Yesterday in his defence of the abolition of the triple lock, the Taoiseach asked, "Who is going to engage in military adventurism? Does Deputy McDonald think Dáil Éireann is?". Does he think people have no memory at all? In 2003 I was one of more than 100,000 people marching against the US invasion of Iraq. The Taoiseach was a Minister in a Government that facilitated that illegal and imperialist invasion.

They agreed to allow US troops to use Shannon Airport on their way to this adventure - an adventure that killed hundreds of thousands of people. A top civil servant told the defence committee that if the triple lock had not been in place, the Government could legally have sent Irish troops to participate in that invasion.

The Taoiseach was correct when he said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. Why? Because it is the only thing that legally ensures that the Government can only send troops abroad to peacekeeping missions. That is what this debate is about.

The Taoiseach has misrepresented the position again and again today and yesterday. He presents it as reforming the triple lock. That is what the Taoiseach has an electoral mandate for, "protect and promote Ireland's military neutrality including sensible reform of the 'Triple Lock' legislation.", but can he be honest today and tell us he is not reforming the triple lock and that he is abolishing it? The civil servant at the Department of Defence at the committee said, "You could call it a removal of the triple lock" so stop misleading people. In the Government's legislation, is it not the case that there are only two locks left - the Government and the Dáil - and the Government, by definition, has majority support in the Dáil so it is really no lock at all?

Today again, the Taoiseach spoke about getting rid of the triple lock in order to "keep alive the ... tradition of peacekeeping." That is not true either, is it? The Government's Bill states, "a relevant international force operates for the purpose of peace-keeping, peace-enforcement or conflict prevention". Can the Taoiseach explain to the public what peace enforcement is? It is explicitly not peace-keeping, is it not? Peace enforcement is different because it operates without the consent of the parties involved. The Government's Bill will involve Irish soldiers in illegal wars with no UN mandate in conflicts. It is explicitly the purpose. If it were not the purpose, the Government would not have the word "peace-enforcement" there.

Can the Taoiseach accept as well the fact, agreed to by the Department's officials at the defence committee, that any other regional arrangement includes NATO and any potential coalition of the willing? What this is about is freeing the Government's hand and the hands of future Irish governments to send Irish troops to fight in illegal wars wherever they want. The Government should tell the people where he wants to send our troops. Does the Government want to send them to Ukraine to engage in a war with Russia or does it want to send them to Lebanon as part of the EU's mission to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces to fight against Hezbollah?

Thank you, Deputy.

The Taoiseach asked why should there be a referendum on this.

Deputy, please.

Why? Because people already voted on it.

Your allocated time is up.

They were promised this. It is in the Seville Declaration. On this basis, they voted.

Deputy, are you unable to conform with the direction of the Chair?

If you are going to get rid of it, it needs to be put to the people. It is not the Taoiseach's decision.

The Taoiseach will respond.

The Deputy's presentation, in my view, is completely disingenuous. I note his inability to observe and articulate the fact that what in essence he was saying is that Ireland should depend on the say so and the agreement of Russia, a state that has violated the UN Charter in a most egregious way, killing innocent civilians, behaving like a rogue state.

Talk about Ireland.

In essence, what Deputy Murphy is saying is we cannot participate in any peacekeeping mission from hereon unless a state such as Russia, the United States or China, agrees, particularly Russia because Russia has broken all rules under the UN Charter.

So has America.

In terms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement, there have been peace enforcement missions under the UN. The Deputy knows that, so why did he deliberately create a false narrative there to suggest that this was the Bill?

Because it is not about peacekeeping.

No. The Bill is, in essence, in terms of what already exists in terms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. We have been on different missions, ever since we started in the 1960s getting involved in peacekeeping. The Deputy knows that very well.

It would be for the Government or the Dáil in terms of deciding what peacekeeping missions we would become involved in. We are not a military power. Let us get rid of all this nonsense.

Ireland is not going to be participating in a war. We do not have the capacity to participate in a war. We are very good at peacekeeping-----

Hear, hear.

-----particularly good at it, and recognised internationally. That is all we want to continue with.

When I have been out in Lebanon, I have talked to our soldiers. I talk to our navy. They feel fulfilment in their military careers, particularly when things were very difficult during the attack on Lebanon by Israel. When I went out there, I said that it must have been particularly tense and difficult. They said, "This is what we are trained for."

People who join our military understand fully the importance of peacekeeping and the impact it has on neighbourhoods and communities that benefit from peacekeeping but if I take the Deputy's direction of travel, the opportunities for peacekeeping will be very limited in the years ahead if we continue with the current system where, essentially, the United States has forced the ending of UNIFIL in Lebanon and Russia, because of its geopolitical issues, will not sanction peace missions in particular parts of the world because it would prefer the Wagner Group to be involved. Russia would prefer its own mercenaries to be involved to extract minerals from many African states. Let us look at what is happening in the Sahel. We need to have an honest conversation about this-----

Like Trump wants one.

-----but the Deputy's defence of Russia and all of this in terms of them being the decision-makers-----

Thank you, Taoiseach. Your time is up. The Deputy will now respond and you can come back in.

-----in terms of where do we get the law in peacekeeping is now erroneous. It has no substantive basis anymore because of the behaviour of Russia-----

Taoiseach, the time allocated is up.

-----in terms of how it is behaving across the world, and others.

This use of Russia and China to justify Ireland preparing to break international law is nothing new. Let me quote from a Dáil debate in 2013:

It appears that Fine Gael is arguing that Ireland is failing in its European responsibilities and is allowing Russia and China to have a veto over our peacekeeping activities. This is nothing more than an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the facts of Ireland's international standing.

That was a certain Deputy Micheál Martin. The Taoiseach was correct then. The problem is he has adopted the same ideological obsession.

Let us get down to facts and let us be honest. Does the Taoiseach want to send Irish troops to participate in a European mission in Lebanon? Is that what the Taoiseach wants to do? Let us be honest about that because Kaja Kallas is clear. The EU is not seeking to replace UNIFIL. It is not a continuation of UNIFIL. Instead, it is a mission "to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces and the ability of the Lebanese state to provide security." It is a war internal to Lebanon against Hezbollah, and the Taoiseach wants Irish troops to participate in that. All the triple lock does-----

Thank you, Deputy.

-----is say we can only send troops within the framework of international law.

Thank you. Your point is made, Deputy, in the allocated time.

The Taoiseach want to get away from international law. International law says peacekeeping only exists when the UN agrees to it. That is what international law says. That is not just the triple lock. The Taoiseach wants to get rid of it because he-----

Deputy, your time is up. I am going to continuously talk over you until you accept the direction of the Chair.

-----want Irish troops to participate in illegal wars and the Taoiseach had better tell us which wars those are.

We do not want to participate. By the way, there is no one breaking any law here. How dare the Deputy suggest that we want to break international law?

Why else would you get rid of the triple lock?

Deputy, respectfully allow a response.

The triple lock enshrines international law in domestic legislation. That is all it does.

Under the existing peace missions we have been on in Lebanon, Hezbollah have murdered a number of Irish soldiers. The Deputy did not say that. Under the existing peace missions, only very recently, there was the appalling murder of Seán Rooney by Hezbollah, and he was not the first killed by various groupings there. I condemn Hezbollah for what it does and for how it has been undermining Lebanon for so long.

Training other armies, soldiers, etc., is something Ireland has been doing for a long time, and de-mining, for example, or medevac and so on. We want to create options. We are not definitively saying one or the other. We certainly do not want to be involved in wars. That is not our function. It is wrong to suggest that it is.