Dr. Karen Devine:

I accept the point but the interpretation was entirely different from what I had intended. I apologise for any offence caused but I was making a political point by way of analogy toAnimal Farm. Senator Daly asked about derogations and supplying the Chair of the committee with a legal analysis. I wrote an article for Cooperation and Conflict in 2011 in which I analysed the published legal views of academics at that time who had written about the legality of European security and defence. On derogations, they referred to the "Irish clause" which stated that nothing in the mutual defence clause would affect the character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. The clause went on to make an analogy with members of the EU who were also part of NATO. It was the UK who pushed for this because it safeguarded the UK's prioritisation of NATO's article 5 guarantee in the Washington treaty over the new article 5 mutual defence clause in the treaty of the European Union. Ireland has no derogations nor opt-outs and the legal opinion of the academics whom I quoted in the paper, which I will also supply to the committee, was that if the clause was supposed to be a derogation for neutrality it should have stated it. It did not do so, however, so in their opinion it has no legal effect.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh asked about the idea of neutrality being the emperor's new clothes, with trade being the focus in the form of CETA and the now-shelved TTIP. He also asked about the trading of munitions and arms. I do think neutrality is the emperor's clothes but this is an analogy and it signifies the double reading that is being done at EU level, which also involves the Irish elites and decision makers. Closed-door decision making at the EU means the issue is somewhat opaque. The EU has responded to efforts to publish some of the details of the negotiations over TTIP but it is right to say that, ultimately, we need to focus attention on massive trading agreements between blocs and large nations. I was e-mailed by activists before the news on TTIP broke and I wanted to have time to look at it but unfortunately have not had that time. The focus needs to be on critical engagement with these issues.

The final question was on independent thinking in academia and the issue of reflecting what is going on in the media, leading to the failure of critical engagement. The fact that European academic funding is channelled through the EU is a factor and some academics have referred to other academics who are driven by the need to obtain EU funding, calling them "jobbing academics". Academics are supposed to be critical, independent and engaged individuals who are not strictly politicised, in the sense of being pro-EU or anti-EU. Some academics in UK universities, on hearing the result of the referendum, asked, "What about our EU funding?" A lot of universities campaigned against Brexit because of EU research funding. Tenure, promotion and careers are dependent on securing funding and the EU is the only source for funding so there is a critical lack of engagement in that respect.