Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leo siúd ar fad a bhain páirt sa díospóireacht seo agus go háirithe iad siúd atá tar éis a léiriú go dtabharfaidh siad tacaíocht dúinn nuair a bheidh an Bille seo os comhair na Dála an Déardaoin seo chugainn. Bhí sé tábhachtach go raibh an díospóireacht seo againn, go háirithe agus athrú suntasach ag tarlú go hidirnáisiúnta maidir le míleatú agus a leithéid.

It has been a very interesting and, at times, bizarre debate. I will return to some of the issues. I do not know where the scriptwriters for Fine Gael Deputies, in particular, and Fianna Fáil came from. What was said was absolutely bonkers and out of touch with any reality.

I was very interested in what the Labour Party and Deputy Pringle had to say in terms of the wording of the Bill. I am fallible, as are we all. I accept criticism and that the wording I proposed today could be changed. Somebody might be better at developing wording that would stand up in the courts and more effectively capture what is intended by the Bill.

Reference was made to the UN and whether we are even legally entitled to be in it, which is an interesting point. I would like to see the full legal opinion which, I presume, the Labour Party received. If that is a fact, it opens up the question of the Houses having to address our foreign policy and our role at the UN, and, therefore, the question of neutrality in a more urgent manner than has been the case heretofore.

I want to thank, in particular, the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and Shannonwatch. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance helped us put the wording together and circulated information to many parties over the years to try to ensure that military neutrality was contained and inserted into the Constitution.

I will now turn to some of the bizarre comments that were made. I have a copy of script from the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, who has left the House. I do not know what the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, or the members of the former Fianna Fáil Government think that US planes are doing in Shannon. What the hell are the transport planes doing? They are not bringing soldiers on holidays to Gibraltar or to wherever it is they go. The planes landing in Shannon are military aircraft which never move from their bases unless they are involved in major operations or wars. Any cursory look at their contents or the soldiers wearing combat uniforms who have been in the duty-free shop in Shannon Airport over the years would tell one exactly where they are coming from and where they are going.

The history of extraordinary rendition is a sorry and disgusting one, particularly in the context of what has happened at Shannon and around the world. It is scary that only this week the President-elect of the United States appointed Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as director of the CIA. Mr. Pompeo is a supporter of the war on terror. He openly opposed the closing of the CIA black sites that were used for torture, criticised the requirement that interrogators adhere to anti-torture laws and opposed the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He also supported waterboarding and much worse.

We are living in a new era. In some ways, it is a case of back to the future.

It is, therefore, opportune that we would take the position that we now need a clearer statement of Ireland's military neutrality.

Irish neutrality goes a lot further back than the Second World War, as stated by the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe. The Irish Neutrality League, of which James Connolly was a leading member, existed in 1914. Even before that, way back in 1790, Wolfe Tone espoused neutrality in The Spanish War. I suggest to the Minister that he read it. He might then understand that the concept of military neutrality has been around for republicans for many years.

Fianna Fáil stated that it believed military neutrality was a policy and not a status. Given the flip-flopping over the weekend about its policy on Irish Water and water charges, we see that a policy can be changed overnight. However, a constitution cannot. I, therefore, believe that we should properly enshrine military neutrality in the Constitution in order that it stands the test of time and cannot be changed willy-nilly by a Government. The flexibility that the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, decried would be lost is exactly what we want to prevent. We do not want a Government such as the Minister's, as has happened in the past, riding roughshod over the policy.

This is not a neutered policy but a positive one that looks to ensure positive action. It allows us to protect ourselves, but it should also allow us to promote peace around the world and the UN. It should not allow us to undermine it by aligning ourselves with military groupings in Europe and those who were previously imperialists and are now hankering after the empire they once had.

The Minister denied any militarisation was happening and the Fianna Fáil representative stated that military expenditure had reduced. Given the European Defence Agency's stated policy that we have to increase the capacity of all EU military apparatus, I cannot see how those assertions stand up. Further, that the EU has just committed itself to a €4 billion subsidy towards military research also contradicts those assertions in their totality.

I ask that Deputies on all sides of the House, in the next week, before the vote is held, look at the wording we are seeking to be inserted in the Constitution. Why are those Members afraid of allowing the people debate these words, form their own view and decide whether to insert it them in the Constitution? Other referendums could also happen on that day. The people could make the choice. I trust the people on the issue. I remember standing with more than 100,000 people on the streets of Dublin when they opposed the illegal war in Iraq. We are proposing to insert these words: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war or other armed conflict, nor aid foreign powers in any way in preparation for war or other armed conflict, or conduct of war or other armed conflict, save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." Those words recognise the primacy of this House in setting laws.

We are not proposing the deletion of articles in the Constitution, so the triple lock, as some call it, and other provisions dealing with international relations would still stand. However, to me, this is the key provision:

Ireland affirms that it is a neutral state. To this end the State shall, in particular, maintain a policy of non-membership of military alliances.

That is required so that we do not have a repeat of the summary of Mr. Justice Kearns on the position:

Despite the great historic value attached by Ireland to the concept of neutrality, that status is nowhere reflected in Bunreacht na hÉireann, or elsewhere in ... domestic legislation. It is effectively a matter of government policy only, albeit a policy to which, traditionally at least, considerable importance was attached.

Stick it in the Constitution. Allow the public the right to accept or reject the proposal. Do not be afraid of the public.

See this speech in context