Dr. Karen Devine:

I thank the Senator for his questions. First, the European Commission told neutral states that are applicants that they had to get rid of neutrality, and that is where the term “military neutrality” was born. That is cited in my paper regarding edicts from 1967 and several from 1992. I have also cited in my paper the explanation of how military neutrality bears no relation to active, positive neutrality as reflected in the Hague Conventions, and how public opinion supports active, positive neutrality. The Government is doing the exact opposite to that and the Senator is right in his observations in that respect. The third point is that a state does not have to ratify the Hague Conventions for them to apply if it declares its neutrality.

The use of Shannon is a violation of the Hague Conventions and a majority of people in surveys are against this because it violates neutrality. Sweden had a triple lock and always did and, along those lines, most independent middle powers, like Ireland is at the UN, have that. I presume Sweden has got rid of that since it joined NATO. The Senator asked about the protection of Ireland. The question is against what threat. On this idea of new, permitted activities abroad, I would say that they have to be UN-authorised.

To conclude, although Professor Murphy was saying the EU is a peace project, I am actually writing a paper about how the EU was not a peace project in its origins but was imperialist and colonialist. Jean Monnet himself said in his memoirs that the creation of an EU army would help Europe to realise its ultimate destiny, which is the development of the African continent. Federica Mogherini cited Jean Monnet when she launched PESCO, the European Permanent Structured Cooperation in defence, and said that we want to go beyond sub-Saharan Africa and want to go east towards Russia.