Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. It has been my experience, as an academic, that when we speak to issues like the triple lock and neutrality, it invites a very vitriolic and abusive response, not just from unnamed people online but from our academic colleagues, people who should know better. Some very high profile academics engage in ad hominem attacks on anyone who speaks to the calm calculus of reason and, as Dr. Devine said, evidence-based research in this area.

I want to thank Dr. Devine for coming in because she is exposing herself to a level of hostile scrutiny by simply interrogating these very important questions. I characterise that debate as being very paternalistic, patronising and misogynist. I am conscious of this because I follow my colleagues' online and social commentary on this matter. I have seen the most appalling misogynistic abuse directed at Deputy Gibney from that same community, including some of these people who really ought to know better. I want to thank the witnesses for coming in here.

In relation to space, I have been at briefings in NATO headquarters and at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons. There are exoatmospheric weapons systems already. Some of them are controlled from European control systems. The plan is to use artificial intelligence to make them autonomous exoatmospheric weapons systems. Not only is that an appalling prospect but it is also one that is very lucrative in terms of research and development and investment, which comes to my first question. Since the beginning of the year, I have seen up to 50 opinion and analysis pieces in our broadsheets alone - I have said it previously here - proposing that we dispense with the triple lock. Many of those are again penned by some of our colleagues in academia who, I repeat, ought to know better. From where is the motivation coming? Why is the Government in such a hurry to dispense with the triple lock and de factoerode our neutral status? That is my first question.

My second question is this: do the witnesses accept that if the triple lock is removed - because it will not be amended or replaced with anything, it will be scrapped and removed and that was clarified by contributions from the Department of Defence two weeks ago - does that mean any future government can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world to any conflict by a simple, whipped majority? As was established by Senator Higgins, that would include any ad hocglobal coalition of the willing, whether they be deployed to some place like Ukraine or wherever. In the absence of a triple lock, what would be proposed as a workable alternative? I will submit amendments to the legislation along the lines that any vote in the Dáil and deployment of troops overseas should be subject to a free vote and there should be no whip applied or sanction applied to anybody who votes against it. Two weeks ago, Senator Wilson suggested that perhaps we could have some sort of a mechanism within the Seanad to oversee or backstop it. I was thinking about things like qualified majority voting for these decisions but I am told that is not constitutionally possible. Have the witnesses any thoughts on what might work as a credible replacement for the triple lock? My final question is one I feel very strongly about given the direction of travel. Do we need a referendum to put an explicit expression of neutrality into our Constitution? As lawyers, do our witnesses feel there a mechanism by which that could be triggered by way of public petition, apart from the fact that the Government that currently does not seem to be committed in that way? I thank the witnesses.