Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Unlike the previous speaker I do not welcome the agreement and I will not support it. I do not understand how we would support it having been tied to NATO's Partnership for Peace, PfP, because Fianna Fáil decided to turn its back on an electoral commitment not to join it, but as soon as it got into Government it did so. Now, the Government wants us to sign up to an agreement that will give immunity even in the case of the use of lethal force to Irish soldiers, French soldiers or whatnot, and that they can be brought back to the safe haven of the country from which they were sent abroad in the first place. The Government needs to seriously think about that. If something is not broken then we should not fix it. We have operated within the Partnership for Peace, albeit it without our support in this House, for many years. What should be before us is a motion extracting ourselves from bodies that compromise our neutrality but that is not what is before us. I have made the argument previously in this House. Both of the SOFA, status of forces agreements, will affect Irish soldiers not only in EU battle groups – the EU army – but also Irish soldiers or military staff who are currently in Brussels. There are five Irish soldiers in the EU military staff, two soldiers liaise with NATO and there are four military representatives to the EU, and there would be many more in the future.

This is very similar to PESCO where there was no understanding or preparedness in terms of saying we need to go down this road and then all of a sudden it was foisted on us out of the blue. That is like many of the actions that have been taken over the years to undermine our neutrality.

We know how the EU has developed and continues to develop in terms of militarisation, the European Defence Agency and the EU army, which despite the Minister of State's protestations, all of the other EU leaders say will be set up by 2021 at the earliest and 2023 at the latest. That is exactly what they are looking for. I have not heard a demand from anyone within the Defence Forces here looking for that to give extra protections to Irish soldiers. There are sufficient protections available. If members of the Defence Forces were confined to UN missions, there is already a SOFA in place to cover them. It is only when the situation is complicated by being part of an EU battle group or because it is a Partnership for Peace mission or connected to NATO that one runs into difficulties. Reference was made to the potential of soldiers being embarrassed when they were on duty with an EU battle group. I am embarrassed that they were there in the first place, and many Irish people are embarrassed that Irish soldiers are aligning themselves with NATO troops around the world on missions either encouraged by NATO countries or by the EU. The Irish people have taken a stand in this country and demanded that we respect neutrality. The agreement is totally contrary to that and we should reject it and any other attempt to take the little steps that further immerse us in the EU military apparatus and the EU project, or for that matter in any NATO project associated with it. I am opposed to the agreement and to any further diminution of Irish neutrality.

See this speech in context