in words her attempts to dismantle our neutrality but Irish people know what neutrality means to them locally and on an international stage. Irish neutrality and having an independent foreign policy are strengths. They are valued and supported by the Irish people. On the international stage, neutrality has underpinned our contribution to peacekeeping and diplomacy. It has never been a weakness. Attempts to dismantle the triple lock have been talked about by this Government and those who made up the previous Government, but now there is a rush to push it through. Why is that? You would be forgiven for thinking, as most people probably do, that it is a bit of a coincidence that there is now this just as we are starting back and we are also in the middle of our EU Presidency. It seems far more than a coincidence. We have to be frank about it. The Government has acted like it is embarrassed by our neutrality, but our neutrality is nothing to be embarrassed about. It is outrageous that this Government is doing all in its power to undermine and erode it. To be clear, I firmly believe that is what the Government is doing. I am not here giving a speech to attack the Government. I am here to say to the Government, "Do not break a promise that you gave to the Irish people in several referendums. Do not go back and dismantle the triple lock." Micheál Martin was right when he said it was core to our neutrality. If the Government is so confident that the triple lock must go, then put it to the people.

I thank my party colleague Deputy Ó Laoghaire for bringing forward this important motion this evening. Let us be honest about what the Minister is trying to do and wants to do on what some might call the down low and in secrecy when people are not looking, but we will always shine a light on her actions. We in Sinn Féin will oppose any attempts to undermine our neutrality. The Minister underestimates the support for this position at her peril. We are proud of our peacekeepers and the role they play in international conflict resolution. Instead of trying to dismantle the triple lock - neutrality protection - it would serve the Government better to invest in our Defence Forces. The greatest asset that we have in our Defence Forces is the men and women who put on the uniform. If the Minister values them, then give them the equipment they need, bring them into the European working time directive and ensure they have the protections other workers have. If she does not believe that this issue is important, then I invite her to put it to the people. If she thinks that she is right - she is not but if she is so convinced - then put it to the people in a referendum. Let the people have their say. If we needed any more reminding of how much peace means to us as Irish people, we only have to look at the fallout from what is happening with the Ed Sheeran tour. By dropping Macklemore because he stood up for decency and peace, that has set in train repercussions that are being felt all over the world. Irish men and women are standing up with Beoga and Aaron Rowe and saying very clearly, "We value peace, we value decency and we as Irish people value our role in peace and conflict resolution."

Hear, hear.

The outpouring of support for these artists right across the world tells us that we want to be on the right side of history. We want a government that values that peace. Our neutrality is important. We will stand up for it at every single turn. If the Minister is so convinced of her position, put it to the people and let us have our say.

I thank my party colleague Deputy Ó Laoghaire for bringing this forward. The blue beret is a symbol of Irish neutrality and peace. It shows that the wearer is an impartial protector of innocent civilians, not a combatant in somebody else's war. We are proud of our neutrality, and we are proud of every Irish man and woman who has served under the blue flag of the UN, keeping the peace in some of the most dangerous places. Since 1958, not a day has passed without an Irish soldier deployed under a UN flag somewhere in the world. That is our tradition and contribution. It is something that we are rightly proud of. To be clear, any fundamental change to Ireland's foreign and defence policy must have the consent of the Irish people because the Government cannot ask this country to simply trust it. Can we trust the Minister to stand up to powerful figures like Ursula von der Leyen? The Minister cannot be trusted to defend Irish neutrality when it comes to the military use of a civilian airport in Shannon Airport, and now she wants to dismantle the triple lock. Why? Because once that safeguard gone, she is handing future governments a blank cheque, carte blanche, to deploy Irish troops into international situations without the same protections and safeguards that have existed up until now. Decades of neglect mean that we need to absolutely invest in our Defence Forces, in the equipment and conditions they need to do their job safely, but the Government cannot allow this to be used as a smoke screen to undermine neutrality. The triple lock is not an obstacle to Ireland playing its part in the world. It is a protection, and it is part of what has allowed Ireland to maintain its proud tradition of independent, impartial peacekeeping. The evidence points to strong public support for retaining these protections. If the Minister is so certain that the Irish people support dismantling the triple lock, put it to them. Do not make this decision over their heads, because Irish neutrality belongs to the people. Any government that wants to dismantle that should have the courage to ask the people of Ireland for their consent.

