Mr. Declan Power:

First, I thank the Deputy for the promotion, but I do not have a doctorate. I agree with his points to a certain extent. The problem is the overly legalistic interpretations. In this country, we may have learned lessons down the years from when we tried to build on bad foundations.

I am thinking of the various episodes that we are now at the other end of regarding issues to do with abortion and other things of that nature. For a while, we made things worse by not realising that we needed to excise the problem. That is where we are at now, in this situation. I think our sentiments are all largely similar here but where we differ is that I do not see this being improved by trying to rebuild the triple lock. The triple lock was of its time and it has been overtaken by scenarios and events. One of the crucial things to understand is that when it was conceived of with the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, the UN was seen in a certain way. Peacekeeping was peacekeeping and there was not even a deviation. Peace enforcement in the form of Chapter VII missions did not exist, even though it physically did exist on the ground, as was proven in the Congo.

Coming back to my point about agility, the question is whether we want to retain that agility. We do not have it at the moment because of the legalistic interpretations. What is to be gained by having totalitarian states, or other states, being able to interfere with our foreign policy? It is one thing within the European Union where we have agreed to common foreign policy stances. We do not get any say in that with the P5. It is not fit for purpose, it has outlived its utility, if it ever had utility, and it is time for us to move on from it. We need to keep working on reform within the UN and work from the UN Charter, as our partner nations do.