Results 41-60 of 10,442 for speaker:Paul Murphy
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: None of that is true, though, is it?
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: No, it is not true and I will tell him why it is not. Who is intolerant of democracy?
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: Thank you. The Tánaiste talks about my behaviour at the consultative forum. What was the consultative forum? The consultative forum was not a democratic institution. The Tánaiste proposed a democratic institution. He proposed a citizens' assembly so that citizens could come together, discuss it and come up with an outcome but then he ditched-----
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: -----that democratic proposal and replaced it with a hand-picked group of people, with a predetermined outcome that I predicted in advance, to recommend getting rid of the triple lock. That is not democracy. I will tell the Tánaiste what democracy is. It is people standing for election on the basis of a certain platform, winning votes on that basis and then proceeding to implement it....
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: What is intolerant of democracy is for him to tear up his election promises because he thinks that now is the chance to get rid of our military neutrality. The Tánaiste would lead people to believe that he has no intention of touching neutrality whatsoever, that the idea that he is interested in getting rid of neutrality is one of these big myths. Again, that is not true. He is not...
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: The Government decided that this was its moment to try to get rid of military neutrality. What happened then, and the reason the Government ditched the proposal for a citizens' assembly, was that it ran into the roadblock of public opinion. Public opinion, despite all of the attempts to massage it and to say that we need to have a mature debate and so on, remained steadfastly in favour of...
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: That is it. According to the Tánaiste-----
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: According to the Tánaiste, Irish troops-----
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: -----could have been sent - and perhaps would have been sent, were it not for the triple lock - to participate in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: Yes.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: Yes, because as long as we did not formally participate in NATO, the Tánaiste is saying that is still military neutrality. He is redefining neutrality in order to say that as long as we are not formally in NATO, we can join in all the missions and send our troops abroad, which is what getting rid of the triple lock is actually about. That is his actual agenda-----
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: ------we are still neutral. That is the Tánaiste's agenda here.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: The Tánaiste does not like hearing the truth. He tells us today that the proposed modification of the triple lock "does not impact in any way on our policy of military neutrality". That was not always his position. It is the case that in 2013 he said that the triple lock is "at the core" of our neutrality, not something peripheral or separate, but at the core of our neutrality. He...
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: That is a very dishonest presentation because people would be left with the impression that if Ireland wants to send troops abroad somewhere, we have to go to the UN Security Council and seek a vote of the council to authorise that but that is not what happens. What the triple lock is about is saying that we can send troops on peacekeeping missions where they are authorised by the Dáil,...
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: Wrong. Again, the Tánaiste is engaging in a very dishonest debate because he is not referring to the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 which changed that. This is not about the UN Security Council. The notion of any country having a veto is a complete and utter red herring. The 2006 Act, which is explicitly about dealing with this issue, changed it. That legislation says "UN approval",...
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: That is true.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: No. The Tánaiste is presenting it as if we rely on a decision of the Security Council but that is not true.
- Neutrality and the Triple Lock: Motion [Private Members] (29 May 2024)
Paul Murphy: It is in black and white in the law. Black and white. It is not just the UN Security Council but the UN General Assembly. What is this actually about? If there was a regional peacekeeping mission, it could be endorsed by the UN General Assembly by a majority vote and Irish troops could then participate in it. Does the Tánaiste accept that?