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: notes that: — the Government reiterates Ireland's longstanding policy of military neutrality; — Ireland's policy of military neutrality is characterised by non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements, and this policy choice has been practised by successive Governments since the Second World War; — the Government reaffirms its commitment to this policy and reiterates that it has no plans to either join a military alliance or enter into a mutual defence arrangement; — in light of the above commitment, the Government does not believe a national referendum on enshrining neutrality into the Constitution is necessary; and — amending the Triple Lock legislation in relation to the deployment of our Defence Forces to peacekeeping missions will have no impact on this policy of military neutrality, and that no other European Union (EU) Member State, including other neutral Member States, allow permanent Security Council members to bind their hands in the way that the Triple Lock effectively does for Ireland; recognises that: — Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality, and our strong tradition of participation in international peace support and crisis management operations over many decades; — members of Ireland's Defence Forces continue to contribute bravely to peacekeeping and crisis management efforts, particularly in the Middle East, as well as elsewhere in the world; — the multilateral system remains our strongest protection and the State's most important security asset; — Ireland's contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, and work for human rights and development, and our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, are internationally renowned; — nevertheless, as a highly globalised country, Ireland cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events and should co-operate with neighbours on matters of security including in the maritime domain; — the importance of parliamentary safeguards and national oversight in ensuring Irish military deployments are in line with our policy of military neutrality, and that they are decided solely by the elected representatives of the people of Ireland; and — the Government is committed to continued increased investment in defence, with a view to achieving a significantly enhanced capability by 2028, and that the Government has already significantly increased our national defence spending in the past few years, by 43 per cent since 2020, marking the largest increase in Defence funding in the history of the Irish State; acknowledges that: — the Government is committed to supporting the global multilateral system, to vocally defending international law, particularly international humanitarian law, and human rights; — in common with other partners in Europe, Ireland finds itself in an increasingly contested, dynamic and volatile international security environment, marked by violence and conflict in our immediate neighbourhood, including Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa; — Ireland needs to be agile in how we respond to the new geopolitical environment that we find ourselves in; — Ireland should be open to international co-operation to meet genuine security threats and learning from other countries to counter these threats; — Ireland, therefore, should not find itself unable to respond to Peace Support and Crisis Management Operations that align with the United Nations (UN) Charter and International Law, due to a veto by permanent member(s) of the UN Security Council; and — this legislation will remove the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions regarding our participation in peace keeping missions organised by reputable organisations such as the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which will also allow for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas in other overseas roles such as the crisis management evacuation of Irish citizens. At the outset, I join colleagues in offering my best wishes to Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and wish him a speedy recovery. I condemn the appalling act of violence. I want to begin by thanking our Defence Forces. I thank those who serve at home, but in particular in the context of tonight's debate, those who serve overseas. We are all extremely proud of our Defence Forces and of the sacrifices made by them and their families in the service of peace. For decades, Irish peacekeepers have made life more bearable for some of the most vulnerable people in some of the most challenging environments in the world. They have brought hope, stability and safety. Their work is a practical expression of our values. It is a tradition that everyone in Ireland is immensely proud of, and it is one we have a responsibility to protect. However, that tradition is under threat, and I will explain how because it is very clear from the Opposition that all they intend to do this evening is muddy the waters. I am also very conscious that there are people who will watch or read this debate and look at this issue as it progresses. The triple lock is the legal mechanism governing the deployment of our Defence Forces on peacekeeping missions. It is not enshrined in our Constitution. It is a legal mechanism that was agreed in this House. To deploy our peacekeepers, our troops, under these current arrangement, three things are required, namely, a UN Security Council mandate, Government or Cabinet approval and Dáil approval. For those who are unaware of the UN Security Council and its role, this is the main body within the UN responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Within that, there are five permanent members of the Security Council, namely, Russia, China, the US, the UK and France, all of which can use a veto - a block, essentially - to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions. This includes those related to both new and ongoing peace missions. In practice, even the threat of a veto, as we are seeing happen, by a permanent member, rather than its actual use, is often enough to prevent the council from taking action. This is exactly what has been happening for the past number of years. No new peacekeeping mission has been agreed since 2014. They have not been voted on simply because of the threat of a veto. Now, the opposite is happening. Ongoing operations, some of which we have been involved in for decades, are not being renewed. Two recent examples are Operation Irini and, of course, UNIFIL in Lebanon, which we all know about. I will explain both of those in a moment. That is the crux of why we are here. It is not because of the EU Presidency or any other reason. What does this mean for Ireland - the structure, the triple lock that I have just outlined? I have outlined it because I have spoken to so many people who are still asking, "What is the triple lock? How does it work? What does the council do? What does this mean?" For Ireland, it essentially means that the Security Council and effectively five member states that are permanent - Russia, China, the US, the UK and France - hold an effective veto over where we send our troops. There is an irony in some of what I have heard here this evening. We know that Members of the Opposition were out protesting at the weekend against Trump's visit and his policies and actions, yet with this motion, they are very happy for the US to continue to have a say in where we send our troops. The Opposition talks about us not being part of partnerships and not working with other countries on maritime security or cybersecurity - something we have been doing from some time now, and contributing to, not just benefiting from - yet it believes other countries should dictate where we send our troops. I commend Macklemore and the actions he is taking, but if we are talking about a future peace mission in Gaza that does not have a UN Security Council mandate, our troops cannot participate. We cannot then take our words and put them into action. There is an irony to what is being said here. It is completely contradictory. We are a sovereign country. We should never allow any other country to decide where we send our peacekeepers, but unfortunately this is already happening. That reason and no other is why the triple lock needs to be reformed. In May, the UN mandate underpinning Operation Irini, a naval mission in the Mediterranean tasked with enforcing the United Nations arms embargo on Libya, was not renewed. Our four defence personnel had to withdraw immediately - they could not stay - but the EU mission continued and 23 other countries stayed. Ireland alone had to leave because of our legal requirement to have UN Security Council approval. Our participation had Government approval. We were contributing. I met three of those personnel because I happened to be in Italy at the time. Not only were they devastated at what they were losing to feed back into our Defence Forces, but what they have contributed over those six years has been significant, yet our outdated law required us to withdraw. While many people many not have heard of Operation Irini, every single person in this country knows the role we have played as peacekeepers in Lebanon. This is one of the main reasons behind this and its timing. In Lebanon, UNIFIL’s operations are due to end on 31 December this year. Why? It is because the UN mandate was not renewed because one of the permanent members did not allow a renewed mandate. After almost five decades of service - 1978 was when our troops were first on the ground - we will no longer be able to contribute to peacekeeping in the Lebanon in the way we have done for many years if the triple lock is not reformed. Yes, the EU is currently working on a new mission in Lebanon, a proposal that Ireland put forward with other countries. When I said that we will be present if a new mission is agreed, we will contribute in some way shape or form but what shape that takes will be determined by whether the triple lock is reformed. Any mission would always have to be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, international law and the advice of our Defence Forces. While nothing has been agreed, if the current proposal were to go ahead and the triple lock were in place, our participation in this peacekeeping mission would be limited to providing office appointments and training teams. A training mission would then ironically require armed force protection, something that we currently provide on the ground in Lebanon. This is something that our soldiers are trained for but they would not be able to provide it under the current limitations of the triple lock. I ask the Members opposite to please make this sense. It does not make sense. I have spoken with so many soldiers in my role, particularly those deploying to Lebanon who told me directly that the opportunity to serve their country overseas and provide this type of service and support is the reason they joined the Defence Forces. If we are to keep things as they are, we would not contribute beyond a handful of personnel training other soldiers and would require other countries’ soldiers to provide protection to our trainers. Please, make this make sense. Leaving the triple lock in place would mean having to walk away from our Defence Forces’ proud tradition in the Lebanon. It would mean walking away from the peacekeeping efforts which have strengthened our neutrality, not weakened it. I do not believe this is what the people want. The Opposition knows this is the consequence of what it is advocating for, so it needs to be clear in saying if it is what they want. I want to be very clear on another matter that is being completely conflated here. This Government will preserve Ireland's military neutrality, as every Government has done since the foundation of the State. It is important to our citizens, as the Members have all rightly said. It is important to me as a citizen and as Minister and it is important to this Government too. We share the public’s commitment to neutrality. We share that commitment to not joining a military alliance. It is this commitment, rather than the triple lock, that is the basis of our neutrality. We are very clear on that. It has always been clear. We have not suddenly changed things. Our commitment to not joining a military alliance is the basis of our neutrality, not the triple lock. The triple lock is a legal mechanism introduced through these Houses which governs how we deploy our Defence Forces on peacekeeping missions. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced and we will remain a neutral country no matter what. However, the world has changed. There is no point in saying we should not change just because the world is changing around us. We need to respect and acknowledge the fact that the world is changing. The world has changed since the triple lock was introduced. It was introduced at a time when the UN Security Council was operating effectively but - we have to be honest here - that is no longer the case. To those who say we should reform the UN Security Council and try to reform the UN, I fully agree. The United Nations remains central to our foreign policy. We relentlessly defend its charter, we support its work and we press for those reforms of the Security Council. We are, in fact, known as one of the strongest defenders by the UN of the UN and its objectives, but we all have to be realistic here. Protecting the UN and standing up for multilateralism has nothing to do with allowing other countries to dictate where our forces can serve. That is exactly what is going to happen. It is what is happening already. No other country in the world has this mechanism. We talk about neutral countries. We are a neutral country. That will not change. No other country in the world allows China, Russia, the US, France or the UK to dictate where they send or keep their peacekeeping troops. We need to recognise that. The Opposition needs to recognise that because it is simply trying to muddy the waters. A genuine commitment to multilateralism and helping some of the most vulnerable people on Earth requires us taking concrete action. It takes us into the real world in which we live. It requires action that allows us to defend our principles and our values, not just in words. We cannot claim to defend international law while retaining rules that force us to abandon vulnerable people and communities in Lebanon. People who depend on peacekeepers need more than words and expressions of solidarity; they need countries that act. We cannot praise the work of our peacekeepers while refusing to address the barriers that prevent them from serving not in the future, but now. We cannot remain static when the world is changing around us. This motion is clear. If we maintain the triple lock, even if it means our peacekeeping troops' contribution to Lebanon effectively comes to an end, it means that we are contributing less to the world. We should protect our proud peacekeeping tradition and we will always protect our proud tradition of neutrality. That is why I am commending the Government's countermotion to the House.

Ireland has lost 88 personnel from the Irish Defence Forces while serving on UN peacekeeping missions since 1958. Among other places, they went to Congo, Cyprus, and, most famously, Lebanon. They all went wearing the blue beret to protect civilians and to preserve peace. They went assured they were upholding international law and in service of the rules-based order. They did not go as part of wars of aggression. They went with a clear mission statement and clear guidelines: to protect the people and to protect the peace. I am very proud of my own godson, Seán, who has just returned this summer from his own stint in Lebanon. The age of countries formally declaring war on each other is long gone. Putin's special military operation is heading towards its fifth year. The USA never officially declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan but it invaded, killed, occupied for decades and then withdrew. Where there are no clear and definitive laws like the triple lock that must be followed and have the backing of the people, spurious reasons and lies can be used to deploy troops abroad in wars of aggression. The evidence of this is in the tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians, Iraqis and Afghanis. This country does not want to be part of any bloc, be it NATO in the West or the Russian sphere of influence in the East that launched these wars. Ireland and the Irish people want this country to remain militarily neutral. If the Minister does not believe that to be the case, as has been said here many times this evening, she should let the people have a referendum to decide because Irish neutrality belongs to the Irish people. She should stop making vague, ambiguous statements about military threats she thinks this country faces. She should state it clearly and address it here. It would serve her better to invest in our Defence Forces and our Defence Forces personnel to ensure they have the numbers, training and equipment to defend this country and to play their part in UN-mandated peacekeeping operations as they have for decades. She should not push Ireland to join the teams of military alliances that do not respect international law or rules-based order because that is where she is trying to drag this country. I urge her to support this motion to protect our neutrality and to safeguard the triple lock. In a world of Ed Sheerans, be a Macklemore; put humanity and peace ahead of war.

