Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

I am conscious that Deputy Costello wants to speak and I will be brief. I echo the sentiments of previous Deputies who have spoken on the irony of Sinn Féin expressing grave concerns on the militarisation of Europe. That irony is not lost on the people of Ireland, and in taking advice from various groups and political parties on how they should vote on the treaty referendum on 12 June they will take that into account.

I take issue with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's attempt to equate the European project with the imperialist agenda of the United Kingdom in previous centuries. I object to that and it says much about where Sinn Féin stands on the European Union and project. At today's Committee on European Affairs meeting Deputy Timmins raised a very relevant issue when he questioned whether any political party would have the courage of their convictions to stand up and be counted, confess it is opposed to the European project, as Sinn Féin clearly is, and call for the withdrawal of Ireland from the EU. This is clearly what Sinn Féin believes, let us face it. To equate the EU, as pointed out by Deputy Mansergh, the best, most successful and unprecedented peace project in the history of the world, with the imperialist adventures of the UK is preposterous.

I take issue with the criticism that has been put forward on the humanitarian mission in Chad involving 400 Irish troops. This is a crucial and critical intervention in a humanitarian crisis involving refugees fleeing from what has been described virtually internationally as a genocide. I question the moral authority of anybody who contends on the record of this House that this is a military adventure.

Article 29 of the Constitution of Ireland clearly states that the Irish State shall not adopt a decision to establish a common defence. That is reiterated in the text of the Lisbon treaty. I do not accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his party on neutrality to a mutual defence because it is unnecessary. We have a safeguard and guarantee in our Constitution. We have also retained the requirement for unanimity in voting on CFSP. That is copperfastened and clearly stated in the Lisbon treaty. There is no change. I cannot understand how anybody who considers themselves in any way patriotic could object to the values of the EU on protecting democracy and humanitarian interests and involving itself in peacekeeping, peace enforcing and humanitarian, civilian and post-conflict stabilisation missions as the EU does, and proposes to continue to do, under the terms of the Lisbon treaty. I cannot comprehend how somebody could object to that. The only conclusion that can be drawn on this is that Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Snodaigh oppose the EU.

When we campaigned for accession to the EU in 1972, the same voices were opposed to our accession. The same voices raised the same threats, scaremongering and bullying tactics related to this allegation of the erosion of our neutrality and that we would see the sons and daughters of Ireland conscripted to some war-mongering army. We heard the same allegations in 1986 on the Single European Act, in 1992, 1997 and 2002. On every European treaty referendum in this country we have heard the same arguments and on every occasion they have proven to be false. As a result of our membership of the EU in terms of CFSP and defence we have seen a major contribution from EU member states all over the Balkans and now expanding into Africa. I do not see how that can be a negative result.

On the commitments on spending, I strongly feel we have responsibilities. It is not all about rights and closing ourselves off and retreating into a bunker. It is about Ireland being proud, standing up and playing our part in world affairs and geopolitics. In that context we must make commitments on spending. If we want our soldiers in Chad, Kosovo, Bosnia or wherever to be equipped with the best equipment to ensure their safety and security, we must make those commitments. There is eminent sense in trying to pool our resources with our fellow EU member states in ensuring greater levels of interoperability, which are critical, and that we do not continue with the type of duplication we see in military equipment and intelligence in the EU. Deputy Timmins has already pointed to this.

The proposal for permanent structured co-operation is positive. For example, if footballers who play for different football teams go abroad to play on the Irish squad they will train together in advance of going abroad. Otherwise they will not have a co-ordinated approach. The same applies to troops from Ireland and across the EU. If they are going to a dangerous conflict situation such as Chad they need to train together in advance. That is the proposal: structured and more permanent military co-operation so that we are prepared when we go abroad on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, not military adventures, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh contended.

It is clear in the text of this Bill that we have an opt-out and will not be obliged to participate in a common defence. There is a clear requirement for unanimity. My belief is that Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Sinn Féin are fully aware of this. This is a cynical exercise to raise the profile of a party that is flagging in the polls. That is the extent to which Sinn Féin will benefit from its opposition to the treaty. It has no logical arguments that lead us to any conclusion other than that our neutrality is to be safeguarded, along with our independence on other issues such as tax. I welcome also the statement of the Referendum Commission in this regard. I suggest that if we are to have a debate on the Lisbon treaty we stick to the facts. Irish neutrality — our traditional position of being unaligned — is retained, and we retain our veto. It is simple and straightforward. This amendment is simply designed to create an opportunity for Deputy Ó Snodaigh to stand up in the House and mislead it. The facts speak for themselves.

See this speech in context