Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)

In answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, there is a cynical campaign of misinformation. It is coming from the Government. It is suggesting that we are going to get rid of the triple lock but there is no need to worry because we are going to stay within the framework of the UN Charter. That is not honest, unless the Tánaiste does not understand the UN Charter. There are two circumstances under the charter whereby a country can legally, under international law, send troops abroad: the first is self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, and the second is where it is authorised by the UN Security Council. That is literally what Article 53 states. When the Tánaiste said we are going to get rid of the triple lock but do not worry because we will stay in the UN Charter, it does not make any sense. For example, in the context of Ukraine, the Tánaiste said we will send troops to Ukraine but only in the context of a peacekeeping agreement. Is that a UN-endorsed peacekeeping agreement? In that case it would meet the requirements of the triple lock. However, if it is not, in which case presumably it is not a peacekeeping agreement when one of the warring parties, Russia, the invader, is clearly still at war, then we are sending troops to participate in a conflict. Is this why the Tánaiste in his answer regarding the heads of the Bill referred to maintaining the principles of the UN Charter?

See this speech in context