Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposed European Union battle groups, although I dislike the term. It sends out the wrong message to citizens. Why were titles such as peacekeeping groups or conflict resolution groups not used? The public deserves answers about the language being used which sends a strong negative message and suggests militarisation of the European Union.

Every nation has a right to defend itself but the battle groups raise serious questions. Will they be the regiments of a new European army? As we approach the commemoration of the Easter Rising we should remind ourselves that the Proclamation, to which many Ministers will pay tribute over the next week or so, states:

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.

The former President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said on 13 February 2001, "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a worldpower . . .?" There is a contradiction between those two statements which we should examine.

As the Defence Forces are about to be integrated into the EU battle groups the Irish people are being offered a choice between a type of imperialism or independence. The Government's decision that 200 Irish soldiers should join the EU battle groups is another step in the destruction of Irish independence, democracy and neutrality. The integration of Ireland into an imperial, militarised, neo-liberal European superstate allied to the United States will ensure the full and active participation of all of Ireland in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the European-United States axis is the inevitable outcome of these wars, against which we should guard.

I advocate a different choice, a united independent Irish Republic as part of a democratic Europe, a partnership of independent democratic states, legal equals without a military dimension. Ireland should pursue its foreign policy and security concerns through a reformed United Nations. The choice for the people is clear and is the same as it has been for many generations, a republic or some form of political arrangements.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO, said in March 2005:

Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the Battle Group? It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are not for building schools. We shouldn't think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power.

Our forces should be involved in peacekeeping practices in which they have done an excellent job over the past 30 or 40 years, particularly in the Middle East and other areas of conflict. The defence forces of other EU countries should be used to rebuild countries devastated by famine and war. We should not be afraid to consider other possibilities such as a protocol.

Denmark is not taking part in the battle groups because the movement for Danish democracy won a major victory which ensured that a number of legally binding protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty, including one that excluded Denmark from the process of militarisation of the EU.

See this speech in context