Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for this motion which follows on from a motion I introduced on 25 October. I do not disagree with anything Sinn Féin has set out in the motion, which gives the history back to the Lisbon treaty. It actually goes way back before that. With the Single European Act in 1987, because there were serious concerns about the erosion of our neutrality way back then, Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality was lodged along with the Single European Act. In 1992 the Maastricht treaty specifically included that it "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States". Jumping forward, the Seville Declaration was put into the Nice treaty to make sure that the treaty was passed on the second occasion. I canvassed on that and there were serious concerns on the ground over the erosion of our neutrality. That was followed then by the Lisbon treaty. Again, a guarantee was included to ensure that the people passed it and to show that the Government had listened.

Today's debate arises in the context of last week's limited discussion on the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy. It is to be noted that there was absolutely no mention of human rights. The whole discussion was framed within a very limited framework of a consultative forum on security policy. Fear was built into this and then we had panels of experts and practitioners. They are not my words; they are the words of the chair in the report which I am sure the Minister of State has read. In that report, she tells us a number of things. Arising from that, last week, hidden away in one paragraph of an eight- or nine-page speech, the Minister told us that we are going to get rid of the triple lock because it is holding us back and we are going to get rid of our long participation in the UN since 1955 and an unbroken peacekeeping record.

The Minister of State’s leader, the Tánaiste, in one little paragraph, tells us he is doing away with it. This followed on from a consultative forum that in no way represented the Irish people. Who told us this? The chair of the forum told us. To state the obvious, the people who participated in it do not represent the population. The chair put it a little more positively when she said it represents engaged citizens. In no way does it represent the people of the country, however, because, as she told us, it consists of experts and politicians.

Notwithstanding that, the chair, in her report, stated: “It was frequently expressed, and rarely contradicted, that there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality”. Of those who responded, 64% favoured keeping the current policy. The chair stated the forum was not set up to make policy recommendations to the Government and there was disagreement over the triple lock. Yet, the very thing on which there was no agreement is exactly the issue the Tánaiste picked up and took as a reflection that it needs to be changed.

There is something seriously wrong with the use of language here. The forum's report refers to a “prevailing view” and the “majority view” of the experts and practitioners and its chair tells us there was no consensus. I have absolutely no respect for the process behind that forum or the way the speakers or moderators were picked and I have little respect for the chairperson who drew up this report because it is not well written and it is self-serving. I will put the report down and out of the way because my anger rises when I realise what was done in that forum and how the Tánaiste is acting arising from it.

As regards Fianna Fáil, as set out in Sinn Féin’s motion and in many papers before this, Deputy Micheál Martin told us that he was never going to change the triple lock because it was a core part of neutrality. The triple lock is a trinity which requires the approval of the Dáil, the Government and the UN. That multilateralism, as represented by the UN, is the best way forward and the only way to proceed in the world.

There are amendments here from the Tánaiste that are truly shocking. He states that amending the triple lock in relation to the deployment of our Defence Forces will have no impact on the policy of military neutrality. Will the Minister of State tell me which statement from Micheál Martin reflects the truth? I am having great difficulty distinguishing the truth from lies or disinformation. The Government is very attached to talking about disinformation.

We have been told by the Tánaiste on many occasions that the triple lock is an integral part of neutrality. Then, we were told it is not anymore, but we are given no reasons. I have said repeatedly in the Dáil that if I have learned anything as a mother and a female, Independent TD, it is that we need our policy of neutrality to be active more than ever. More than ever, we need voices for peace in the world. There is no analysis whatsoever of the misuse of the veto by the US, nor indeed by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council.

It suited the Tánaiste and this Government to zone in on Russia, and we have all condemned the invasion of Ukraine, and its misuse of the veto. Yet, there is no mention of the US and no learning from the terrible slaughter in Iraq 20 years ago when propaganda and a tissue of lies from America and England led to the most appalling slaughter from which we are still recovering. Let us remember Guantanamo Bay, which Dr. Ní Aoláin visited lately. Twenty years later, there are still nearly 30 prisoners being held in detention without trial. That is just one minor but devastating consequence of the war in Iraq.

See this speech in context