John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I referred to amendment No. 3 in the course of my contribution on Second Stage. We wanted an international force or body established and mandated. We were happy with the word "authorised". I draw attention to the words, "otherwise sanctioned". It is clear to me that Ireland should not be out of step with other members of the battle group who have no triple lock requirement. They do not have it written anywhere in legislation where a UN mandate is required. The Minister stated he would be in a framework country and that he is waiting for some form of resolution from the Security Council. The resolution could be very vague. The Minister referred to Dermot Gleeson who was Attorney General and who stated clearly that we were covered. Why is the Minister changing it and inserting all these terms? Any sort of resolution will do. The term, "otherwise sanctioned" gives the Minister much room for manoeuvre. I do not believe the Minister when he says he will be in a framework country. It would be ridiculous to go to Sweden when there is a mission in Africa. I suggest this is madness. The Minister will go along with the rest of the battle group and he will not go elsewhere. He will be waiting with them. This is the reason he deliberately left it vague.

See this speech in context