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

I will put the question directly to the Commission. As I understand it, there was a qualified majority vote. There are two elements. There is Article 42.1 of the treaty potentially being breached by the very point the Act very clearly has military or defence implications. Ammunition manufacture has military and defence implications. Even if it were legal under EU law, which is very questionable, Ireland should have operated the opt-out clause under Article 31.1 with regard to its law.

There are two issues. One is whether this particular Commissioner and the Act do not reflect the proper EU process. The second issue is within this. I am almost thinking of questions for our next witnesses. Surely Ireland should be opting out under Article 31.1, even if it were legal. I want to be clear on this. As has been said, it is small measure by small measure but this is why we need to challenge and unpick each of the small measures to make sure we do not have a situation whereby we direct public money into the manufacture of weapons, which will cause loss of life and situations that may even be in breach of international law, particularly what we have seen in Gaza.

We must redirect for the purposes for which we need it. This money is going to companies that are making extraordinary profits. I would like a comment on those two legal matters.