Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before the last summit I raised with the Taoiseach the scandal of US electronic eavesdropping on European allies, but he appeared not to know a thing about it, although it went on to dominate at least part of the Council meeting and certainly the news coverage. He has not mentioned it in his report. As he acknowledged, this was the first meeting since the Lisbon treaty to focus so heavily on security and defence issues, or as he termed it, "Common Security and Defence Policy". Earlier today during questions he spoke about the Great War of 1914 to 1918 and his visit to Flanders. It is very clear from the conclusions of that Council meeting that EU leaders are seeking to further militarise the European Union, with the aim of eventually creating an EU army allied to NATO. Such an army would effectively be NATO without the North American countries and Turkey. The function of such an army would appear to be the protection of interests of former European colonial powers, specifically former colonies. How could any Irish Government, considering our history and experience, go along with this? Did the Taoiseach object to any of this at the Council meeting? No, he did not and in his remarks today he has indicated that he believes this work is entirely consistent with Ireland's policy of military neutrality. I disagree. Irish neutrality is a concept supported and valued by the vast majority of citizens of the State and it was a concept once supported by the Labour Party. Unless seriously challenged, a continuation of the plans discussed at the EU summit will see increased spending on weapons and arms by EU member states, including this state. At the time of the biggest economic recession the European Union has ever witnessed, the main idea contained in the Council conclusions is to increase spending on weapons and military technology. Where is the sense in such a policy? There is always money for the elite for armaments, but there is no increased spending on health care, social protection, economic and job stimuli or youth unemployment initiatives.

To the surprise of many, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize, but how does that sit with an EU meeting which speaks about wanting more public money for weapons to be used in some of the poorest countries on the planet? As we can see in today's headlines, what is happening in Syria is proving to be probably the worst humanitarian crisis the United nations has yet faced. Horrific images are emerging from Syria of the suffering of its citizens, including children. There is no military solution to conflicts such as this and what is required is an international focus to find a peaceful political solution. The European Union has a role to play in this regard. Was the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria discussed at the European Council meeting, with a mind to trying to advance a peaceful solution to the conflict?

There have been attempts since last summer, led by the United States Administration, to broker peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In every pre-Council discussion I have attended here the issue of peace in the Middle East and the plight of the people in Palestine has been raised, but the Taoiseach has never once returned to inform us of how he raised it. I presume, therefore, that he did not do so. One week ago Israel announced the construction of 1,400 new settlements on occupied Palestinian land on the West Bank, which is in clear breach of international law. As Fine Gael is the party of law and order, how can it stand by and let that happen. The European Union carries out billions of euro in trade with the state of Israel every year; therefore, there is leverage, with a clear onus on the Union to make a stand against the Israeli Government's aggression and flouting of international law. Given our history and peace process, one would think there was a duty and an obligation on the Government and the Taoiseach to raise such issues. We must remember that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not equal and that there is a clear power imbalance. Israel is a First World state with a nuclear arsenal, but the Palestinians are stateless and their lands are occupied. Without international support and solidarity, they will continue to be oppressed and victimised. If states such as Ireland do not raise these matters, how can we expect anybody else to do so?

There were also several visitors from the European Union to this state in recent times. There was a delegation of MEPs from the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee which visited to review the role of the troika in our bailout programme and it met some of the social actors and politicians. I hope it left in the knowledge that the troika was not a force for good and that the continued implementation of troika policies by the Government has had devastating social consequences for Irish citizens. While the troika may have left, the mindset continues. It is welcome that the delegation also inquired about the loss of key documents from the Department of Finance on the bailout. I understand the European Ombudsman has taken action to compel the European Central Bank to release the letters it sent to the late Minister, Mr. Brian Lenihan, at the height of the banking crisis. The Government is also sitting on some very important information that it refuses to share, including a report on the activities of Irish Nationwide Building Society that is greatly in the public interest. The Taoiseach knows that Mr. Klaus Regling of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, has also been in the city, but he used his visit to pour cold water on the prospect of retrospective recapitalisation of Irish banks through the ESM. I remind the Taoiseach that he famously stated retrospective recapitalisation of Irish banks was on the table after what he claimed was a "game-changing" summit in June 2012. What is the story in that regard?

The Euorpean Council also discussed the issue of European banking union. My party has major concerns about the details of such a union because we are concerned that such a union - the devil is in the detail - could merely be another step towards a federalised European Union. Several European politicians and senior statespersons have implied that this is the aim. I do not believe the people want a banking union that gives power and authority to the European Union but none of the responsibilities. A common resolution regime for future banking is important, but Irish citizens will still bear an unjust, unfair and unsustainable burden, while legacy bank debt, caused by the Government's bailing out of failed banks which must be carried by the public, has not been addressed. Citizens deserve to hear from the Taoiseach about what he is doing to separate banking debt already incurred in the State from sovereign debt. We want to hear about an adequate jobs stimulus, proper and appropriate investment in youth employment measures and how the Government has stood up for the State at the European Council instead of being compliant to bigger powers.

See this speech in context