Dr. Kenneth McDonagh:

That it had to be clarified which MoU raises other questions for the committee. I would agree with Professor Tonra. To start with whatever it is with the UK and the RAF, I do think it is concerning that we have something as vital to our security and defence in this constant state of ambiguity. If we do have an arrangement, it should be subject to normal democratic scrutiny and debate. If we do not, that should be known as well. In some ways, it is a matter of politeness because frankly, we could not do anything about the UK coming into our airspace.

On the arrangements with the UK and EU security, Professor Tonra has already mentioned the European political community. I am old enough to remember the European Intervention Initiative, EI2. That was the previous French idea for hooking the UK in after Brexit.

It shows there is a question, but it is really too late. That is where European countries see that co-operation continuing.

That brings me back to the question about the future of NATO. In real terms NATO will cease to function if the US actually withdraws. However, what might happen is there could be some ways in which NATO institutions and mechanisms could continue to be used by European partners and perhaps used in the interim period before the US pulls out. There is a case where almost a zombie NATO or a NATO that operates for the benefit of Europe without having the insurance of the US exists. That would make it a much less credible deterrent for Russia, even though those mechanisms might be useful.

I participated in the consultative forum. I was a contributor on EU matters at one session and I chaired one which dealt with our partnerships with NATO. I share Professor Tonra's disappointment at the outcome. It very quickly became distracted with high ideas about Ireland's strategic position. The debate on the triple-lock mechanism has taken a slightly surreal turn where those opposed to removing the triple lock are asking where we want to deploy Irish troops, as though that is a capability we have. We had to withdraw from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in order to meet our commitments to the German-led EU battle group. I would have much preferred if the consultative forum had started with mainstreaming the ideas about the changed threat environment in which Ireland is operating and then dealt with what are the pragmatic choices, that is, what we can do, what are the options and what are the costs of taking or not taking a particular set of options. We have had this slightly surreal idea - going back to the idea of a false paradise - that we can just state our policy and there will be no political, economic or security consequences of adopting the positions we have.

I go back to the idea of the EU as a peace project. Deputy Haughey is right. When the EU was founded, there were live and active debates around security and defence. There was the proposed European defence community, which fell by the wayside, the hiving off of issues around nuclear security to the western European Union and the 1949 foundation of NATO. The EU evolved as something focused on economic co-operation and normative values, but it was underpinned by a stable security situation. The transformation or revolution Professor Tonra alluded to in his opening statement is what we are dealing with now. What does the EU look like when that security situation is, at the very least, less stable than it was?