-----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. The Tánaiste stood for election in the 2020 general election on a certain basis. What was that? It was on the basis of a promise, as…

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 telling the truth to people. We can go back to the time when Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine began. What was it that the Tánaiste sa…

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. The Government could not shift it. The Government did not change its attitude, though, which is a long-standing atti…

That is it. According to the Tánaiste-----

According to the Tánaiste, Irish troops-----

-----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.

Yes.

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-----

------we are still neutral. That is the Tánaiste's agenda here.

The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.

The Tánaiste should not tell me about dishonesty.

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 said that in the Dáil and he was absolutely correct when he said it. Why is it at the core of our neutrality? It is because without it -…

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, the Government and the UN. This notion-----

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", which is explicitly not UN Security Council authorisation and UN command. The Act refers to "an international force or body established,…

That is true.

No. The Tánaiste is presenting it as if we rely on a decision of the Security Council but that is not true.

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?

Therefore, there is no veto.

That is in the law now. It is in the 2006 Act.

It is. There is no such thing as a veto. It is an absolute red herring in this debate. The other thing that is dragged in as an example of why we need to do it is the idea that we may need to go and get our citizens from abroad but are currently blocked from doing so. Again, that is a red herring and is not true. In the 2006 Act there is a series of exceptions set out where the triple lock does not apply. One of them, in section 3(1) (f) , is "undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential dis…