The triple lock neutrality protection is a core part of our independent foreign policy. For decades, our military neutrality and the triple lock have served this State exceptionally well. They have allowed Ireland to play a respected constructive role in international affairs, giving Ireland a strong global reputation for peacekeeping, protecting human rights and supporting disarmament. Our neutrality matters more than ever as global conflicts grow and major powers ignore international law, yet the Government is determined to tear it down. Let us be very clear - scrapping the triple lock would represent a massive step towards abandoning Ireland's military neutrality entirely. It opens the door for deeper involvement in foreign military alliances and allows future governments to deploy troops without a UN mandate, exposing Ireland to immense outside pressure and aligning us with the rising tide of militarisation across the European Union. The triple lock is not just a policy. It was an explicit promise and assurance given to the Irish people by successive Governments during the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. To strip away this safeguard now without consulting the Irish people is an attack on our sovereignty and on our democratic process. The Minister says that this is not about our neutrality. Micheál Martin once said that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality, so what has changed since? The reality is that nothing has changed. Opinion poll after opinion poll has demonstrated that the Irish people deeply value our military neutrality and want to keep the triple lock intact. Even the backbenchers in government know that this is the wrong move. If the Government is so confident in its position, why hide from the electorate? What not put it to a referendum? That is one thing that the Minister did not address when she spoke. That is the very least that should be required for a decision of this magnitude, but the Government will not do it because it knows the answer it will get, and it knows that the Irish people want to maintain the triple lock and our neutrality. The Government is not serving the interests of the Irish people with this move. It should listen to the people and let the public have their say on the triple lock.

There are many aspects to this debate that I find deeply concerning but there is one that really irks me. Neutrality does not mean being defenceless, a fact that this and previous Governments have deliberately blurred. The triple block is about circumstances where Defence Forces personnel can be deployed overseas: UN mandate, Government decision and Dáil approval for significant deployments. It does not stop Ireland defending our airspace. It does not stop us from protecting our territorial waters or our critical infrastructure and nor does it stop investment in radar, cybersecurity or maritime surveillance. It certainly did not cause the decades of underinvestment in our Defence Forces. The responsibility for that lies squarely with successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments. If the Government is genuinely concerned about Ireland's security, then deal with the known and emerging vulnerabilities that we have. Properly resource our Defence Forces. Retain our skilled personnel that we train. Rebuild our Naval Service. Develop the air, maritime, radar and cyber capabilities that every modern nation needs. Neutrality also does not mean being isolationist, yet at a time when the Government is considering deeper involvement with other military structures, removing a safeguard like the triple lock that governs overseas deployment deserves far more scrutiny than what the Government appears willing to give it. I find that incredibly telling. The triple lock has not prevented generations of Irish peacekeepers serving with distinction around the world. It has not prevented humanitarian missions or the evacuation of Irish citizens. Does the Minister know what has prevented the evacuation of Irish citizens? It is our Defence Forces not having the capability to get to that country to get our citizens out. It is also not what has left those massive gaps in our national defence. Again, that is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. If the Government wants to fundamentally alter the safeguards around our neutrality, then it should stand up, put on the big boy and girl pants and ask the people of Ireland. Put it to a referendum.

Neutrality and our triple lock have served us well and should continue to do so. The Irish people are proud of our history of neutrality, diplomacy and peacekeeping. We are particularly proud of our Defence Forces and the role they have played as peacekeepers in some of the most dangerous conflict zones in the world. In deployments in Europe, Africa and Lebanon, they have done us all proud. I am opposed to the steps being taken by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to end the triple lock on our neutrality protection. Moves to end our triple lock requirements are being made by this Government at a time of growing international conflict and at a time when pressures are being deployed across Europe to increase military spending. This is not a time for us to weaken our traditions of neutrality and the triple lock requirements for the deployment of Irish men and women to conflict zones. Our neutrality is fundamental to our foreign policy and an extremely important aspect of that is the checks required under the triple lock system. Our neutrality and the reputation of our Defence Forces abroad are part of the reasons the Irish passport is one of the most respected across the globe, allowing us access to 186 countries. Generally, our Defence Forces can operate in conflict zones where other militaries attached to defence pacts cannot do so. This is because of our neutrality and the professionalism of our peacekeepers, and has allowed us to assist in both current and post-humanitarian missions. I will remind the Minister of some of the text of the Seville declarations from June 2002 after Ireland rejected the Nice treaty in 2001. Ireland reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European security and defence policy, requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law. This was won because of two referendums that were initially defeated and these words we came back with need to be protected.

Many people are deeply concerned regarding the Government's proposal to remove the triple lock neutrality protection, and with good reason. This insincere amendment brought forward by the Government cuts to the heart of why, as it is wholly at odds with reality, Government policy and the Government's own statements. The Minister says that gutting the triple lock will not have any impact on the policy of military neutrality. As she is the Minister for Defence and the Minister for foreign affairs, I ask her to look at the Department of foreign affair's website, which clearly states that our EU partners understand our policy of military neutrality through the protocol attached to the Lisbon treaty. That protocol is the triple lock codified. The Minister's amendment states that the triple lock is not a determination or an expression of our neutrality. Why then is the aforementioned reference to it listed on the Department's website under the heading "neutrality". Of course, An Taoiseach famously said in 2013 that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. An Taoiseach and the Minister for foreign affairs, representing the parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which are joined at the hip, should have confidence in their proposal, put it before the Irish people and call for a referendum. It is the very least that they can do. They should also correct the record and account for whether they are telling the truth because these statements are contradictory to what is on the Government's website. It cannot be both and the Irish people deserve honesty from their Government.

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this vital motion. This is the most important issue that will be discussed in the Dáil in the coming months, and it is crucial that we have honest conversations about it. The Minister used the phrase "muddy the waters" throughout her speech. All of the mud that flows into the water of this debate is coming from the Government's side of the House. All of the disconnect from reality is emanating from the Government's benches. Every time that I contribute on this issue, I have to start with the disconnect that is most prescient, which is that the Government continues to hold that the removal of the triple lock - its legislation is removal, not reform - will allow it to maintain a position of neutrality. That is not a feasible argument. It is not viable, and it is not a starting point by which we can have any kind of reasonable debate, so we must call that out immediately. One of the things that I want to focus on, which is highlighted in this motion, is the neglect of the Defence Forces. Other colleagues have mentioned it. Again, one side of the House is responsible for the neglect of the Defence Forces, and it is the current Government and its parties in successive Governments. It is not the fault of the triple lock. It is certainly not the fault of the Opposition that the Defence Forces are in the state that they are in now. We support the level of funding that will allow us to build back up retention and recruitment, deal with the cultural issues that we have heard about from the Women of Honour, and get ourselves back to the capacity that we need to be at to have our naval fleet up and running, have sonar running and have the radar capacity that we need. It is the Government that is responsible. At this stage of the debate, I am beginning to think that this is from the Thatcherite playbook of run it into the ground so that the Government can then fix it as it sees fit, except this time it is not the privatisation of a water company. Rather, it is the removal of neutrality as a core principle of our foreign policy that it is trying to ram through. That is the reality we are dealing with and we have to call out the disingenuous way the Minister is polluting the waters of this debate. I would like to check the time because I thought I had four minutes.

The other part of this I really have to call out is the Minister's depiction of Europe because I have continuously called out that we are on a path toward militarisation in Europe. I have attended two events this week where representatives of the Government have said that Europe is the most important peace project in the history of the world, which I fully agree with, but it is not right now because of what is happening, including increased spending on defence and restructuring of financial frameworks towards defence spending. There was a headline today on thejournal.ie that said, "Ireland losing out financially as Europe ramps up defence spending, minister admits". That is referring to the Minister for Defence's colleague, Deputy Thomas Byrne. I agree with it but his response is not to bring our neutral stance to Europe to criticise that. His is to say that we need to foster and develop that industry here. That is not in line with our policy of neutrality, and that is not what the Irish people want. I want to support indigenous business but not to create bullets that are going to kill people across the world-----

That is not what we are doing.

----- or drones. He said it is not all about weapons, it is about drones.

Talk facts now. Talk facts.

As if drone warfare has not been the scourge of the Middle East for the past number of decades.

The Deputy just said bullets. There is a big difference between drones and bullets.

Exactly, but that is what I am saying.

Not these days.

