Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party is calling on the Government to halt a vote on Ireland involvement in the permanent structured cooperation, PESCO, arrangement as we have not had a sufficient national debate on the matter. The impact of joining PESCO could fundamentally alter Ireland's sovereign defence policy and history of neutrality for decades to come. It is too important a matter to rush through a vote as the Government is attempting to do in this manner this week against a false deadline. The Labour Party has been asking for a debate on this issue since June when my party leader, Deputy Brendan Howlin, asked the Taoiseach to outline his approach on security and defence issues, including his view on enhanced integration at European Union level. We have noticed that the Taoiseach always carefully parses his words on this matter, focusing on security and speaking very little about defence. In June he made the following statement in the Dáil:

I will offer Ireland's continuing solidarity and our strong commitment to working closely with our partners in combating this growing threat. The meeting will send out a strong message that Europe stands united and firm against terrorism, hatred and violent extremism.

No one has any problem with this statement as we all stand united against the threat of extremism and terrorism and know that there are threats to global and regional security. In recent years new threats have been added to old ones, which is further complicating an already complex picture of regional security. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, competition for natural resources, energy dependence, climate change, failed states, terrorism, cyberattacks, erosion of regional and global arms control agreements, disinformation campaigns and organised crime continue to be important threats and challenges which Europe must address. They are diverse and affect member states in different ways, which explains the difficulty in reaching a common position in countering them. It is vital, therefore, that member states spend more time evaluating these threats and challenges. The Government is not giving us more time, however, despite calls from this side for several months that the issue be discussed in the Dáil and examined properly by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. By this, I do not mean a box ticking exercise such as that which occurred yesterday.

With this plan the European Commission is proposing to add €500 million of EU funds in 2019 and 2020 to finance EU defence research and new military development. After 2020 the figure will increase to €1.5 billion every year for research and the development of new military technology. This plan clearly amounts to overt militarisation of the European Union. The video released by the European Union in support of PESCO is more like a movie trailer for "Top Gun 2" than anything else. I agree with the assessment of Deputy Mick Wallace, whose contribution on the issue alerted me to the video, that it glorifies military expenditure on fighter jets, battleships and heavy weaponry. Notwithstanding the Taoiseach's comment that joining PESCO would not mean that we would enter the market for heavy weaponry or warships, this video, the language used by the Commission and the intentions of some of our EU partner states are such that an increasingly militarised European Union is clearly an objective. We do not want Ireland to be clipped to the tail of this wagon and dragged inexorably towards an EU army. The promotional video demonstrates the real motivation behind PESCO and we need to stand fast against it now by applying the brakes and returning to first principles with regard to the Defence Forces. This requires that we invest in our current personnel and ensure they are being paid enough and do not have to rely on family income supplement, as 20% of members of the Defence Forces currently do.

We must modernise barracks and thereby improve the professional working environment for the men and women of the Defence Forces. We must also invest in promoting greater participation by women and minority communities in the ranks. We first need to get our own house in order before moving towards any other iteration of purpose for the Defence Forces. To this end, we should further promote our reputation for participating in peacekeeping and rescue missions. We should make Ireland a shining example in Europe for making conflict zones safe, saving lives and working to end wars and conflict. We have a proud record in disarmament as the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the 1960s. We led the charge at the United Nations and have continued throughout the history of the United Nations to strengthen and re-energise it through the new agenda coalition in the 1990s and, more recently, playing a key role in pushing for a conference on a Middle East nuclear free zone. Sadly, the proposed conference did not take place. Ireland also hosted the cluster munitions conference in 2009. Despite our size, we have always been a world leader in promoting peace and disarmament and have never supported militarisation. We are not a member of NATO and do not take a triumphalist, macho view of our military strength. We take pride in the role the Defence Forces have played in providing real leadership in the toughest of tasks, namely, maintaining peace, providing help for the most vulnerable and standing up for global nuclear disarmament.

In an increasingly insecure world people do not want more bombs, bullets and jets. They want developed nations to set an example as peacekeepers and peacemakers. Ireland can be one such nation. However, the European Council has clearly taken steps to intensify co-operation on defence matters and a plan is in place to expand the range of common military activities undertaken. This has been designed to complement NATO structures, but Ireland is not a member of NATO. What is its position on these steps which have been driven by France and Germany in a move towards enhanced military integration which has been embraced wholeheartedly by the European Commission? This approach is gathering pace as a result of the exit from the European Union of the United Kingdom which had traditionally opposed it, viewing any co-operation under the umbrella of the European Union as a duplication of NATO activities.

Let us a have a proper debate on this issue. Given the Government's commitment to having commissions and committees, let us have a committee on national defence strategy in the context of the militarisation of the European Union. The issue could be addressed by the joint committee which could hear from all stakeholders. Let us bring in the Defence Forces to get their views. Let us bring in PANA and speak to academics, defence experts and the disarmament section in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Give us, as politicians and public representatives who hold dear the principle of neutrality and peace, a chance to engage in a real debate on this matter. At a minimum, we must have a full debate in the House. We call on the Government to stop this move and remove the need for a vote from the Order Paper. It is making a grave error in pushing for a vote this week.

2 o’clock

I firmly believe this. The Minister needs to go back to the Council and say Ireland is not ready. We have not discussed this thoroughly enough.

We do not always have to be the good boys and girls in Europe. We can say "No" on matters that fundamentally go against the grain for our island. It does not make us any less committed to the core EU project, the maintenance of peace on our Continent, the free movement of people and trade and working together for a prosperous and social Europe. This does provide work on common foreign and security policies but it does not necessarily mean we need a common defence policy which requires military build-up.

If we go through with this vote and, it seems, with Fianna Fáil support confirmed today, the Government and the people of Ireland will look back on this in years to come as the moment we crossed the precipice and moved Ireland in the direction of militarisation of the EU. It may take a few more incremental steps after this one but, as the old saying goes, "The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step". This is a significant step today, if it happens.

We do not want to make this journey. We cannot be bounced or cajoled, or indeed tricked, into this process without rigorous debate. This comes down to trust. The Government is asking this House to rubber-stamp a commitment to PESCO without a full and robust debate, without a proper committee hearing and without hearing from outside experts. The Government is asking us to trust it that Ireland can opt in or opt out of particular elements of PESCO which suits us. We do not believe such an á la carteapproach will work in the real world. Such promises and assurances cannot be taken on faith alone without a debate.

Five of the eight groupings in the Dáil supported a motion to delay this vote but we in the Labour Party were shocked to see Fianna Fáil support the Government in pushing this through. The debate was not about the pros and cons of PESCO but about giving this House more time to discuss it properly, and Fianna Fáil voted with the Government. It did not merely abstain, as it has done in the past but it voted with the Government against the amending motion, which is put forward by Deputy Boyd Barrett but reflects the views expressed at the Business Committee as to what should happen. The so-called architects of Ireland's historic neutrality stance seem ready and willing to roll the dice on the militarisation of the European Union. This is astonishing.

I again call on the Minister to withdraw the motion. He should tell the EU that the Irish Parliament is not satisfied and that we require a proper debate through the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. This 11 December deadline is a false one. We can join at any time. That is legally the case. On many occasions, the Minister has been asked to justify the deadline and he has failed miserably to do so. There is no deadline of 11 December. We can join at any time. That is a fact. The Minister should reject it and come back to us. If he believes in new politics, he should bring this back to us and let us discuss it through the defence committee and in this House.

See this speech in context