Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion. As I proceed to completely disagree with them, I say it is a good thing that we were able to have a frank and open debate in the Chamber. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue's paying credit to the men and women of the Defence Forces and the service they give to the State currently and have given previously. It is with great pride that I see the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence currently visiting the more than 300 Irish troops who are on deployment as peacekeepers in the most perilous of situations. They are doing good and important work and that will continue regardless of the aspirations of the Government or of some of the comments made in the Chamber.

I will respond to a few points in the Opposition motion specifically before laying out a few clear opinions of the Government, responses to some of the comments made in the Chamber and the genesis of our countermotion. I welcome the opportunity for this debate.

It is a novel and unprecedented suggestion that a plebiscite be held. We live in a parliamentary democracy. We have elections regularly and have had a smooth transition of power in the entire 103 years of our establishment as an independent State and democracy. We regularly have referendums. Probably, apart from Switzerland, we have the most referendums on the continent of Europe. We consult the people. The notion of holding a plebiscite in advance of any parliamentary or legislative debate or decision for a non-constitutional matter is unprecedented but it is innovative and I commend the innovation, but I do not agree with it. I advise Deputy Ó Laoghaire that it is okay to disagree agreeably, which he and I do regularly, on the basis and without giggles and smirks. The consistent references to referendums on this, beyond the plebiscite, and on neutrality more generally pose some interesting questions.

With respect to Deputy O'Donoghue, we do not govern by opinion polls. I can show him 100 opinion polls which would seem to back my argument and he could show me another 100 that would back another argument. We govern by democracy, on the basis of the results of elections and we look at the numbers in the Chamber when we make decisions. When we make decisions on a legislative basis we look back at manifestos and the programme for Government. I have been a member of Fine Gael my entire adult life. At every Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, we have committed to seek to abolish the triple lock. The people who voted for me in Dublin Rathdown and for my colleague, Deputy O'Connell, did so while well aware of that. The 35% in that constituency who voted for us knew exactly what they were voting for when they backed us.

If we are having this debate, we should have it in the context of how the triple lock came into being, why it exists and what is the footing for it. When the House debated UN membership initially, the concern - probably quite some time before any of us present was born - was that UN membership and its obligations would end Ireland's military neutrality. The triple lock was devised as a mechanism to offer reassurance. It is not set out in the Constitution. It is not an expression of Ireland's policy of military neutrality but rather the legislative basis to give effect to the obligation of UN membership and how it would operate. I am just stating fact which has been on the record of this House for some time. The Government is seeking to make an alteration to that so we can be more flexible in the deployment of our peacekeepers. Many people have said this is the end of neutrality or of military neutrality. This does not change one iota of our policy of military neutrality. I say that as someone whose personal opinion is that we should end our military neutrality. That is not the opinion of this House, the people of Ireland or of the Government of which I am a member. I accept that limit of democracy but I am allowed to have a personal opinion.

This proposal the Government is talking about does not change our policy of military neutrality. It is important to put that to the people. This notion that we use "neutrality" as a broad brush term ignores the fact that we are not politically neutral. We are clearly not. We can say that to the people of Ukraine, the 26 other member states of the European Union and an abundance of other sovereign independent countries we have various agreements and memorandums of understanding with. What the Government is proposing, despite the claims that this is being rushed, was planned to be introduced by the Government as per the general scheme of 4 March. The legislation will allow ample opportunity for the Dáil and Seanad to provide scrutiny, both pre-legislative and within the legislative process. There is no rush in this. Any revised legislative framework will continue to require Government and Dáil approval, where appropriate, for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to participate in peacekeeping and similar missions. These proposals remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The proposed legislative changes will amend provisions relating to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel in non-combatant evacuation operations to support Irish citizens and contribute to the protection of our embassies and close-protection duties overseas. The proposed changes will allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility and will not change Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, as I have laid out.

It is important to be clear on precisely what we are discussing. The mechanism for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel is provided for in section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, predating the Nice and Lisbon treaties. These declarations - I campaigned for both of them - reaffirmed Ireland's right and choice to decide our own defence policy. It is somehow dismissed as inconsequential that there is an abundance of precedents in recent years - there has not been a UN mandated peacekeeping mission in 11 years - where Ireland simply has not been able to participate. We were not able to participate in the efforts in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia due to a veto by the People's Republic of China.

We had to join Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean a year later than everyone else because the UN would not provide a mandate. We were not able to participate in a UN-backed counter-narcotic mission across the Atlantic based out of Portugal. We were not able to renew for 18 months our participation in EU-led missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These are all things that were stopped and this notion that somehow the UN Security Council or members of it are not impacting our sovereignty fly in the face of the actualities and the facts.

Let me be utterly frank in stressing the importance of Ireland’s continuing involvement in the United Nations, her agencies and our commitment to multilateralism. We have to be very careful with this when we land this accusation. We are in a world that is ever-evolving, ever-changing and increasingly frightening, where other countries are turning their back on multilateralism, withdrawing their funding and diminishing the role of the UN agencies. In the face of that, despite accusations here, Ireland has increased its involvement in the UN and our agencies. We have brought forward funding to literally keep the lights on and keep people employed. Every other European country has reduced its overseas development aid while we have increased ours, so Deputies should not dare for an instant say we are turning our back on multilateralism. We believe in it wholeheartedly.

Certain Deputies in this House questioned the role of the European Union, but I stand proudly to say Ireland is a fully-functioning, committed member of the European Union process and believes in that level of agreement and co-operation with our colleagues.

It is important we have a reasoned debate on this issue. We should be able to enter into the spirit of wanting to have that reasoned debate on the basis of fact and actuality without simple political point-scoring. I truly aspire to our having the space for us to be able to have a debate without it descending within 30 seconds into an accusation we are looking to rush to join NATO. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this, and I thank again the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion. We are talking about Government-proposed changes to the triple lock. I aspire to have an abundance of debates in this Chamber, in the Seanad, in committee and at the pre-legislative stage about why the Government wants to do this, the merits and demerits of it and for us to work at it together. At the end of the day I have no doubt we will disagree but that will be democracy functioning and us having that full and welcome debate and not taking to social media to do it or whittling out some mad conspiracy theories of the sort we have heard from other Deputies, none of whom are present in the Chamber this morning. They whittle it out, put it on social media and then are not even here to hear the response from the Government.

I have been around a while in both Houses and am aware how Private Members’ debates work and the importance of them. I know it is important, therefore, for the Government to set out quite clearly what we are trying to achieve in our countermotion. We do not believe a national plebiscite on this matter is either necessary or appropriate.

I recognise Ireland is increasingly spending time in a contested, dynamic and volatile international security environment. This countermotion further notes the systematic challenges facing the UN Security Council obliges us to reconsider our existing legislation to ensure dispatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas is decided solely by the sovereign representatives of the people of Ireland.

I am pretty sure the Acting Chair is sanctioned by Russia like I am. I really do not want the Russian Federation to have a veto over our sovereign policy going forward and would like to think the vast majority of people in this House agree with me. In that light, I call on the House to support the Government’s countermotion.

See this speech in context