Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I was interested in the long and somewhat tedious contribution from Deputy Ó Snodaigh while accepting his right to make that contribution.

The treaty provides three protections in respect of neutrality. First, it includes a requirement for unanimity in CFSP and in defence. Nothing in the treaty forces any member state to take in defence or in CFSP any step it does not wish to take. Second, it includes specific recognition — Deputy Ó Snodaigh read this but appeared to misunderstand what he was reading — of the specific character of individual member states and states that the policy of the Union in accordance with this section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. This reference is intended to encompass the non-aligned and militarily neutral states. Deputy Ó Snodaigh seems to forget, overlook or simply dismiss the reality that all states not member states in NATO do not necessarily wish to describe themselves as neutral states.

The reference to the special character of our defence arrangements is a recognition of the special character of our defence arrangements. It is certainly not anything sinister. Not all non-aligned member states wish to use the word "neutrality". For example, Sweden no longer uses it. The third point is the most important in terms of Ireland's neutrality and is one which Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his party continuously refuse to recognise. Given Sinn Féin now recognises Bunreacht na hÉireann, it is a pity it does not recognise it in its totality. The constitutional prohibition which was put in place following the second referendum on the Nice treaty specifically prevents any Government from becoming involved in membership of a common defence. The protection of Ireland's neutrality or its position of military neutrality lies in the hands of Irish citizens.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned specifically the arrangements made following the first referendum on the Nice treaty and referred to the Seville declaration. First, all declarations are carried forward. Second, the language originally proposed by Ireland for the Maastricht treaty is carried in this treaty. The phrase "specific character and security of defence policy of certain member states" is one which we inserted into the Maastricht treaty and it is carried forward.

I was surprised at Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to Ireland moving away from its historic commitment to the United Nations. The primacy of the United Nations for maintenance of international peace and security is explicitly recognised in the reform treaty. Deputy Ó Snodaigh took the trouble to read into the record some parts of Article 10. It is a pity he did not read the Article in totality. In the interests of being comprehensive we should, perhaps, address the totality of that article. Article 10 A states:

The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and on which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy [does Deputy Ó Snodaigh or his party object to this?], the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity [perhaps, he finds that difficult] the principles of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

If the Deputy is going to quote from the treaty he should take it upon himself to be comprehensive in that regard. I must say, not for the first time, that I find offensive Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to Irish troops and their involvement in Chad. Most civilised people in Ireland would find deeply offensive his characterisation of Irish troops' involvement in Chad as an EU military adventure. It runs counter to the generosity of the Irish people and, in particular, to the ethos of the Irish Army. It is a scandalous misrepresentation of a mission aimed at providing humanitarian aid to a people who have suffered grievously. It is certainly an appalling misrepresentation of the attempt by the Irish Army and other brave troops to bring hope to people who have lived in despair, have been driven from their homes, subjected to rape, harassment, torture, starvation and death. To portray these highly noble objectives as a military adventure is perverse. Sinn Féin does itself damage in referring to the humanitarian effort in Chad in those terms. I wish Deputy Ó Snodaigh would think twice and, perhaps, withdraw that characterisation.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh also mentioned the passerelle. Passerelle may not be used in regard to military and defence matters. It is specifically provided that this may not be the case. Deputy Ó Snodaigh expressed concern in regard to military spending. I remind him that our military spend as a proportion of GDP was infinitely higher a few short years ago when his party and those associated with it were involved in other activities. Also, our Army was significantly bigger than it is today.

The Deputy referred again and again to mutual solidarity. Again, he sees this as somehow threatening or sinister. If this nation were, for example, to be engulfed in a natural disaster or the subject of an horrific event, it would be nice if our neighbours came to our assistance. This is what the Irish people would want. On the military side, no member state is forced to intervene against its will. The Deputy made several references to the United Nations. It is worthwhile to remind him that the United Nations is not just mentioned in Article 10 A but it is mentioned in no fewer than nine separate occasions in the reform treaty. I will save the House from reading all the references. There are a further six references specifically to the United Nations in the protocols and declarations.

There is not a one-size-fits-all description for the way individual member states view their special character of defence. We take a view that is different from other member states. I would object if some parliamentarian from Germany or the UK suggested we should naturally surrender to their viewpoint. I take it they would equally take that view with us. We could all speak for several hours on this issue if we so wished. There is absolutely nothing in this treaty that in any way violates, threatens, undermines or negatively affects Ireland's tradition of military neutrality. The ultimate protection of our military neutrality lies in the hands of each and every citizen of this State. Our position cannot be changed without a referendum that would have the agreement of the citizens of this State. Deputy Ó Snodaigh need have no worry because, like myself, he can be confident the Irish people will be the guardians of military neutrality in this State for a long time going forward.

See this speech in context