Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

To be clear, the United States of America used the veto. I have no issue about that. I think I referenced the President of the United States on a number of occasions today in regard to my concern about the potential use of the veto. The United States used the veto, and I think it was an appalling use of it. It is a sign of the dysfunctionality of the Security Council. I fully agree with the Deputy on that.

Regarding Nice, Lisbon, etc., I am talking about what we ran on in the election. Nice and Lisbon are very important and we gave commitments in our manifesto. We articulated them not just in this Government but in the previous Government. This proposal is not coming as a surprise to the Deputy or anybody in the House. I believe the Irish people see a very clear difference, as we have seen in recent public polling, between valuing military neutrality and recognising that we can have an informed discussion about how we reform and change the triple lock. I do not think the two issues should be conflated.

Every time we try to have a conversation on defence, security or peacekeeping, we are accused of attacking military neutrality. We are not. Military neutrality is not owned by Deputy Connolly, the left or anybody else. It is owned by all of us. It is deeply valued on a cross-party basis, including by my party. We have no proposals to change military neutrality. I want to work with the Deputy to make sure that the legislation is clear. We might have differences in terms of the proposal on the triple lock but we should seek to get the legislation right.

I am not just talking about hypotheticals, although I accept what I said about Lebanon was hypothetical. On previous occasions in the House, I have mentioned the challenges we have already faced in respect of the veto. I do not understand what the problem is with the people who elected Deputy Connolly in Galway, me in Wicklow and others in Dublin making a decision such that the Government and the people's representatives can reach agreement. Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked about oversight structures, which are in place. Every law that is passed has arbitrators, namely, the courts. Why would we give that sovereignty away?

I have looked at other militarily neutral countries, ones the Deputy would not doubt at all are militarily neutral, and I am happy to discuss them when we deal with the legislation. She or I could not and would not question their neutrality. They do not have a triple lock. The idea that it is either the triple lock or no military neutrality genuinely does not stand up to scrutiny. One can favour the triple lock, but it is not the same as saying the triple lock must stay or military neutrality will be threatened. There are many examples of countries that are proudly militarily neutral that do not have a triple lock, and the Deputy would not suggest that they are militarily aligned.

There is a way of getting this right and I look forward in the first instance to the report coming back from the committee following pre-legislative scrutiny. My predecessor hosted an international forum on defence and security that examined the issue of the triple lock. There has been much work done on this over quite a number of years. There are genuine different views in the House and I respect that, but there is a way of getting legislation right that guards military neutrality while also recognising that we have to be able to deploy peacekeeping troops in a manner that does not succumb to a UN Security Council veto.

See this speech in context