They all kill people. Regardless, it is not where we need to be. We need to be fostering an indigenous Irish business sector that is not creating weapons or anything adjacent to weapons. This is what I am trying to say. The Minister is denying the reality that this is what is happening, that there is a military industrial complex and that multiple economies in Europe are propped up entirely or partially by arms development. As long as she continues to deny that, everything she says is disingenuous. She is the one who is muddying the waters.

It was an interesting line the Minister kept referring to in her contribution as she patronisingly looked across to the Opposition and said, "Make that make sense." I want to talk her through some things that potentially will not make sense but let us see if I am misinforming the House about any one part of it. In June 2001, Irish voters rejected the Nice treaty. Most of the concerns raised during that campaign referred to neutrality and a fear among the population of increased participation in military campaigns. In June 2002, we had the Seville declaration, which I very rarely hear any member of Government talk about. After that European Council meeting, the Irish Government issued its national declaration on neutrality. In that declaration that the Government gave as a solemn promise to the Irish people. We brought forward the triple lock as a guarantee in advance of the second Nice referendum. That referendum then passed based on the guarantees that were given in the Seville declaration. I hope that makes sense. That was further compounded in 2006 with the Defence (Amendment) Act, which consolidated the rules and made specific reference to the triple lock, which was brought forward in advance, again, of the Lisbon treaty, which was in the first case rejected by the Irish people again because of participation in increased military alignments and campaigns, but those fears were once again assuaged in the second referendum precisely because of reference to the triple lock. It does not make sense to me that any government would not see itself as a custodian of the promises that were made to the people less than a mere 20 years ago in our adult lifetimes. I voted in 2009 based on those commitments given. The crux of the issue is that we actually gave the triple lock as a promise to the Irish people. If the Minister feels there are strong arguments for it to be changed, surely it is incumbent on her to go back to the Irish people and ask for approval and consent. In the absence of that, this just seems not to be just a promise broken but it brings us down a very dark path. The Minister might say that the world has changed but these commitments were given after 2001. The world very much changed in 2001 yet Irish people were still very much opposed to and rejected the idea of participation in military conflicts without the security of the triple lock. That is where there is an element of not just muddying the waters but actually just giving up on the responsibilities of a promise that was given. One of the first motions that the Social Democrats and Deputy Gibney tabled at the beginning of this Dáil was to ask for a referendum. We used the slogan: "Put it to the people." If the Minister believes her arguments are strong, why would she fear having them endorsed by the Irish people? It was those very same arguments that gave the commitment and confidence to them to pass two referendums. This is an antidemocratic position. It was fortified during the summer when I heard Fianna Fáil backbenchers talking about their concerns about the removal of the triple lock in full knowledge that those they would be whipped in here to vote for it. That is my fear. We are heading into very dark times but it is precisely our neutrality and our strengths of conviction on the UN that has given us our special place in the world. There is also this belief that it is our triple lock and our neutrality that undermines our capacity to have defensive resilience when it comes to improving our Defence forces, including our Naval Service and radar capacity. That is actually just a Government failure. There is nobody across this House who would not see increased investment as something we would all support but this just has an element of shadiness to it. Two referendums passed because of a commitment given on the triple lock. That Seville declaration matters. It has to carry weight. The Minister is a custodian of that promise and the fact that the Government is changing this by forcing backbenchers, some against their will, to vote for it is precisely the reason we need it. That is why I and the Social Democrats are strongly advocating that the Minister simply asks the question of the Irish people. Do those commitments no longer stand given what the Minister believes is a change in world dynamics that is somehow different from the chaos that followed 2001? Outside of that, it is actually just sleeven politics, which enables a scenario where there is simply no trust because the Government is breaking a promise.

I want to continue where my two colleagues left off and highlight that the Minister's tone was quite condescending. She said, "Make it make sense", as if what we were saying was unfounded, was ridiculous and it was quite demeaning coming from a Minister. When she talks about things that make sense, it was the Taoiseach she voted for who said in 2013 that the triple lock was "core" to our neutrality. Make that make sense. Yet, she just bats it away. We know, as the opinion polls show, that 71% of the people agree that Ireland's neutrality should be added to the Constitution. People are very clear. They value it. They want our neutrality maintained and that was the promise that the Minister and others made and committed to the Irish people. She also talks about defending peace and international law, and for things to make sense. What does not make sense is putting in place an occupied territories Bill that does not include services. Make that make sense, when she is not actually putting in place and following the genocide law that should be applied to Israel. However, she is not prepared to do that. Ireland has a long history of standing up for peace and against war. Tá stair fhada ag Éire agus í ag seasamh ar son na síochána agus i gcoinne an chogaidh. Ba cheart dúinn a bheith bródúil as ár neodracht thar na mblianta. We should be and we are proud of our history of neutrality. We should, as a country, be continuing to push for peace and not militarisation by working and supporting the United Nations and pushing the European Union and other institutions to resolve conflicts through negotiation, to respect the human rights of everyone, but we are not. We are moving along with the militarisation agenda, the ramping up of military spending. Let us be very clear about who is pushing this. In 2015, the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte spoke to the European Parliament's committee on foreign affairs. He said very clearly that he wanted the European Union to be spending more on defence. We know Trump wants the European Union to be spending more on defence. What is the push at a EU level to be spending more on defence and creating a European military industrial complex? Who benefits and who loses? Mark Rutte made it very clear. He said: ...spending more on defence means spending less on other priorities ... On average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health and social security systems, and we need only a small fraction of that money to make defence much stronger ... We ... need to quickly ramp up the production of crucial assets and capabilities, including ships, tanks, jets, ammunition, satellites and drones. This is not what Ireland should be promoting. We should be investing in our people's well-being and the health and housing of people across Europe, not weapons of death, and retaining our neutrality is central to that.

Quite right.

I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire and his colleagues in Sinn Féin for bringing forward this motion. I have said before and I will say again that it has never been more important to maintain our neutrality than it is right now. From Gaza to Ukraine, and from Sudan to the escalating tensions in Iran and the wider Middle East, we are facing an era of overlapping conflict, instability and displacement. Humanitarian crisis has now become the norm. The disabling effects of these conflicts are contributing greatly to global and regional instability, and we are now seeing it in Ireland. Ireland's independent, trusted, neutral voice is now vital. We have a unique opportunity to facilitate and advocate for peace in the unpredictable international environment we are currently going through. We can be the peacekeepers. We can have a voice, but if we continue on the path that the Government is taking, we will not. Abandoning neutrality only serves to facilitate wars. It does nothing to support victims of conflict. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, approximately 130 armed conflicts are raging today, which is twice as many as 15 years ago. Wars are lasting longer and growing more complex. Drones and bullets have one thing in common: they do not discriminate; they kill. Millions of people have had their lives shattered by conflict. Instead of supporting all efforts towards peace and resolution for these people, this Government and successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments have instead chosen to erode Irish neutrality bit by bit and to cheapen it over the years. I am disgusted by this Government's determination to remove the triple lock by the end of the year as part of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026. It is shameful to do this without consulting the people of Ireland, who are very proud supporters of the triple lock and who feel profoundly betrayed that their voice is not being heard. It is also a departure from the values of the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil and the commitments they made just six years ago. The party's 2020 manifesto stated, "Fianna Fáil reaffirms its commitment to the retention of the triple lock." Well, how quickly that changed. It did not take long for Fianna Fáil to completely abandon its commitments after a few years in government, although I can hardly be surprised at the shape and the way things are going. The Irish people do not want to get rid of the triple lock. They have long valued and supported the policy of neutrality. This is an issue of national importance. I urge the Minister to ensure the public has a say. I urge her to stand firm on Ireland's neutrality, a position which has been shaped by our anticolonial history and is a source of real pride. The people have the right to have their voice heard. Let the people have their vote, because the Minister knows what the result will be.

