David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

PESCO is a European army in embryonic form. It is a sign of a deepening alliance. It is a formalised, binding mechanism for the collaboration of independent member state forces. It is an integral part of the defence articles in the Lisbon treaty. Its purpose is to give the European Union, including its member states, the ability and autonomous capabilities for military actions, removing the need for wider NATO support, specifically US sport. Dubbed the sleeping beauty of the common foreign and security policy by federalists, PESCO was intended to be introduced when the treaty came into force in 2009. However, the challenges in ratifying the treaty, notably its rejection in Ireland and the associated popular fears about greater EU integration, more of which we heard today from certain quarters in the European Union, ensured that PESCO was shelved as a step too far while other aspects of the common security and defence policy, CSDP, were developed. The revived drive behind PESCO reflects broader militarisation of EU foreign policy, development policy and the Juncker Commission's sustained efforts to increase integration and work towards a European defence union. The relevant articles of the Lisbon treaty, Articles 42 and 46, require member states to make troops available, commit to consistently upgrading military capabilities and meet required capability thresholds, among other things. The nature of missions for which PESCO forces will be utilised is defined in Article 43, which states missions "shall include joint [...] operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation." It continues: "All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories." This means that PESCO would give the European Union the ability to intervene in conflicts, similar to those in the former state of Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria, outside both NATO and UN structures. While some people may argue the merits of this, we argue, as a neutral country, that we should stick within UN structures and not within military alliances that would essentially mean we were part of an EU army.

PESCO is clearly unconstitutional. In light of recent Dáil debates on similar issues, such as Irish involvement in European Union Naval Force Mediterranean, or Operation Sophia, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will present the humanitarian aspects of PESCO while ignoring the wider issues and overtly militaristic nature of the European Union's CSDP. A shallow analysis like this will likely create a view of PESCO as non-controversial but the role of PESCO within the CSDP is clear. Without PESCO, the CSDP will never reach the level of integration envisaged by the European Union. It presents a fundamental threat to our neutrality as PESCO and EU defence policy in general have, as the CSDP has become more established, become closely aligned with NATO's European pillar. Even the requirement to increase military expenditure under PESCO is in line with the NATO requirement to bring military expenditure to 2% of GDP.

Many people will be concerned, in the first instance, that this could be a threat to our neutrality. Many will be concerned that this is more about integration in the European Union. It is more about an effort by those who want to create a United States of Europe, with its own Parliament, army and common defence plan. While this Government will quite rightly defend this State against attempts to create a consolidated tax base, it does not seem to have the same problem when similar attempts are at play to create a single military alliance and single defence and military structure within the European Union. I suppose this goes to show where the Government's priorities are. It is federalist when it comes to defence but it is not when it comes to corporation tax.

Let us consider the cost. If we have to put more money aside for military expenditure, it will come from public services at a time when there are crises in the health services and in housing provision. There are too many people on low pay and too many who need to be supported through supplementary welfare. There are too many living in poverty. How can any government or state that is neutral and presents itself as neutral sign up to an alliance such as this? It will increase military expenditure, increase contributions, undermine our independence as a sovereign state and undermine our neutrality, which has been a long-standing position of the Irish people. For all these reasons, I am absolutely opposed to this alliance.

See this speech in context