Ms Niamh N? Bhriain:

Much of the legal underpinning for the current structure of the European Union dates back to the Lisbon treaty, which of course we remember very well in Ireland. It is also important to mention that we rejected the Lisbon treaty. When we eventually did vote for it the second time it was very much based on having guarantees that our neutrality would not be affected by it.

Moving on from the Lisbon treaty, in the Treaty of the European Union itself, there is, under Article 41(2), a prohibition of the expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications, unless the Council decides so unanimously. So there is an opt-out clause which the Council can choose, but there is then another opt-out, which is very relevant for Ireland under Article 31(1). This is where we can submit a formal declaration to exempt ourselves from such an obligation. Ireland has the legal underpinning to exempt ourselves from participating in these initiatives. There is a way in which the European Union gets around the fact that it is funding lethal weapons. First, it says that the European Union Treaty prohibits us from funding lethal weapons. It gets around that is by stating that it is not funding the purchase, rather it is funding the research and development. We had the two pilot projects that came into effect in 2017 where two funds were given, one was for research and one was for the development of military equipment. This had a fund of just short of €600 million. That was from the 2014-20 European Union budget. In the next budget for 2021-2027, without assessing how the €600 million had been spent and all of the shortcomings with that, the European Union then allocated €8 billion for the European Defence Fund. It feels like a cop-out to say we are just funding the research and development: we are not actually funding the purchase.

Where the EU is funding the purchase is through the European Peace Facility. This is an off-budget facility. The ceiling on the facility at the last time I checked was €17 billion. This comes directly from member states. It does not go through any of the scrutiny and oversight in Brussels as it is an off-budget facility. The weaponry being sent to Ukraine is being funded under the European Peace Facility.

Where does the Act that we are talking about today sit? It sits in a very grey area and that is why it is very problematic. That is why we really welcome the fact it is being scrutinised, because it is funding the direct production of ammunition. That is hugely problematic under the European treaty because it prohibits expenditure directly arising from military and defence implications. There is a huge question mark around whether this Act is even in compliance with European Union law. It was pushed through so quickly and without any of the scrutiny procedures that should have been put in place, like, for example, the Irish Parliament being able to scrutinise it. It was pushed through by the European Commissioner, Thierry Breton, who said it was necessary to do so because Europe was in a war economy. Why is Europe in a war economy? In terms of the legal underpinning, while I am not a lawyer I think there are grey areas that really need to be scrutinised.