Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As respectfully as I can, I will debunk some of the remarks made about the statements of Jean Claude Juncker on the establishment of a European army. I do not need to remind the Members, as they have already made statements to this effect, that we are a neutral country, are not aligned and make decisions based on the triple lock which involves this House, the UN and the Cabinet. Therefore, there is no question as to our participation in any of it. Members of the European Union of other states can have all of the aspirations they wish but the bottom line is that this country has the triple lock. We are neutral and will not be engaging in any such provisions, whether they come into fruition or not. The point about PESCO is that we have options. We can choose to opt into certain elements of the provisions contained within it. The underlying factor and the most important part is that we can share resources with other nations that are taking part in UN mandated missions.

I was a member of the defence committee in the previous Dáil. Unlike the Ceann Comhairle, I do not have any barracks in my constituency but they are pretty close by. I am very proud of the work the men and women of our Defence Forces do, particularly in UN mandated missions. They have saved hundreds of thousands of lives of men, women and children. For a very small country off the coast of Europe, we have had an enormous impact for decades and we will continue to have an enormous impact into the future in our participation in peacekeeping missions across the world. As I said, and I want to reiterate it, I am very proud of the men and women of our Defence Forces who put their lives on the line for others to bring forward our concept of democracy and our concept of the defence of the defenceless. I think that is extremely important.

I want to briefly reference the Lisbon treaty and the fact that it was passed in 2009, when 60% of the electorate voted and 67% of those voted it through. The previous year, only 53% showed up and there was a marginal "No" vote of 53% to 46%. The reason I raise the point is that it was an horrifically run campaign and there was a chronic lack of information. The scaremongering during the campaign was quite extraordinary. I am pleased to say that sense prevailed in terms of the provisions in and protocols to the Lisbon Treaty and the provisions within our Constitution. These are guaranteed. It is not a matter for an outside institution or body to determine what we as a State do. We make those decisions for ourselves.

The element of PESCO that I want to dwell upon is the fact that we, as a State, and our Defence Forces can learn and share resources with other states in the engagement in UN missions. That is an extremely important facet of PESCO, primarily on the basis that we will save money. As mentioned earlier by my colleague, Deputy Heydon, we do not have to go out and, for instance, do all of the research and studies that will, no doubt, cost millions of euros in terms of shared services and logistics and, most importantly, the cyber security threat, which is enormous. We have our own counter-cyber terrorism agency within the Defence Forces but we can and should learn from other nations which have invested millions, if not billions, of euros in the furtherance of that research and defence.

Unfortunately, as a State, we have under-invested chronically in our Defence Forces. It is not just a matter of pay but a matter of conditions and equipment. Deputy McGrath stated that we would be spending an additional €1.5 million per annum. However, if we did not sign up to PESCO and did not participate in exchange of information and knowledge, we would probably have to spend twice or even three times that participating in mandated missions.

In the few seconds I have left, I compliment Deputy Lisa Chambers for her contribution and, in particular, her reference to the need for an ongoing debate in this Chamber on what our Defence Forces do. There is a complete, utter and abject ignorance of the precise nature of what they do. I welcome her suggestion of having a three-monthly review and debate about it in this Chamber. It is an important part of what we do in this House. I, too, like my colleague and the Minister commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context