Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

It is perverse that Sinn Féin should be the party that presents itself as a champion of peace and an opponent of militarisation when nobody else sees such a threat in this treaty. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's speech stood out starkly in the context of the 50 years of peace that the European Union has given to Europe and to this island, of which the members of Sinn Féin should be particularly aware. With regard to the common foreign and security policy, CFSP, the situation is quite different from that presented. The CFSP allows the European Union to operate military missions only in the context of accordance with the United Nations Charter, international law and democracy. That is stated at the outset of the articles concerning the CFSP. The UN Charter is the common thread that governs all activities in this area. The articles show that this is the case. All military missions are dealt with in this fashion. Ireland has raised the bar higher: the Irish Government and people have made it clear that we must also have a mandate from the UN in the context of a specific resolution of the Security Council or the plenary council of the UN. That remains intact and we have added to it with the triple lock.

The battle groups have no bearing, good, bad or indifferent, on the situation. When we passed the relevant legislation two years ago in this House, the same arguments were raised. The battle groups are essentially a framework structure for the Nordic countries with which Ireland is involved to allow training together, operation and rapid deployment. This is as essential as the need to have good equipment so that when members of the Defence Forces go abroad on the Petersberg Tasks they will be properly trained and equipped. Nobody is needed in Chad who cannot operate in a well-trained, well-equipped fashion.

Articles 27 and 28 of the Treaty on the European Union, which deal with the common security and defence policy, including the framing of a common Union defence policy, were mentioned. Deputy Ó Snodaigh read part of that section but he did not go on to read the final part, which states that this will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. Ireland has already put down a marker in this regard in the Nice treaty with the Seville declaration, and has also installed it in the Constitution. It is now being further copperfastened by this Bill in the amended Article 15° of the Constitution.

There is no doubt we will hear again these arguments that our neutrality is being undermined. In fact, the position of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance is that we no longer have neutrality, and that is another reason it wants us to oppose the Lisbon treaty, although I do not see the logic in that. The common foreign and security policy specifically determines the missions in which we engage. Missions engaged in by the EU will be in accordance with the UN Charter and with international law. This is the governing principle and it is the one we should acknowledge and adhere to down the line. I do not see in any way that our neutrality is being undermined and I do not think it is fair to say that repeatedly. It has been said during the campaign for every treaty. The same language is used: the European army, common defence, Irish neutrality gone down the Swanee. The Apocalypse never happens, but of course this time it will. It is like the person who goes around with a sign saying that the end of the world is nigh — eventually something will happen. However, there is no indication of this in the treaty.

There is no change in the Irish position. I am certain that Irish neutrality is copperfastened by the Seville declaration, by the current wording of the Constitution, and by the amendment to the Constitution we are discussing.

See this speech in context