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

It just strikes me that the phrase we have been hearing consistently is that it does not impact neutrality, but from a very narrow definition of neutrality, which, as I understand, seems to be simply that we would not join an international organisation we are not already members of. I do not think that is the understanding of neutrality that many would have. I was surprised by the phrase "not neutral on Ukraine". I have also heard "not neutral on the International Criminal Court". We precisely are neutral, and that is why we support Ukraine when they are being impacted by breaches of international law. We support the International Criminal Court in its universal application. Neutrality is not a counterpoint to action; neutrality, in fact, is the basis on which we have been acting effectively in fulfilling that other part of our Constitution. We have had a lot of discussion of the power to declare war, and I am surprised to hear that this whole Bill is envisaged as flowing from that, whereas, actually, Article 39 is about the specific settlement of international disputes. People are genuinely concerned that that impetus from our Constitution may be compromised in its efficacy or in its spirit by the proposals here. When we talk about neutrality, that is something I see as part of our neutrality, not simply non-membership.

Perhaps Ms Maguire can confirm a number of things. She referred to non-membership. She has envisaged that we would be participating potentially in NATO-led forces. She mentioned that. Is it the case that if there were a future "coalition of the willing", which is of course not an organisation, either of those would fall under and be allowed under this Bill?