Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Speaking immediately after her election as Labour Party leader last Thursday, Deputy Bacik said the following:

I am committed to Irish neutrality.

But I believe our non-aligned status isn’t about opting out.

It has to be about opting in:

Opting into humanitarian missions, to peacekeeping, to diplomacy, and to the prosecution of war criminals.

We are not, and we never have been, neutral against barbarism and aggression.

As an internationalist party, we in Labour want Ireland to play a full role in the evolving European debate about security, a debate that must focus on protecting our democracies in the 21st century.

That is the Labour Party's position and always has been. We as a nation should remain neutral and not aligned to any military pact but enthusiastic to use our vast experience in peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian relief and our diplomatic and soft international power in defence of diplomatic norms and democracy, the defence of human rights and international law. We are immensely proud of our peacekeepers and the role the Irish military has played in the UN and wearing with pride the blue beret and blue helmet. We are proud also of the role of our NGOs and of the history of Ireland's diplomatic activity on issues like nuclear non-proliferation. All these matters have combined to define this nation's international standing. It is a unique standing where we are seen internationally as honest brokers not involved in armed oppression but there to bring peace, diplomacy and relief to those who are oppressed.

This is a debate about a constitutional amendment so I wish to deal with what is in the Constitution at present. It is important we do that. Article 28.3.1° states: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann". Article 29 begins:

1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2 Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3 Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

Article 29.4.9° states, "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." That is the current position. It merits and needs change to enshrine without doubt the neutral position I think is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people. If I had more time, I would be able to go into that in more detail.

The Constitution Review Group that published its findings in May 1996 recommended one change to Article 28.3.1°, namely, that reference to "war" be extended to include "or other armed conflict". The group recommended no other change. The report stated that since "Article 29 commits the State to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations and to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes" and since Article 28.3.1° establishes Dáil control over the State's involvement in armed conflict, no other amendment would be necessary to retain the policy of neutrality. The group noted, "Neutrality in Ireland has always been a policy as distinct from a fundamental law or principle". It is time we changed that policy and my party supports the notion it should be a matter of constitutional law.

However, concern about Irish neutrality arose from the proposed adoption of the Common Foreign and Security Policy by the EU. This concern was, among other things, instrumental in the defeat of the first Nice treaty referendum in 2001. The second Nice referendum was passed, as the Acting Chairman will remember, in November 2003 to insert the new Article 29.4.9° I read a moment ago. Even without Nice, it would probably have been unconstitutional for Ireland to have joined such a defence alliance. Article 28.3.1° provides, "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate ... save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." Any binding commitment made in advance to commit the State to go to war in future in any unknown circumstances without first complying with domestic constitutional requirements would be an unlawful overriding of the State's sovereign discretion in that matter. I therefore think that safeguard was already there but we needed to, and did, make it explicit. As the power of war belongs to the Executive and the power to assent to war is vested in the Dáil, it is not constitutionally possible to bind these organs in advance one way or the other, and a binding commitment never to declare war would be as unconstitutional as a commitment in a mutual defence treaty.

I do not have time to go into the experiences we had in the Gulf war of January 1991 and the second one and the litigation that clarified our constitutional position subsequent to that save to say that when a challenge was taken on the constitutionality of the action of Ireland in facilitating the belligerents during the second Gulf war through the use of Shannon Airport, the High Court held that what constituted participation was a matter for the Dáil itself to decide. In other words, it seems under the current law that not only does the Dáil have the constitutional discretion to assent or withhold consent to participation in a war, it also gets to define the extent of its own constitutional discretion by defining what constitutes "war" in the first place. These are matters that are now rightly being focused upon and require clarification. That is why I commend the tabling of this Bill. I have difficulties with the content of it but what is important is we agree on a form of words we can put to the people to put these matters beyond doubt. This debate on Ireland's future with respect to the posture of our armed forces and our constitutional certainty needs clarity.

I hope that this is merely the start of a deep and profound debate to put these matters beyond doubt.

See this speech in context