Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the transit of weapons, which is a separate issue that we definitely do not have time to discuss today, the Civil Engagement Group is bringing our arms embargo Bill through the Seanad next week. It is explicitly on the question of the transfer of weapons and the need to look at stopping the practice of exemptions for weaponry, which we have at present, and ensure we have inspections of flights. It is a separate issue and I am resisting going into it. It is very relevant to what Ms Ní Bhriain said about research and development and the slippery slope. It began with stating research and development did not really count. Now we are at a point where, somehow, the manufacture of weapons does not count either.

It was very notable that, again, the Irish Government has said it will oppose the measure with regard to research and development and the Horizon fund. It has not yet done so but it will. The Horizon fund is very important. It is explicitly for civil research and development but some Horizon funding, which is needed to address issues such as climate change, could get melded with the European Defence Fund. The points are very well made on military emissions and the climate impact of these, which are significant. I hope the proposal will not go forward. The idea of redirecting European research funding towards defence or military research, rather than for civil purposes for which it is ring-fenced, is a kite that is being flown. Not only would we see money directed away from things such as the climate crisis but towards something that exacerbates the climate crisis.

I want to come back on the EU law. Our next witnesses are from the Government and the EU Commission. I agree that Article 41.2 seems to be explicitly at odds with this. I was going to read it but it has been read. There should not be direct budgetary expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications. Otherwise there needs to be a unanimous Council decision. Am I correct that there has not been a unanimous Council decision to state we can go to direct budgetary matters on this? I understand it was a qualified majority vote. Is this the case?