I welcome and support this motion brought forward by Sinn Féin in support of the triple lock and neutrality. There are no Fianna Fáil TDs here, but the fact of the matter is that Fianna Fáil TDs have the power to stop the abolition of the triple lock. The triple lock is Fianna Fáil. The triple lock is Fianna Fáil history. Éamon de Valera, a founder member of Fianna Fáil, a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach and a Fianna Fáil President put "the [peaceful] settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination" into Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Éamon de Valera declared Irish neutrality in 1939. Bertie Ahern, a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, put the triple lock into the Nice II treaty. Brian Cowen, a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, put the triple lock into the Lisbon II treaty. Bertie Ahern now says he is opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. Éamon Ó Cuív, a former Fianna Fáil Minister and a former deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, says he is opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. Willie O'Dea, a former Fianna Fáil Minister, says he is opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. I am told that 20 Fianna Fáil TDs say they are opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. Even the current Taoiseach said in 2013 that the triple lock is "the core of [Irish] neutrality". Are Fianna Fáil TDs going to stand up and be counted? Are they going to stand up for their own history? Are Fianna Fáil TDs going to decide if the triple lock stays or goes? They have the power to do that. Remember, the triple lock has been endorsed by the sovereign Irish people in two referendums and has been included as a solemn declaration in the Nice and Lisbon treaties. The triple lock has served us well. I call on all Fianna Fáil TDs to come into this House next week - they have a week to mull over this - and vote against the Government countermotion. They will be voting for Fianna Fáil history if they do so.

This whole debate, to my mind, turns on what you say neutrality is. Irish neutrality is not about being indifferent. It is not about not taking sides. It is about never standing with empires and always standing with the oppressed and those who resist empires. This tradition goes back to Wolfe Tone, the first person to enunciate the idea of Irish neutrality, and to James Connolly, Constance Markievicz and Pearse who set up the Irish Neutrality League in 1914 at the outbreak of the First World War to oppose both sides in that war and to say, "Neither king nor kaiser." Who do I trust with that tradition of neutrality? That is the real tradition, and that is the tradition that people in this country support. I trust Aaron Rowe and Beoga, the Irish artists and musicians who in a selfless, brave and courageous act decided to drop out of Ed Sheeran's US tour in solidarity with the people of Palestine. It is worth noting the words Aaron Rowe used to explain his decision. He said he was doing it to honour this country's tradition of opposition to colonisation, oppression, genocide, enforced famine and occupation. Now that is a real understanding of what Irish neutrality means. It is about opposition to empires, oppression and colonisation and standing with those who oppose it. Now, do I trust the Irish Government in that regard, with what it says is its commitment to Irish neutrality? No, I do not. The most recent evidence is the visit of Donald Trump to this country. Donald Trump, in a speech in the US Embassy that nobody seems to have focused on, waxed lyrical about the use of American weapons systems and arms in Venezuela, an illegal attack on a sovereign nation. He was absolutely explicit; it was disgusting. He boasted about the use of American weapons to illegally attack that country and then talked about all the oil. He said the US was getting along great with the people and Venezuela was so happy now; the big oil companies are moving in and starting to drill. He was absolutely explicit, saying that the US uses its weapons to attack countries and take their oil, but the Government invited him into this country, rolled out the red carpet for him and treated him as if he was not an imperial monster, although the Government is happy to say that about Putin, who is an imperial monster.

I am sorry; I did not realise Deputy Stanley was here.

The Deputy is okay. I refer to the fact that we are here having to put down motions like this to try to counter the moves being taken by the Government. It is a sad day that this has to happen. As a member of the defence and national security committee, we have been around this and it is clear what is being mooted here by the Government. Neutrality was never more important, given the instability in the world, the level of conflict and the warmongering by imperial powers and former imperial powers. Despite being a relatively small country, neutrality has given us credibility internationally. We have played a positive role diplomatically and, from a military point of view, in peacekeeping, etc. Being neutral and having the triple lock does not prevent us in any way from deploying our Defence Forces personnel overseas on rescue missions or for humanitarian purposes. The Minister confirmed that to me in the committee just a few short months ago. This can be done without a UN mandate and does not limit the number we need to deploy. The triple lock is key to our neutral status. Solemn national declarations were attached to both the Lisbon and Nice treaties by the then Fianna Fáil Government to get both treaties passed on the second attempt, which was successful from the Government's point of view. Now, the Government is proposing to tear them up. This is a denial of democracy and a slap in the face for the Irish people. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want to abolish the triple lock, then put it to a referendum of the people because they voted on this twice. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have consistently worked to undermine our neutrality. We hear pronunciations that we are not members of NATO but the NATO chiefs are quite happy because they know we have joined so many partnerships and alliances at this stage that we are there all but in name. That has happened over the past two decades. Of course we should have sensible co-operation, particularly with neighbouring states. That has to happen and it can be done by neutral states but entering into alliances is a different matter. The latest moves to undermine our neutrality were reported comments by the Minister that Ireland could engage in overseas deployments that did not have UN approval. Also, the Minister needs to confirm reports that she has directed officials to plan for Irish participation in the British-led joint expeditionary forces. The Government needs to come out and clarify that. Any such proposal should be brought before the Dáil. Instead of ever closer involvement in all sorts of alliances at a regional level, the Government should work with other neutral states and unaligned states, of which there are dozens, to establish the primacy of multilateralism and re-establish and strengthen the UN. Ireland, as a neutral country, should not be bound tightly to those imperial powers and former imperial powers that have made huge attempts to undermine the United Nations and all attempts at peace and multilateralism. The Government's position is that the Dáil and Cabinet would still have a say. The Minister knows what will happen.

The TDs on the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael benches will be whipped to vote by the decision of the 15 members of the Cabinet and that is democracy out the window. If the Government is going to do away with neutrality, it needs to bring it before the people.

Ireland has had a proud history of neutrality for many long years. A record built on our own peace process, the missionaries who helped build hospitals and schools around the world, our role as a UN peacekeeping country, our campaign for nuclear non-proliferation, and our support for decolonisation across the world gives us, internationally, a recognised reputation as an honest broker. That is very hard to achieve and it is also a very unique reputation. Our history of neutrality goes back many years, as has been mentioned - back to Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell and James Connolly. They all advocated neutrality to strengthen Irish independence and self-determination and also to prevent militarism. We should be using that reputation as a catalyst for peace. We should be actively neutral and courageous in our non-aggressive engagement around the world. Look at Norway, for example. Norway created the Oslo peace accord. It used its position in such a manner as to bring two warring factions to the table to see if they could create peace. Small countries have long been sceptical of military blocs. Military blocs develop their military actions just to advance their own national interests and economic objectives. When a small country joins a military bloc, it usually has very little say over the decisions that are made by that military bloc, yet it has to populate those armies with its young men and women. So, too, would it be with Ireland if we joined a military bloc. We would have to send our children to wars and we would have very little say over the development of those wars. It is important to remember as well that in world affairs, war is often packaged as peace. "Peace" is often a euphemism. Some 600,000 people were killed in the Iraq war in the name of peace. The US war in Iraq was a perfect example of this. The whole issue with war is that the first casualty of it is often the truth. I am old enough to remember the statements of the American Government that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. On that basis, that country went to war with Iraq and it led to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives and decades of damaging instability in the region. Every week, we hear of a drone incursion in some part of the EU. Every week, we are told it is believed that Russia is behind those drone incursions but we are never given any evidence of this. It may well be the case that Russia is behind those actions but one thing we have learned from Iraq is that if we are to make decisions on policy, those decisions should be made on evidence, yet the Government has provided no evidence. In fact, I will show the actions of the EU. In 2022, serious explosions damaged the Nord Stream pipeline, causing gas leaks into the Baltic Sea. The EU leadership was very strong in pointing its finger at Russia in regard to that. Today, the investigations have led to the arrests of a number of Ukrainian operatives in relation to it. That highlights even more the necessity for evidence to be used as the basis for policy. The EU war drums are getting louder. The EU hawks are currently beating the war drums and the Government is very happy to dance to their particular tune. In relation to our own defences, two weeks ago, I think we witnessed one of the lowest points of this Government with regard to defence. I ask Deputies to picture this for a second: the Minister talking tough on defence, while at the same time, a Royal Navy ship and helicopters were used to provide security for the EU ministers' meeting she was having. It is incredible. You could not better juxtapose two images that spoke more about the fact that this Government has done nothing to protect this country in regard to our military over the past while. If the Minister put a beret on, she would have appeared like Comical Ali - a situation where she was talking tough on defence but depending on another country to provide military support to defend this country. If the Government had any self-awareness, it would have been mortified by that situation, but it does not. When Fine Gael came to power in 2011, the strength of the Irish Defence Forces was 9,650. It is now 7,767. The navy had eight functional ships; now it has fewer than four. Fine Gael is the biggest threat to Irish security by far. Unless we get serious about it, this Government is in big danger of leading to our security being breached.

