Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tairgim leasú a 6:

I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, idir línte 21 agus 22, an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:

"Chuige sin, déanfaidh an Stát, go háirithe, beartas neamhchomhaltais a chothabháil maidir le comhghuaillíochtaí míleata.",

I move amendment No. 6:

In Part 2, page 8, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"To this end the State shall, in particular, maintain a policy of non-membership of military alliances.".

The amendment is similar to my other amendments and it seeks to ensure the stated aim of people in the past, which is that a constitutional amendment should enhance Ireland's role in the future. The amendment relates to non-membership of military alliances. The second Nice treaty contained the Seville declaration, in which the Minister holds a great deal of sway. It is a solemn declaration, which was an afterthought in the Nice treaty debate because of the rejection by the people of the first referendum on that treaty. If the Minister of State believes the declaration was required, I fail to understand why he did not succeed in having it included in the text of this treaty or how the negotiators, who have spent many years since the convention commenced dealing with the proposal for the constitution, which was rejected, and this treaty, failed to make any reference to Irish neutrality or that of other states whereas many references are made to the NATO military alliance.

I have in the past suggested Irish neutrality be enshrined in the Constitution and the people in a referendum should decide to amend, clarify or restrict our operation of such declared neutrality because the Union in the past number of treaties has drifted towards the increased militarisation not only of Europe but also the world and the use of EU troops in operations dictated by the Union rather than by the United Nations, the organisation set up more than 50 years ago to bring peace to areas of conflict in the world and to address the causes of conflict. Ireland has a proud tradition in theatres of operations abroad in blue hatted battalions serving under a UN mandate, which attempted to bring peace to various parts of the world. In recent times, the Government has moved away from the UN totally. In its commitment to the EU battle groups it has wished away the commitment of Irish troops to any future UN operations because the number committed to EU battle groups is the same and is the State's upper limit on the availability of Irish troops operating under the blue flag of the UN.

The Government and the "Yes" side have failed to explain that the move towards operating with the EU battle groups will be a cost to the Exchequer. This was not explained in detail to the Irish electorate or even to this House. Operating under the UN mandate allowed Ireland to receive a contribution from the UN for costs incurred whereas now the costs incurred will have to be borne by the Irish taxpayer. This year at least €40 million of Irish taxpayers' money will be expended on the EU adventure in Chad. There is a cost to the drift towards a greater militarisation of the European Union. There is a cost to the policies of the Government with regard to Irish neutrality.

Now is the time for the Irish people to call a halt to that drift and to allow a proper debate on the future of Irish neutrality which, the main Government party, Fianna Fáil, states it is committed to defending and protecting. I do not know how that stands with its moves in recent times towards the EU battle groups. In the past it moved from a position prior to an election of saying that it would not join the partnership for peace and then, within a matter of months of returning to Government, signing up to it. Neither do I know how it squares with the stated aims of the treaty where we are being dictated to that, in the future, this State must progressively improve military capability. This is not in line with neutrality in terms of military or international affairs. Somebody else will dictate to us what our military capabilities need to be and how these are to be improved.

The structure of the European Defence Agency will, in the field of defence capabilities, development, research, acquisition and armaments, identify the operational requirements. It shall promote measures to satisfy these requirements and shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector. It shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities. This is what the treaty states.

This is an organisation telling the Irish State what it needs to do to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector. I do not know how that squares up with neutrality. There has been a gradual erosion of Irish neutrality and now is the time to call a halt. Ireland has played a positive role on the international stage. We believe there is a need to tackle the causes of conflict and instability by addressing global insecurities, poverty and disease and the United Nations is the vehicle into which Ireland should be putting its resources and efforts. We are in favour of a peaceful and demilitarised world but that is not in line with what is being planned by this treaty. We are strongly in favour of the State's policy of neutrality when considering any military alliance and this is the reason I am asking that it be stated quite clearly in black and white so that there can be no doubt. We have been to the forefront in defending neutrality and we have in the past criticised the gradual erosion of that neutrality through the ratification of successive EU treaties and the Government policies regarding the use of Shannon Airport for US military personnel and aircraft en route to and from Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport to transport depleted uranium and the like. We do not know what is on board the planes that stop in Shannon; we must take the word of those who have been found to be quite dubious in the past about what has been on board planes that have passed through Irish and other European airports.

