Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

In my experience few subjects or policies have been more comprehensively discussed, debated and analysed than neutrality, certainly since 1981. It is quite difficult to listen to lectures on militarisation from a party that still has a military wing albeit, thankfully, no longer active. It tries to present itself as the champion of Irish neutrality. If any movement has been more guilty of violating Irish neutrality in the last war, the IRA only declared its war to have ceased two years ago. In some ways I welcome Sinn Féin's conversion at last to the policy of neutrality but I think it has to internalise it quite a bit because I do not see many signs of neutrality in relation to Colombia, the Basque country or the Middle East. There are more than adequate safeguards in declarations and protocols which have already been passed and incorporated without needing to add more. All the main parties in the House have given guarantees that they would submit to the people any proposals to join a military alliance.

It is not the practice of European treaties, except in the preamble which sets out the signatory states, to single out individual states. The treaty refers to categories, of which there are two in this context, namely, countries that belong to NATO and countries that do not belong to that organisation. Members of the latter group are variously described as non-aligned and neutral. I can well remember the origin of the phraseology about protecting the specific character and policies of particular member states and to be fair to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, he read out the relevant passage. This phraseology, one of the considerable achievements of former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, with the then Presidency led by Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, has been used repeatedly ever since the conclusion of the Rome II European Council in 1990. It has been found a satisfactory formula from that time to this. There is no mutual defence commitment, except for those countries which already have such a commitment through NATO.

We must also remember, when asking other countries to recognise Irish neutrality, that our neutrality is a policy rather than a status. Since the 1930s and 1940s, we have never sought to have the type of neutrality which, for instance, Belgium had before 1914, for the very good reason that it proved not to be worth the paper on which it was written. The content of the policy of neutrality has been what the Government, with the approval of the Oireachtas, has decided from time to time. Its main content has been that Ireland has not joined military alliances, including NATO.

Regional delegation by the United Nations to groups such as the European Union is not in any way a derogation from UN commitment but simply a practical way of handling matters. I am pleased that Ireland is part of a battle group — a term neither I nor the Minister for Defence likes — alongside Nordic countries which, in large part, share similar values to us.

It is a complete myth that military expenditure or militarisation has increased. All over Europe military expenditure has declined rapidly in the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the number of missiles has been reduced. Deputies will find that the military budget and strength of military forces of all countries are much less than they were 20 years ago. A reply to a question I tabled to the Minister for Defence a few weeks ago indicated that this is equally as true of Ireland as of any other country. In 1989, we had approximately 14,000 troops, mainly I suspect because of activities that were taking place across the Border. The figure has been reduced to approximately 10,000 and expenditure on defence as a percentage of GDP has declined. Ireland is not in any way peculiar in this respect. For example, conscription has been phased out in most countries.

Deputy Timmins is correct that one of the purposes of the European Defence Agency is to save rather than step up military expenditure. It will try to rationalise and phase out industries that are surplus to requirements. Nevertheless, our forces must be properly equipped for the responsibilities we assume. We should not be afraid to take on international responsibilities. President Éamon de Valera made a very fine speech just after the Second World War about the contribution and commitments Ireland and other countries should make to collective security and the rule of law.

Partnership for peace is often raised. I remind Deputy Ó Snodaigh that we did not join PfP without further consultation with the people. In the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament, Fianna Fáil deliberately put this proposal in its manifesto in order that there would be an electoral mandate for entering PfP. In those elections, a majority of MEPs were elected from different parties which supported this proposal.

The European Union is not some imperialist power but the greatest peace process the world has seen. It is dreadful that critics paint it as some kind of imperialist or potentially imperialist power. To be fair to our partners, in recent years they have not given any cause for such a belief. We have a responsibility to make an international contribution and we should not be shy or apologetic about having to do so.

In some ways I am sorry some of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's earlier amendments were ruled out of order because they are not about renegotiating the treaty. Effectively, they add up to withdrawing Ireland from the European Union and would certainly put us on that path. The lessons of history, going back to 1966, show that different countries at different times rejected treaties or adopted an "empty chair" policy. All the evidence is that nothing of substance has been obtained by that type of manoeuvre. The idea that we could somehow secure a renegotiation of the treaty is completely unrealistic.

I congratulate the Irish negotiating team, which was drawn from all the parties in the House and included the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, on the fine work it did in the European Convention and this fine treaty. One of the Taoiseach's finest achievements was the negotiation of the treaty, which has been only slightly modified. The critics of the treaty in the House are from Sinn Féin. A united Ireland will only happen in a united Europe, just as a united Germany would only happen in a united Europe. An Ireland which cut itself off from the European Union and decided to reverse or overturn 35 years of full participation at the centre of the Union would be of no interest to northern Unionists or the majority of the northern population. One of the great attractions of this part of the country is the success we have made of European Union membership. I cannot help but see the contrast between having the First Minister and Deputy First Minister going to Brussels seeking additional aid with the attitude being shown to the treaty by Sinn Féin.

See this speech in context