Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As my colleague, Deputy Gerry Adams, has noted, the conclusions of the European Council meeting make it quite clear that EU leaders are going to continue to push for the increased militarisation of the European Union and that this will go hand-in-hand with NATO's ideology and needs. The conclusions even state the debate on EU military co-operation was preceded by a meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Anders Rasmussen, who welcomed the increased militarisation of the European Union which he said was beneficial to NATO. The conclusions go on to state the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy will continue to develop in full complementarity with NATO. In order to help "foster more systematic and long-term co-operation", Baroness Ashton will bring forward a policy framework on defence issues by the end of 2014 "in full coherence with existing NATO planning processes".

This push to further militarise the European Union will create a NATO-lite that will speak, act and spend like NATO but not carry the name. Did the Taoiseach participate in this debate and oppose any of these plans during the Council meeting? It will be interesting to hear his response.

Various voices in the European Union have continued to point out how decreased military spending by member states is leaving the European Union vulnerable. They do not adequately tell us where it is vulnerable or to whom. Knowing this would be helpful to the rest of us. We know that EU member states are already spending €194 billion a year on weapons. The real agenda seems to be increased military spending to fund arms manufacture in key EU member states.

A disturbing insight into the arms industry was given by the recent report that employees of the Greek Ministry of Defence and several representatives of German arms companies had been questioned by the magistrate's office in Athens. The office found that three German companies had paid large bribes to sell arms to the Greek armed forces. These multi-billion euro deals with German arms manufacturers played a major role in establishing Greece's position as the world's fifth largest arms procurer between 2005 and 2009. These contracts helped to inflate Greece's debts and exacerbated and contributed in no small way to the Greek financial crisis. They helped to push Greece into crisis, while massively increasing the profits of German arms manufacturers. Greece now has formidable weapons for its armed forces, but it has bread queues in Athens for the first time since the Second World War.

Is this the type of European Union the Taoiseach wants to see? Is it the type European leaders want to see? I refer to a union in which public spending on health care, education and social protection is secondary to buying the latest weapons of mass destruction. It is morally wrong to prioritise investment in the arms trade, particularly at a time when many young people and children across Europe are going to bed hungry. Furthermore, it does not make any economic sense or in the long term. All reports on the arms industry find that it is one of the worst economic sectors in which to invest to boost job creation and growth. The high-yield sectors include infrastructure, health care, education and real job stimuli such as the robust and wide-ranging youth guarantee scheme.

Did the Council discuss the E3+3 interim agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme? I did not hear the Taoiseach mention it. It is welcome that an interim agreement has been struck and that EU Foreign Ministers agreed yesterday to lift some sanctions on Iran. I hope progress can continue and that all sanctions will soon be lifted. Iran, like all countries that have signed the NPT, has a right to develop nuclear energy projects for peaceful and civilian purposes. However, I note with concern that some countries, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or access thereto, have tried to wreck this historic first step. Did the Council discuss what would happen if the US Government bowed to minority voices in the US Congress and, perhaps in a fit of pique, ended this interim agreement? Will the European Union continue its positive engagement with Iran in the event of the United States ending its participation in the talks?

Syria has been mentioned. Were the crisis associated with the war in Syria and the Geneva 2 talks discussed? I am aware that the meeting was held in December and that there have been many developments since. I welcome the announcement that certain rebel factions have agreed to take part in the talks, but I was disappointed that Iran's invitation to the talks from the United Nations was rescinded, apparently after pressure from the United States. If the United Nations wants these talks to evolve into a peace process and end the war, there is a need to work towards a mutual ceasefire between the rebels and the government, with talks with no pre-conditions, and an invitation to all involved parties directly involved, including key international partners. I would like to believe the talks will include a discussion of the creation of a humanitarian corridor for all refugees caught in the crossfire while besieged in their refugee camps, particularly the 20,000 Palestinian refugees besieged in Yarmouk refugee camp. They are starving, eating grass and weeds and experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises international aid organisations have seen. They need immediate and urgent support. I raised the issue with the Iranian Foreign Minister when I was in Tehran last week and hope the Government will use its influence with EU partners to push influential countries on this issue.

See this speech in context