In our view, the case has not been made for an EU foreign security and defence policy or a diplomatic service. When it comes to international affairs, Ireland should have its own distinct and separate role on the international stage and that role will complement the role played by this State until recently. In our view, matters of co-operation would best be left to intergovernmental level and there should be no opportunity in the future, through a passerelle clause or by means of any other clause, to move towards qualified majority voting, QMV, on these matters. To transfer these powers to a federal level would be undemocratic, unaccountable and serve to deepen the cycles of conflict and instability across the globe.

The European Union will become part of a military alliance and a military bloc when it implements fully the effects of the European Defence Agency, its EU battle groups and the changes to the Petersberg Tasks. The European Union will become a military bloc as NATO and the Eastern bloc were in the past. It is hoped that it will never come to the situation which pertained for many decades in the last century of the Cold War and the arms race when more money was being spent on armaments than on attempts to address poverty. This would be the impact of what is contained within this treaty.

The Lisbon treaty does exactly what I have stated. Articles 10 to 28 detail the further consolidation of the EU's control over foreign and security policy against the intent of supposed Irish neutrality. Article 11 states: "the Union's competence in matters of common, foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence."

The treaty creates a European external action service which will provide the Union with a stand-alone diplomatic corps alongside that of member states. Articles 23 and 28 relate to provisions of common security and defence policies. I have already quoted some of Article 28. I encourage members of the public, if they have access to the text of the treaty, to read these articles. They set out the situation in black and white. Article 42 states:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets.

What is envisaged is the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the Union. This article further states that commitments and co-operation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The latter is not a body of the European Union. In other words, we are being asked to sign up to something which ties us to an external organisation.

In terms of military spending, I have mentioned the provision that obliges member states to improve progressively their military capabilities. In addition, Article 41 provides for a start-up fund made up of member states' contributions to finance preparatory activities in the creation of a common defence. Even though we have an opt-out in regard to all decisions on a common defence policy, we will suffer the consequences of all such actions. A start-up fund is already in place or will be in place to prepare for a common defence. Is the Minister of State suggesting that when actions deriving from that common defence policy are undertaken, Ireland, having opted out, will not bear some portion of the blame for the activities of other member states in the European Union? We will suffer the same consequences as any other state.

Proponents of the Lisbon treaty argue that the triple lock, whereby military intervention abroad requires a United Nations mandate, the support of the Government and the approval of the Dáil, will defend Irish neutrality. The triple lock is effectively only a double lock because there is no difference between Government approval and that of the Dáil. I recall no occasion in recent times when the Government lost a vote on such an issue. Perhaps that might happen in the future. The triple lock has already been weakened by legislation enacted by the Oireachtas in 2007 which opened the way for military interventions abroad based on a United Nations authorisation rather than a formal mandate. The purpose of this was to facilitate the EU battle groups. Accordingly, authorisation does not necessarily require a United Nations resolution but rather the weaker sanction of a United Nations assent such as compatibility with the UN Charter. The Lisbon treaty likewise dispenses with the requirement for a UN mandate for military interventions. Thus, neither Irish nor EU deployment abroad will automatically require a specific UN resolution for future military operations.

The Government failed to secure any recognition in the treaty of the specific nature of Ireland's defence policy and neutral status. This is particularly worrying when one considers the provision in the treaty for the expansion of the scope of the EU's military actions. I refer to the Petersberg Tasks to which Ireland has already signed up. Article 28 B provides for an expansion of the types of military interventions deemed acceptable under the Petersberg Tasks, as if that list were not expansive enough, to include joint disarmament operations, military advice on assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. The United States' current involvement in Iraq is effectively post-conflict stabilisation. Joint disarmament operations might mean operating abroad in circumstances where the EU must take the side of one or other party in a conflict. Given the colonial and imperialist history of many member states within the European Union, including France, and the continuing influence they exert over their former colonies, this is a dangerous road to embark upon.