I thought I had more time than that, but I bow to the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach.

I do not mind letting Deputy Tóibín continue because I think Deputy O'Flynn might not be coming. I will give Deputy Tóibín another minute.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta faoi sin. The cyberattack is another example. In the year the country suffered a cyberattack on our health service, the press department of the Department of the Taoiseach received more funding than the National Cyber Security Centre. That led to €100 million in costs and many people's healthcare services being significantly disrupted. The triple lock is part of the Nice II referendum. Every house in the country had a leaflet put in their door. If this Government wants to change the triple lock, it has a moral and democratic responsibility to go to the people in relation to that decision.

As others have said, neutrality has been part of who we are for centuries. Since the 1960s our nonaligned stance has allowed us to act as a moral honest broker, an advocate for peace and a supporter of proper humanitarian legal systems on the world stage. As an Independent TD, I believe we must protect that legacy but real neutrality is not free and being militarily neutral does not mean you do not take sides when evil things are being done, as they are in Gaza, in Ukraine and in other conflicts around the world, and as they were in previous conflicts. These conflicts are ones we have not supported or contributed to, except by searching for peace or through brave Irish men and women trying to keep the peace. Neutrality cannot mean isolation and it cannot mean being completely defenceless. For too long, successive governments and some Opposition parties have used neutrality as a convenient excuse to neglect our armed forces. We cannot protect our sovereign territory, our international waters or indeed our economic zone with platitudes. We must look at the reality of modern security threats. I am thinking of subsea cable monitoring and the boats that are hanging over, which could clip them in 30 minutes, the ongoing cyberwarfare, the trolls online trying to discredit our democratic system, the misinformation being spread and the ability to take out whole grids. That is a power belonging to some of the nefarious state and non-state operators. These and other sinister actions, like the explosions on the Ukrainian border recently, impact directly on Ireland whether we like it or not, so we have to invest seriously in our defence. We have to properly resource our Defence Forces, rebuild our Naval Service in particular and develop decent radar capabilities and proper deterrence against attacks. Obviously we are not going to be able to compete against an overwhelming military force and we would likely have to get into a war of attrition and a guerilla-type campaign but we should not be easily intimidated in our airspace, in our waters or on our land. If we do not invest in defending this critical infrastructure, it does not mean we are being neutral, it just means we are being vulnerable. As we have seen in media reports we are often relying, for this EU Presidency period, on foreign militaries to bail us out, using little tweaks so as not to breach our Constitution. There is an argument that being neutral also means we have to engage internationally with other forces when our security is threatened. If we are looking for this quid pro quo where our security depends on co-operation with other countries while we are not part of an aggressive military alliance and not taking sides in any operations, we need to get involved in some types of missions. Historically that meant the UN missions which are tied up now due to the Security Council dysfunction I will refer to in a moment. Taking the joint expeditionary force that was referenced, we have to be very cautious about these types of arrangements but I cannot blindly condemn it when it is going to give us intelligence-sharing to monitor our seas and we have an observer status, which is not joining an alliance. We can co-operate with countries and take part in certain types of operations while maintaining our neutral stance. That is possible but caveats have to be spelt out in terms of where we draw the line and a lot of us in Opposition groupings, including me, are cynical about whether that alliance is always going to be adhered to. I agree we need to safeguard neutrality while becoming militarily self-reliant. However, crucially and with respect to this motion in particular, we need to fix how we authorise our troops’ deployment as peacekeepers because, as I have said here before, the triple lock is broken. It served us well in the past but now it is just a concept because the third lock, which is the United Nations Security Council, is not fixable any time soon. It is very ironic that our sovereign foreign policy is currently vetoed by autocracies and global powers with their own geopolitical agendas which are aggressive in some cases, such as with Russia, or suspicious as with China, and then there is the United States. These countries should not be holding a veto over where Irish peacekeepers, with their proud history of nonaggression and fighting for peace, can deploy. Leaving our defence policy at the mercy of a dysfunctional Security Council does not protect our neutrality; it gives away our sovereignty. However, I agree with my colleagues in opposition that we need a triple lock, though the question is what type. I am open to suggestion but my view is we should replace the UN veto with a requirement for an 80% supermajority in the Dáil and Seanad so four fifths of the Houses must agree before deploying troops. That is another lock that would ensure the government of the day could not abuse our military or casually drag us into foreign conflicts. It would need an overwhelming cross-party consensus. I also believe that if some of our EU partners like Poland or the Baltic states were ever attacked aggressively by the likes of Russia, I do not think we can or should be neutral. That is my opinion, respecting our historical context.

Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an rún seo agus beidh mé ag tacú an rún seo atá os ár gcomhair. Ireland's military neutrality is not some relic of the past but a living, vital expression of our sovereignty and our democratic independence and it is being dismantled right in front of our eyes. The announcement on the removal of the triple lock was not just mishandled; it was a watershed moment when one of the most far-reaching changes to Irish foreign policy in decades was confirmed. Let us call it what it is: the death rattle of neutrality as a meaningful concept. The Government has set a process in motion that Ireland will come to deeply regret if the path is followed. I broadly support the Sinn Féin motion because it recognises something fundamental, which is that neutrality and the triple lock have served us well and allowed Ireland to play a constructive role in disarmament, humanitarianism and of course peacekeeping. Instead of strengthening those traditions and conditions, the Government is dragging Ireland into deeper and deeper military alignment from the European peace facility, where costs have gone through the roof. In April 1939, Éamon de Valera made it very clear that he would keep Ireland out of any war that occurred in Europe. Our current Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, needs to adopt the same true and strong leadership that Éamon de Valera adopted in 1939. It is particularly shocking and hard to accept that the Taoiseach would follow along and dismantle our triple lock. Earlier this year, I asked the Minister for Defence to confirm that EU defence investments must fully respect national competencies and Ireland's specific choices regarding neutrality. The Minister responded that national security remains the sole responsibility of each member state and that Ireland's neutrality must be safeguarded, yet everything the Government is doing is contradicting that assurance. I will say it plainly here tonight: no more funding for Ukraine or any other military initiative should proceed without a Dáil vote. I want to be clear on that. On that matter of principle, I did not attend when we had President Zelenskyy here. It is wrong.

My position on this has also been very clear. Our neutrality must be sacrosanct. It is sacrosanct as far as I am concerned. It is not something that should be weakened, chipped away at or in any way undermined. For a long time, the Taoiseach has held roadshows where he handpicked chairs for his own crowd of NGOs and other people on the bandwagon around the country. He got his answer. If he has to change this, he has to go to the people. As Deputy Nolan said, we had good leadership from a previous esteemed leader of Fianna Fáil. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, is from the same county, Contae an Chláir. De Valera stood solid. We must stand solid here. I too did not attend when President Zelenskyy addressed us. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade recently gave him another €12 million. It is like confetti or giving children at first communions pocket money. There is no accountability in terms of where that money goes. We have to stand by our neutrality. I wholeheartedly compliment our Defence Forces on their service abroad, going back to the Congo and in many different war zones. They are held in high esteem and I salute them. It might be better for the Taoiseach to recognise and support the men of Jadotville who did not get proper support or recognition, even though he promised in opposition that he would do so. He steadfastly refuses to meet them or do anything for them. This is a no-go area. If our neutrality has to be changed, it has to be put to the people. The Taoiseach is frightened of the people because of the results of past referendums when the Government tried to remove something from the Constitution. Our neutrality is sacrosanct and has to remain so, and I want it kept so.

I am glad to have a chance to speak. Neutrality is paramount for the people of Ireland. We still thank former Taoiseach, De Valera who told certain countries where to go when they were looking for Ireland to join the Second World War. The Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, said in 2013 that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. I do not understand how he can come in here and say the opposite at this time. I heard what the Minister said about changing times and all of that. The facts are that if we want to change our neutrality, the Government should go to the people. What is it afraid of? The Taoiseach told the people in previous referendums that the triple lock would remain in place and that there were treaties. He promised that the triple lock would stay more recently than 2013. If the Government wants to change this, it should go to the people. What is it afraid of? The people will not bite. A couple of months ago, the Government gave €2 million to Ukraine, I believe to keep the war going. The Government did not tell Members how much it was giving. The Government asked its backbenchers to vote for it as part of a €90 billion European fund to help Ukraine. That was just to keep the war going. The Government had no control over the money. The Government said it was a loan. When will it be paid back? The Government is not being honest with the people. There is no hope that that money will ever be paid back. We should use the money for European funds for our Defence Forces because they can protect us. No one can stop us going abroad with our Defence Forces. We are a sovereign State. We need to stand our ground and not try to cod the people.

