Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing my time with Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I am delighted to make some comments on the ratification of the EU and NATO SOFAs. I listened carefully to the previous debate we had on this issue in January, only a few weeks ago. It raised more questions than answers. I heard what the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, had to say on how a SOFA regulates the legal and administrative arrangements applied to members of foreign forces operating within the state where they are deployed.

I also noted the apparent purpose of this motion is to have immunities and privileges extended to members of the Defence Forces when serving on overseas missions as part of UN-mandated forces. Ireland, and Tipperary, has a proud record of soldiers serving in the UN over many decades. Those were years when we were a very impoverished country with weak armed forces and not long established as an independent State. My colleague, Deputy Grealish, is trying to have some of the personnel of the Defence Forces who fought in the Congo recognised. We all are trying to do that and we all know some of those people. I am being written to regularly by people who served and they are not getting their due recognition. They should get that recognition and the Minister of State is dragging his feet.

Immunity is one thing but extending privileges is another. In the case of the EU and the NATO PfP, the SOFA also relates to the immunities and privileges extended to members of the Defence Forces when engaged in exercises in the EU, NATO or PfP member states or on standby for EU battle groups. That reference to EU battlegroups should be enough for us. If we are neutral, we cannot be going into battle. That statement should be enough for the Minister of State and for his colleagues in government. We are not in any battle with anyone.

The Government is, however, in a financial battle with the citizens of this country. It is also in a health battle with the nurses. We are not, however, battling any other country in wars. The Minister of State has referenced in this motion being on standby for EU battlegroups. It would be better for the Government to look after the nurses, the people who are homeless and those who are being made homeless by the merciless banks. That is who the Government should be on standby to battle but it will not touch them at all. On one hand, this motion is all very well and good. We need our soldiers to have legal protections on a par with other member states.

We had a barracks in Clonmel. I was very proud of those soldiers and I am still proud of the ones that have been shunted off to Kilkenny thanks to former Deputy and Minister, Mr. Phil Hogan, "Phil the Enforcer". More of our soldiers have been shunted off to Cork and we have been devastated. The Minister of State and his Government has done more damage to Clonmel and south Tipperary than Oliver Cromwell did. We kept him out of Clonmel but we could not keep "Phil the Destroyer" out of the town. The Government has destroyed the town. The Minister of State has relations in Carrick-on-Suir and he should know better about what happened in Clonmel.

We must certainly have protection for our Defence Forces personnel when they go abroad. We need to have legal protection on a par with other member states. That is needed when we are on peacekeeping missions saving lives. I salute the work of the Naval Service in the Mediterranean Sea. It has plucked many unfortunate people from the sea, including youngsters, mothers and people of all ages. I agree with Deputy Wallace. Having created the mayhem, we now have to send forces to try solve the problem. This is like a situation where a person out selling sweets makes the concoction sweeter to get people to buy them. It is farcical. The Minister of State needs to pinch himself, see what he has signed up to and where this is going.

This motion appears to do nothing to diminish the clear concerns that exist regarding how instruments such as these continue to impact on, and undermine, our neutrality. It is as plain as the nose on the Minister of State's face.

They run entirely contrary to what our neutrality stands for. That is my opinion but it is also the opinion of many other Deputies, although not the Deputies in the major parties. The Government is welded so closely to Europe that it cannot see the nose on its face.

We either take our neutrality seriously or we do not. There is no halfway house. If we take actions that remove that neutrality, the Government needs to be upfront about it. It is not upfront about anything, however, and will hardly be upfront about this. It is not upfront about cosying up to the banks and giving them immunity to do what they like. Yesterday, the Central Bank announced that hundreds of millions of euro more were swindled from ordinary mortgage account holders.

I noted what Deputy Clare Daly said about the previous motion regarding the issue in January. She said any decisions involving a closer association with NATO or the western European Union would represent a substantial change in our defence policy and would have long-term, if not immediate, implications for our policy on neutrality. She went on to state that any such proposals must be put to the people in a referendum before a decision is taken. Is the Government considering a referendum on the weather? There is one on nearly everything now. More referendums are planned and the Government is trying to bamboozle and cod the people. It thinks that it can feed them with social issues and whatever, that there will be voting on the issues and that it will be great craic. Keep the ordinary peasants occupied, let them eat cake, to quote the famous woman, and the Government can do what it likes. I agree with Deputy Daly that we need a referendum.

There is an increasing sense that we are not getting the full picture of the gradual erosion of our constitutional position on neutrality. I do not know whether it is gradual, however, because it was quite fast with motions earlier in the year to celebrate an Chéad Dáil, or na chéad bliana since the First Dáil, and here we are, rushing through this kind of legislation and these debates. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh pointed out, the tone of the motion before us is similar to PESCO, or "presto" as I called it at the time. We used to feed that to hens but the Government wants to feed all kinds of nonsense to the people. Deputy Healy-Rae and, I am sure, the Ceann Comhairle will remember presto. With PESCO, there was no understanding or preparation to say whether we need to go down the road and, all of a sudden, it was foisted on us out of the blue.

For these reasons and because we need to tread far more carefully, slowly and seriously in this area, I will oppose the motion. The Government should consider what is happening in the Middle East. We cannot have a debate on the Middle East because it is not feasible for the Government's friends, given the persecution of Christians and minority Muslims. On PESCO, there was no debate in the House - only a Topical Issue matter accommodated by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

See this speech in context