The rather confused issue of the triple lock is finding its way through the Houses as we speak. During a debate I listened to, it was claimed that the removal of the triple lock will mean that the Defence Forces can never serve in a peacekeeping role again. This is incorrect. Irish peacekeepers have been participating in peacekeeping operations, wearing the blue beret of the United Nations, the Óglaigh na hÉireann beret or the Glengarry caubeen, while serving overseas. That was in an EU mission sanctioned by the UN. If the UN sanction a mission on a regional basis, there is no blue beret. You wear the beret of your unit, regiment, army or whatever it is.

The second issue is the issue of war fighting. There is no war fighting in peacekeeping. There is peacekeeping or there is peace enforcement. Ireland has been involved in peace enforcement since 1999. It is very clear. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows for peace enforcement and that is what we do when we go overseas.

We need to take the emotive language out of what is going on with respect to the triple lock. The triple lock is mutually exclusive from our neutrality, although everybody in this House knows that I have serious issues with us declaring ourselves a neutral state. How the hell can we be neutral when we find ourselves in the situation where we are unable to provide security for the forthcoming EU Presidency? An article that broke on thejournal.ie yesterday reported that the Attorney General was forced - five days before we take over the Presidency of the EU - to come in and advise the security services that the use of foreign troops is contrary to Article 15.6 of the Constitution. I wonder how we are going to square that circle in the next couple of days? We need to be more upfront about how things are done, particularly on the peacekeeping side and the triple lock. For God's sake, let us stop making it emotive and just get rid of the thing.