I want to state clearly that reforming the triple lock is the right thing for Ireland, Irish neutrality, the men and women of the Defence Forces, our peacekeepers and Irish security and sovereignty. The determination to secure Irish sovereignty is how we are all here today and how we are elected to this Chamber and represent an independent country. I am disappointed by how disingenuously the Opposition persistently frames this discussion. The Minister clearly articulated the proposed legislation from the Government. Its purpose is to remove the ability of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council from preventing the Government and Dáil from deciding where and when to send our peacekeepers. This is about giving this and future Dáileanna a greater say. It is about taking back and increasing our sovereignty. Why is the Opposition persisting in opposing greater Irish sovereignty? That is a question that it does not address. Why is the Labour Party, which protested the visit of the President of the United States to our shores last weekend, equally determined to continue to allow the US to determine where we can send our peacekeepers? Why is Sinn Féin, which yesterday signed an agreement calling for greater independence from the UK, equally calling for our persistent dependence on the UK to determine where and when we can send our peacekeepers? Deputy Tóibín, who was in the Chamber earlier, quoted polls showing that a majority in the State believes the people who live on the island of Ireland should make decisions on what happens on the island of Ireland. Why does that decision-making not include decisions on where and when we send our peacekeepers? I know the job of the Opposition is to oppose Government, but it could not even manage a few days, a day or even a few hours without contradicting itself. I commend the Minister on her consistency, intelligence and good sense in proposing the removal of this impediment to our independence and sovereignty.

Before anything else, let us be clear about what is being debated here. Neutrality and the triple lock are not the same thing. Too often, they are spoken about as if they are interchangeable but they are not. We are all entitled to our opinions in this House, and that is healthy, but we are not entitled to our own facts. A claim does not become fact through repetition. No matter how often it is asserted by Sinn Féin that the triple lock is somehow a neutrality protection mechanism, it is not. No matter how many times Sinn Féin says changing the triple lock is the same as abandoning our neutrality, it is not. Ireland's neutrality is a policy of the State. It is a sovereign choice about how Ireland engages with the world and, in particular, our decision not to join a military alliance. The triple lock, by contrast, is a legal mechanism governing the overseas deployment of members of the Defence Forces. It requires a UN mandate and Government and Dáil approval before certain deployments can take place. The triple lock did not make Ireland neutral and it is not what keeps Ireland neutral. Ireland's neutrality is a long-standing policy of the State. Ireland was neutral before the triple lock was introduced and it will remain neutral regardless of how the mechanism is amended. As someone who has served in Óglaigh na hÉireann and as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon, I know the extraordinary contribution Irish peacekeepers make around the world and the esteem in which they are held internationally. I can see very clearly that the question before us is not whether Ireland should remain neutral - it should and it will. Rather, the question is whether Ireland should decide where Irish peacekeepers serve. Neutrality is not what is at risk of being eroded, sovereignty is. The Opposition sees a threat to neutrality where none exists, whereas I see a real threat to the sovereignty if Ireland cannot, and is not permitted to, decide for itself where its peacekeepers serve. I believe that by amending the triple lock we preserve our neutrality and reaffirm our sovereignty at the same time. Neutrality and sovereignty are not competing values. By amending the triple lock, we protect both.

I welcome the opportunity to respond and reflect on the contributions made by Members on the other side of the House. In these discussions, much has been said about military neutrality, the triple lock and Ireland's engagement with international partners. The central question before us is whether reforming the triple lock and strengthening practical security co-operation amounts to abandoning military neutrality. The Government's position is clear. It does not. I know for some it might suit them to try to confuse, and I understand the politics of Opposition. This is an important issue for all member states and one on which we should try to leave politics aside. Ireland has a proud and respected tradition of peacekeeping, international engagement and support for the UN. Generations of Defence Forces personnel have served overseas with distinction, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances, making an outstanding contribution to international peace and security. Our commitment to those values remains as strong today as ever. Some have lost their lives. Others have been maimed and injured in the protection and preservation of life in other, more difficult, circumstances. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Their memory and families are not served well by the kind of approach taken by some, which is to play politics with this. I fully recognise the deep public attachment to Ireland's policy of military neutrality and the genuine concerns that many people have regarding proposals affecting our security and defence arrangements. However, it is important to distinguish, as others have, between military neutrality and the triple lock mechanism. They are not the same thing. Let me be absolutely clear: Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality remains unchanged. Ireland is not a member of a military alliance nor does it participate in mutual defence arrangements. The Government has no plans, none whatsoever, to alter that position. The programme for Government explicitly commits to preserving and protecting Ireland's policy of military neutrality, and the proposed Defence (Amendment) Bill does nothing to change that commitment. The motion proposes that reform of the triple lock is synonymous with abandoning neutrality. The triple lock is a legislative mechanism governing the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. I take issue with my good friend Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, who suggested somehow that we are sovereign and can send our troops where we wish. In fact, the passage of this legislation will allow us to do that and it will take from the hands of members of the Security Council who have a fundamentally different view of world order right now. One cannot have it both ways, quite frankly. The triple lock is a legislative mechanism governing the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. Military neutrality, by contrast, is a policy choice relating to military alliances and collective defence arrangements. Reforming one does not alter the other. Neither should military neutrality be interpreted as requiring Ireland to isolate itself from international partners. Ireland has long co-operated with other countries, the EU and international organisations on matters affecting our shared security interests. We do so because many of the threats we face today do not respect borders. We can all agree that the world has changed significantly in recent years. I reflect on a number of others who have sought to draw on the work of the late Éamon de Valera. I have the honour of representing the county where he was first elected. I respond to the charges that have been made against the Taoiseach to the effect that he has failed to follow in the tradition of de Valera. It is quite the opposite. De Valera governed for the future based on the circumstances he found himself in. Comments attributed to the Taoiseach in 2013 reflected appropriately the context in which the associated conversations and discussions were had and the comments made. Things changed fundamentally in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine and began the annexation of Crimea. We do not need to remind ourselves, because it is to the fore, of the extent to which the lack of defence at the time and what was almost the turning of a blind eye emboldened Russia to a point where, in 2022, it went for full-scale invasion. The world has changed dramatically since then and it does require fresh thinking. Ireland has long co-operated with other countries, the EU and international organisations on matters affecting our shared security interests. We do so because many of the threats we face today do not respect borders. I challenge my good friend Deputy Mattie McGrath when he asserts that we have given, at every beck and call, funding to Ukraine. I am reminded by the Minister that Ukraine spends €135 million daily defending against Russia. It is not just defending its own territory or its own people; it is defending the EU. Through contacts we all have in those countries that flank Ukraine to the west, we are reminded every day, especially by those member states within the European Union, particularly Estonia and Poland, of the level of hybrid war now being waged and the efforts by Russia to undermine the resolve of the EU. Playing into the kind of rhetoric we have heard here tonight fails to recognise that this is a fundamentally different landscape to which we have to respond. We need to do so in a way that recognises the threat to us. We saw an element of the shadow fleet off the west coast of Ireland in the past number of days, which further compounded the challenges we faced in protecting the President of the US. We did protect him. I recognise the tremendous work that was done by the Garda and our military personnel in ensuring the threats were minimised, identified and defended against. There is now an entirely different landscape from what we looked at in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and, I would say, the early noughties. The challenges are great and we have a responsibility to move forward in terms of the financial supports we provide to defend ourselves. We also have to beef up our own defence systems and become self-sufficient as part of a wider community. Defending ourselves, and defending our neighbours and like-minded member states, can in no way be seen, in my humble opinion anyway, as undermining our principal policy of military neutrality. We were asked by a number of Deputies to put it to the people, but what is the question we are to ask them? Is it to allow us to exclude the wishes of China and Russia in the first instance on the Security Council in respect of whether we would deploy a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine in the event of hostilities coming to an end and the creation of some kind of security barrier or buffer zone? Is that the question? It seems to me that it is. The people I talk to daily would have no problem supporting that kind of question. Nowhere would it be suggested that we would end military neutrality, because that is not what is at the core of the proposition tonight. I fail to understand the extent to which the effort has been made to confuse two very separate issues. We can all agree that the world has changed significantly. War on the European Continent, growing geopolitical instability, cyber threats, hybrid attacks and risks to critical infrastructure all require practical responses and co-operation with trusted partners. Such co-operation does not constitute military alignment and certainly does not undermine military neutrality. We have discussed this and debated it through various referendums as part of our membership of the EU and various changes to its constitutional architecture over recent years. The Irish people have always shown support for the continuation of military neutrality, and that is reflected in the programme for Government. It is reflected quite clearly in the proposal that will come from the Government in due course. Much has been made and said during this debate about the Joint Expeditionary Force, JEF, and the associated JEF+ framework. JEF is not a military alliance and it creates no mutual defence obligations. JEF+ provides opportunities for non-member states to engage voluntarily on issues of shared concern. Let us not leave aside the phrases "shared concern" and "voluntarily". Any Irish participation would be entirely voluntary and determined by the Government. I suspect that, if it is to be determined by the Government, it would also require the wishes of this House to be taken into account. Again, it is not as if there has been a usurpation of the wishes of the Irish people in any malign way here. Engagement provides opportunities to learn from partners, improve our understanding of emerging security challenges and strengthen awareness of issues that directly affect Ireland, particularly in the maritime domain and in relation to critical undersea infrastructure. Engagement of this nature reflects the practical reality of modern security challenges. Ireland remains committed to military neutrality, multilateralism, peacekeeping and the international rules-based order. Those principles have not changed, but what has changed is the world around us. For those reasons, I believe that the Government's counter-motion represents the more balanced, responsible and forward-looking approach. I commend it to the House.

