Mr. Joe Noonan:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members very much for the invitation to speak. The process the committee members are collectively involved in and contributing to is probably the most important and certainly one of the most important processes they could participate in as legislators. It is important that I begin by acknowledging that and by wishing the committee well in its task. There are not many legislative or policy matters more grave or profound for any state than those that may put young people in harm's way or in a position overseas where they may feel threatening another person with violence in that person's homeland is appropriate in the pursuit of a military objective. That is my sense of the context within which this discussion is taking place and I am very honoured to have the opportunity to contribute a little bit to it.

The committee has received my presentation. I am looking at this from the point of view of a legal practitioner because it is legislation that is before the committee. As far as I can see from the list, I may be the only legal practitioner to speak as a witness. I take that responsibility very seriously. I have been practising as a lawyer for a scary number of years now, beyond four decades. It has been a particular interest of mine to look at this topic of how we stand in the world, how we look out to the world and how we engage with the world.

This proposed legislation is alarming to me as a lawyer because of what it does not say. As a lawyer, it is the absence at its heart that strikes me. Lawyers love absences because we can dance through them and bring people to unexpected destinations. I will refer back to something Professor Ray Murphy of the University of Galway, a former Irish Army captain, said when he spoke to the committee. He said:

Allowing Irish forces to go to non-UN-approved forces is opening a carte blanche for major operations of a nature which we cannot predict. If we send forces on the ground, as part of an EU or NATO force, we cannot be sure what will happen or how the situation will evolve. Will we become embroiled in an actual armed conflict and be a party to a conflict? So much, then, for our policy of military neutrality and all of the other principles that we have stood for over many decades.

I will move quickly to a profoundly important statement made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, yesterday. It was reported widely and I believe it will be the subject of consideration by this committee. The Tánaiste said he did not believe the European Union had brought itself into compliance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued in July of last year in respect of the occupied Palestinian territories. That is a profoundly important statement especially in the light of the repeated assurances officials gave the committee in the early part of its deliberations that the European Union always abides by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. For the reasons I set out in my main presentation, that is simply not the case. Frankly, I am relieved to have had the backing of the Tánaiste yesterday with regard to that fundamental point.

Where does that leave us in this process? Where does it leave the members, as legislators, when they are being asked to take away the one protection we have? It may be a crock of a protection and it may be stupid to allow the Russians a say - I agree that all of those things are very superficially attractive - but the fundamental change the committee is being asked to engineer or facilitate does not end with this Bill. I respectfully submit that the task of the members is to be very satisfied in their own hearts that they know where exactly the destination of this will be. I submit that, because of the absence of clarity in the Bill, members cannot be sure of that.