The treaty also contains new obligations in Articles 42 and 222 according to which member states must assist other member states that are victims of armed aggression, including a terrorist attack, in a spirit of mutual defence and solidarity. These changes weaken the threshold of UN sanction for operations abroad while significantly expanding the scope for such actions. When taken with the sections on common defence, the frequent references to NATO and the increased military expenditure, they signal the most substantial erosion of Irish neutrality and control over foreign policy to date. The treaty moves us further down the road to a common defence while significantly advancing the capabilities and competencies of the EU to act independently of individual member states on the world stage.

In 2001, the then EU Commissioner, Mr. Romano Prodi, asked: "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power?" That is precisely the vision of the architects of this treaty. If the Government believes otherwise, it has been sold a pup. It has absolutely failed to understand the significance of the article to which I referred. Another character who is involved in the progression of an agenda is the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Barroso. Speaking about the treaty last July, he said: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimensions of empire." That says it all.

We in Ireland must be especially cautious given the history of imperialism here. Ireland was part of the militarised and centralised super-state that was the British Empire, or British union. Leaders such as Isaac Butt, John Redmond and others encouraged Irish troops to participate in the equivalent of battle groups on behalf of that union by taking part in imperialist wars abroad. We should always try to learn from history. One of the greatest failures of the Government, however, is that it has not listened to the lessons of history. The only difference today is that the advocates of involvement in battle groups are the advocates of the Lisbon treaty and we are dealing with EU battle groups rather than British battle groups.

We must protect our neutrality. We must achieve a renegotiation of this treaty to ensure the other EU member states understand how dearly we hold our neutrality. We must make the case for moving towards non-aligned status and militarily neutral states. Such a stance would be a signal that we are not prepared to move towards militarisation and towards a conflict and stand-off similar to that which cost Europe billions of euro in the 50 years of the Cold War. The current imperialist wars, whether those initiated by the United States or those instigated by the EU in Chad and elsewhere, will cost us dearly. I will refer to another aspect to bring home to the House the status of Irish neutrality and where Fianna Fáil Governments in particular have led us. In fairness to Fine Gael, it has always stated up-front that it was time to jettison neutrality and that there was no harm in joining NATO. This is for Fine Gael to argue but at least it has the guts to stand up and state this. It does not declare it from the tree tops. It is one of those policies it has which is buried. At least Fine Gael has the balls to admit to it whereas in recent times Fianna Fáil has slithered away and wormed its way into various military groups in the European Union.

The Government is now trying to equate us with NATO and what I quoted earlier was with regard to our commitments and obligations being in common with those of NATO, an organisation of which we are not members and, according to the Government, of which we do not intend to be members. However, we must equate ourselves to it.

In 1948, the Western European Union, WEU, a nuclear armed military alliance, was established. In the recent treaties, the assets and competencies of the WEU, apart from collective self-defence, have been transferred to the European Union. Andrew Duff, MEP, who is rapporteur of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Lisbon treaty, believes the WEU should be terminated because of the mutual defence clause contained in the treaty and which I am trying, through my amendment, to prevent. The mutual defence clause, 28 A 7 states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence.

Therefore, the policy of Irish neutrality will be destroyed. This treaty legislates its destruction.

I already mentioned the budget implications. The general public would far rather if the additional €40 million the Government has authorised to be spent on Chad were spent on tackling poverty in Africa rather than building up the capabilities of the military to fight wars abroad. They would also rather see the €40 million spent on tackling problems within the Irish health services.

Another quote on this issue for the Minister of State, in case he does not have enough of them, comes from the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. When discussing military expenditure and the obligation we would be under to progressively improve military capability, he stated there is an absolute requirement on us to spend more, spend better and spend together. It is an affront to us in this House that we cannot decide for ourselves what future military expenditure will be.

The protocol on permanent structured co-operation in the treaty states:

RECALLING that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty of those Member States which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework

CONVINCED that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements.

The Berlin Plus arrangements concern the sharing of EU and NATO assets.

The Irish people should be aware of this and should vote "No" on this basis. Irish negotiators could then return to the negotiation table because despite what those on the "Yes" side argue, if this treaty is rejected it will come back in some form or another. It might come back in a form which is more beneficial to the Irish State.

See this speech in context