Sinead Gibney

Like on that one, the arena one.

But that was the one specific one used for the UN mandate.

That was uniting for peace resolution.

It is possible to get General Assembly emotions to deal with regional peacekeeping missions that then carry a UN mandate.

That is possible to do, but nobody is trying to do it because they're very happy to retreat to regional blocs.

This is multilateralism.

The UN is the only show in town.

We need to protect it, strengthen it, reinforce it from within it and from as part of it and not walk away from it right now at the very time that we need it most.

And so the triple lock is even the triple lock is a bit of a misnomer because the government is trying to say that the triple lock will become a double lock.

But actually, the government, the triple lock just basically provides for us an external arbiter to ensure that our peacekeeping activities remain under the mandate of the UN, under the blue helmet, the blue beret.

It's been a long tradition for us.

Nobody in the opposition is saying that the UN doesn't need reform.

And we want our government to engage in that reform.

We want the Security Council and the veto and all of the issues that stem from that to be dealt with.

But that's not what this government is doing.

Like, first and foremost, the triple lock can be satisfied by the General Assembly of the UN.

And our government has not tried.

So they talk a lot about the veto and even the chilling effect of the veto before the veto is even used.

But they do not try and go to the General Assembly to try and resolve it.

For me, like the UN provides for us a multilateral approach to our foreign policy, which cannot be given or granted or satisfied by any other body.