Irish neutrality is a strength, not a weakness. Ní laige í neodracht na hÉireann. It is not outdated. It is not something to be sneered at. For generations, Irish Governments acknowledged that we played a proud, neutral and independent role in the world, upholding international law without joining military alliances. The triple lock is not something Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael should dismantle without the stated consent, via referendum, of the Irish people, but they are afraid of the answer they might get. The Government argues that the UN requirement prevents Ireland from participating in peacekeeping missions. I heard the Minister's attempt earlier to throw sand in the eyes of the people in her speech, implying that removing the UN requirement would make Ireland more sovereign. Removing it risks making us available to military alliances and the strategic interests of larger states because the UN aspect of the triple lock is hugely significant. Irish Defence Forces members wearing the blue beret provide a critical stabilising role in conflict zones. Their presence there saves lives, ensuring fragile peace agreements endure. Warring factions and civilians alike recognise them as neutral, invited and not forced upon a population. There is no peace to keep unless both sides want it. They are there by international consent and that carries a moral and legal authority. Removing the UN part of the triple lock weakens the protection our Defence Forces' blue helmets have and it allows any Irish Government to send out troops to an international military operation simply because a powerful ally could require it. We know the UN needs reform but rather than getting active on that, the Government wants our proud tradition of peacekeeping to be sold to the highest bidder. I ask Fianna Fáil TDs, in particular, when did the party that used to pride itself on Irish sovereignty become so eager to surrender it? There is something deeply cynical about Fianna Fáil weakening that safeguard. It is yet another betrayal of its republican tradition. In the midst of a housing and cost-of-living crisis, why are we being encouraged towards NATO-style militarisation spending? If this Government wants to change Ireland's neutrality, let us be honest with the Irish people and put it to a referendum. Do not dismantle it by stealth. Irish neutrality belongs to the Irish people and Irish sovereignty is not the Government's to give away. Is mór an náire sibh.

I think Aaron Rowe summed up Irish history quite well and I commend him for the stance he has taken: But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine and violent occupation.... I need to be true to myself and my ancestors who resisted colonisation, and fought for a freedom that I enjoy today in Ireland. He spoke about that as he stood on the side of right in relation to Gaza and the rights of the Palestinian people. That is the history we have and it has been followed by a proud history of military neutrality. We believe in that neutrality and in non-alignment. That is not being in the pocket or in hock to military blocs. We know what it is to have suffered under "might is right". Unfortunately, that is the world we live in at the minute. Neutrality and the triple lock have served us well, as have the tens of thousands of Irish men and women who have served as UN peacekeepers. Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice and I think of Michael McNeela, Seán Rooney and many others. Look at the world we live in at the moment. Conflicts abound, whether we are talking about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the continued genocidal Israeli occupation of Gaza, the settler violence and land grabs in the West Bank, the US and Israeli war with Iran, the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, and the Sudanese war. It is in this unpredictable environment that the Government proposes to take a step away from multilateralism and international co-operation, and it intends do that by, as a first step, abandoning the triple lock. We have all seen polls and spoken to people in our communities. We know where the Irish people stand solidly in relation to neutrality. The Government wants to state that this is only about the triple lock and it is literally a formula. It is a first step on a journey that is about moving away from our idea of independent foreign policy and military non-alignment. It is not good enough. If this Government was brave enough, it would put it to a vote. It is as simple as that. This is not good enough.

Military neutrality is a key expression of Irish independence. It means engaging with the world while retaining the freedom to make our own decisions on foreign policy and defence. In a more dangerous world, that independence matters more than ever. When powerful states disregard international law, which has increasingly been the case, Ireland can provide that independent voice for peace, diplomacy and multilateralism. The triple lock is part of that approach and the proposal by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to dismantle it cannot be viewed in isolation. It comes alongside deeper military co-operation with NATO states and a wider shift in Irish defence policy that we have all witnessed here. Defence co-operation should not mean military alignment and neutrality does not mean being defenceless, yet Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael now argue that dismantling the triple lock is necessary to strengthen Ireland's defence. What a brass neck. The deficiencies in our Defence Forces were not created by the triple lock. They were the result of decades of political choices by those same parties: Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The triple lock never prevented investment in radar, maritime surveillance, cybersecurity or our Naval Service. Indeed, Ireland needs properly staffed and equipped Defence Forces capable of protecting our land, seas, airspace and critical infrastructure. The answer is to invest in those capabilities, not dismantle the triple lock. Meanwhile, we have Micheál Martin repeatedly pointing to the dysfunction at the UN Security Council as if this was justification for removing the UN requirement. Think about that just for a minute. At the very moment when powerful states are weakening the United Nations, Micheál Martin's answer is for Ireland to further weaken the UN. The plain truth is that this Government's proposal moves Irish foreign and defence policy away from a UN-centred approach and towards deeper co-operation with military powers and blocs that operate in their own interests, not those of Ireland. If Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil want to make such a fundamental change as they are proposing, then they should put it to the people, have the courage of their convictions, hold a referendum and let the people decide. I have no doubt they will give the Government its answer.

The Irish people cherish our tradition of military neutrality. It was part of our independence and identity as a people who were colonised and who suffered at the hands of oppressors. It gave us the moral weight to engage in the defence of human rights in the pursuit of conflict resolution and the honourable service of our Defence Forces in peacekeeping around the world. Irish people are deeply proud of that tradition. I remember well when the Lisbon treaty was debated in 2008. Irish people rejected that treaty, and as the Minister knows, they also rejected the Nice treaty at the first ask. After the rejection of the Lisbon treaty, the then Government of Fianna Fáil, of course supported by Fine Gael, came forward with a solemn national declaration, an assurance to the Irish people because what heavily influenced their vote in 2008 was the loss of our cherished tradition of neutrality. The then Government gave a solemn declaration, so for the current Government to walk away from it and remove the key element of the triple lock is essentially saying that the Government wants the power to send our troops into military alliances that our people have rejected in referendums. The only honourable option, if the Government wants to take that path, is to put it to the Irish people in a referendum. I have heard Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Ministers and other TDs here tonight protesting that they also cherish our tradition of neutrality and that there is nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, that everything is okay and that nothing has changed. If the Government is confident in that position, it is very simple: it must put this to the Irish people in a referendum. The Minister can nod her head if she wishes but she knows that her party and Fianna Fáil made a solemn declaration to the Irish people to get them to vote for the Lisbon treaty on the second ask. For the Government to dishonour that declaration is reprehensible. It is shameful and the Minister knows it. It is deeply wrong. If the Government believes, and is confident in the approach it is taking, that it is not in defiance of our traditional position of neutrality, put it to the Irish people in a referendum. That is what our motion calls for and the Government needs to support it.