Dr. Karen Devine:

As I have only three minutes, I will omit introductions and get straight into my presentation, if that is okay. This is my fourth appearance before an Oireachtas committee as an expert witness. I begin with my usual disclaimer that most of the members will not like what I have to say, particularly, perhaps, members of the Government parties, but I will say it anyway because I am an academic and it is my job to tell the truth and present the facts based on primary and secondary sources of empirical evidence.

My opening statement can only really be understood in the context of the submission document I provided to the committee last Friday. In summary, I said in that submission that public support for active neutrality, and, within that, the triple lock, is consistent over five decades of opinion polls, constituting four out of five people in Ireland. In the paper, I outlined what academics call a two-level game, which refers to the two sides involved in the struggle regarding Irish neutrality and the triple lock. What I call the militarists, who comprise the EU, NATO and the military-industrial complex, as well as think tanks, seek to militarise the EU and project power through military force. The other side includes the majority of the people in this country, the President of Ireland, NGOs and some Independent politicians, all of whom support active, positive neutrality.

I talked in the paper about elite silences on the mutual defence clause in the Treaty on European Union. I discussed why people in neutral states do not wish to join NATO and shed the triple lock. I talked about how protagonists at the EU level have been involved in the biggest arms corruption scandals of their time. I stated that the EU form of militarism is not subject to transparency or oversight. I talked about how the media are a vital bridge for the militarists' side and how trust in news sources has fallen. I discussed the EU's use of opinion polls to prop up its propaganda strategy. I outlined the categories of tactics used by militarists, including word play, disinformation, propaganda, fearmongering and unfounded threats. I spoke about how NGOs in Ireland and the President of Ireland are shedding light on those tactics. I put forward hypotheses on why Irish Government leaders are intent on shedding the triple lock and how the Government has, in effect, broken the social contract.

I have three main points to make today. First, there is no public, democratic mandate to destroy the triple lock, which is part of active neutrality and is supported by four out of five people in Ireland. That was acknowledged in a Government-commissioned report published in October 2022. My second point is that, arguably, the Government's proposed changes to the triple lock require a referendum. Under Article 6 of the Constitution, the people are sovereign and they are the final decision makers in all matters of national policy. The triple lock is a matter of national policy. I am saying that the President of Ireland and members of his Council of State should consider the legal implications before the triple lock abolishment legislation is signed off. Third, I argue, using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that if the triple lock is abandoned by the Government, Ireland's ratification of the Nice and Lisbon treaties will be invalidated. If the ratification of the Lisbon treaty is invalidated, then that treaty cannot be in force and, therefore, secondary legislation created based on the treaty will also be invalidated. In attempting to abolish the triple lock, the Government will pull on a thread that could lead to the legal unravelling of the EU.

My great-grandparents, Mary Moran and Micheál F. Crowe, made sacrifices for Ireland's independence and sovereignty. Micheál was a member of the GAA Central Council and refereed ten all-Ireland senior football and hurling finals. He was also a member of the IRB and an active member of the Gaelic League. The sacrifices of my great-grandparents and of the generations before and after them are the reason we are allowed to sit in this Parliament today to discuss this matter. I do not believe the Government has any ancestral right to destroy the triple lock. It has no moral right to destroy the triple lock. It has no democratic right to destroy the triple lock. Arguably, it has no legal right to destroy the triple lock.