Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions to fire at the witnesses. The need for unanimity in respect of CFSP is being questioned. Reference has been made to the passerelle clause and my understanding is that unanimity is required to invoke the clause. Is there a growing demand to cease unanimity in respect of CFSP? How might that work out?

My next question relates to NATO and the EU. Many EU states are members of NATO. What is the witnesses' understanding of views across the EU regarding who does what? My guess would be that many of the member states believe NATO should look after their defence needs and, therefore, is there a need for the EU to play an increasing role in respect of defence matters, having regard to the views of the member states?

We have dealt with the question of positive neutrality, Ireland being an honest broker and the need to promote peace, justice and basic human rights throughout the world. I will move on from that.

On the NATO-led Partnership for Peace, there has been talk of a mission to protect undersea cables and pipelines. The notion has been floated by the Tánaiste that we may co-operate with the Partnership for Peace to protect undersea telecommunications cables and pipelines. What is the understanding of the witnesses of what is being proposed in that regard? How will that work?

The RAF deal, so to speak, was widely publicised recently by TheIrish Times. What is their understanding of that arrangement? The Tánaiste has refused to disclose details on the grounds of national security and yet it has been widely considered in The Irish Timesand in the House of Commons. References have been made to the existence of such a deal. What is the witnesses' understanding of that particular arrangement?