Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will repeat my previous point. In its final report the Constitutional Convention addressed other issues which citizens and interest groups would have liked it to discuss. However, it was not possible to do so within the timeframe. A ballot of members of the convention highlighted a long list of issues which they believed should be considered by the Government, Oireachtas or any future convention. International relations, which could include neutrality, were cited by just 3% of respondents.

Accordingly, in view of the strength and long-standing nature of this commitment, reiterated by successive Governments spanning the political spectrum, the Government is satisfied that there is no need to insert a constitutional lock for this policy. Not only are the proposals in the Bill unnecessary but they are also potentially fraught with difficulties. Enshrining these provisions in the Constitution could, for example, constrain the Government’s flexibility and scope to respond effectively in emergency or urgent circumstances where speed is of the essence. Moreover, there is a risk that flexibility and speed of response in such circumstances could be seriously constrained by the possibility of judicial review. More serious, however, are the potential effects which cannot be foreseen. I am concerned, for example, that inserting the proposed text in the Constitution could constrain the Government’s scope to support UN mandated actions, particularly in conflict zones and fragile states involving both State and non-State actors.

Military neutrality has always been a matter of policy and principle, rather than law. The instigators of the policy never sought to enshrine it in law and successive Governments have continued to maintain the policy but have not proceeded to give it legal or constitutional effect. This pragmatic approach has enabled successive Governments to respond to international crises through both civilian and military means in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. The future implications of enshrining in the Constitution a specific provision, as proposed, cannot be foreseen at this remove. Invariably, however, as history has shown, the real world throws up all sorts of problems and difficulties which we cannot foresee at this juncture. The insertion of these proposed provisions would, by their nature, limit and constrain the capacity of government and Dáil Éireann to respond effectively and flexibly, as required, in support of international peace and security, authorising the deployment of our armed forces to worldwide conflict zones in appropriate circumstances. I do not see any groundswell of public or political opinion to the effect that people would wish to constrain the Government and Dáil Éireann in this way.

I will briefly address the issue of the Government’s policy on the use of Shannon Airport by United States aircraft. Claims will be made that this policy is incompatible with our neutrality. Successive Governments have made overflight and landing facilities at Shannon Airport available to the United States for more than 50 years. These arrangements are governed by strict conditions, including that the aircraft are unarmed, do not carry arms, ammunition or explosives, do not engage in intelligence and the flights do not form part of military exercises or operations. We impose these conditions to ensure compatibility between these arrangements and our neutrality. Civilian aircraft transporting troops through Shannon Airport have applied and received exemptions generally for the carrying of personal weapons of the soldiers on board.

I have set out the context in which the Bill must be considered. Government policy on neutrality is unambiguous. Effective safeguards are in place to protect Ireland’s military neutrality, while enabling Ireland to continue to play its part internationally through a range of actions, including diplomatic activity, humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping, peace enforcement and crisis management operations. The proposal to include further provisions in the Constitution is not necessary.

See this speech in context