Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an deis agam cúpla focal a rá inniu. Is ábhar fíorthromchúiseach é agus ní dóigh liom, le 50 bliain, go rabhamar in áit ar an domhan seo chomh contúirteach agus atáimid i láthair na huaire.

Twice in the past century, military fever overtook many countries. They armed themselves, threatened each other and eventually went to war. The killing of one person in Sarajevo ignited the First World War. I worry that, worldwide, we could be heading in the same direction as was the case before the First World War and the Second World War, with ever-growing armaments industries, but this time there are nuclear weapons in many hands and that could be fatal to humanity. Issues such as the climate crisis will pale into insignificance if, someday, somebody believes they have to press the nuclear button.

I will try not to mention the word "neutrality" again in my remarks. It is a used and abused term that relates to particular circumstances at a particular time. I believe in is what is in the Constitution, as well as the principle of an independent foreign and military policy. A country can be in the EU or the UN and have its own policy but, like any democracy, it accepts the rules as far as it is obliged and, in the case of Ireland, as far as the Irish people have agreed. We in Ireland are governed by the Constitution, the provisions of which are clear. We are all bound by those provisions until they are changed, and they can only be changed by the people. The first provision to which I will refer states: "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." The second states: "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." They must always be our first port of call. If we move away from them, we will be acting in an unconstitutional manner. The third provision 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." Again, it is the people, and only the people, who can change that. It is a fundamental provision because the Constitution clearly states in another provision that the only way Ireland can get involved in a war is on the decision of Dáil Éireann. That means we cannot join NATO, with its mutual defence pact, or a common defence that has a similar mutual defence pact. Of course, one of the reasons Ireland has taken that view is that past actors or colonial powers that are in the European Union might involve us in a war that would lead to our mutual destruction. To hand that power from this Chamber to anybody else would be a betrayal of the people.

I have no problems with forums and citizens' assemblies, although I do not particularly like them. I do not like the constant undermining of the role of this citizens' assembly elected by the people by open franchise. It is demeaning that on many occasions this House is the last rung on the ladder or cog in the wheel. I am glad the debate is taking place because, in many cases, everybody else has their say before this Dáil gets to do so. I regret, however, that this is not being done through an Oireachtas committee, which can bring in any experts, representative groups or other witnesses it wants. The sovereignty of this Parliament is constantly being undermined in our society.

I have a view in respect of security. I will walk out of here this evening, just like everybody else present. I will travel home to Cornamona. I could be shot at or mugged on the way. All sorts of things could happen. I do not carry a firearm. I am not in the United States and I do not believe carrying a firearm would help me. If everyone in Ireland carried a firearm, there would be far more people killed. We see the evidence of that all the time in other countries. As an individual, my greatest security is that nobody wants to get me. If people are out to get you, you cannot live in the society we have. If that applies to individuals, it applies to nations. The greatest security any nation has is not to get involved in the exploitation and misuse of other nations. Thinking that we are going to arm ourselves against some major attack is fallacious. We must always seek to use negotiation and diplomacy to reduce the threat. Diplomacy must always be our first port of call. I do not agree with Deputy Bruton. I am a citizen of the world. I do not see my world in the narrow parameters of a very small Europe in a very large world. I recognise that there are more people south of the equator. Many people seem to think those south of the equator do not exist.

There are many decent people in every country of the world. There is not a country, including Russia and China, where there are not millions of decent people.

There are also many injustices in the world. We see all the people fleeing from various continents because of them. We know of the injustices in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Afghanistan. In our small way internationally, we have traditionally - back to the 1930s and the invasion of Abyssinia - punched above our weight in trying to work with other like-minded people, irrespective of where they were across the globe, who would fight injustice in various ways.

It is worth noting that the most unthinkable thing in my lifetime happened, and it largely happened in a peaceful way, that being, the fall of the Iron Curtain. One of the privileges of having lived a bit longer than the others present is that I have seen more. When I was growing up, no one would have believed that the Iron Curtain would collapse - actually, Deputy Durkan can remember - and disappear. He and I can remember how that was totally unthinkable in the 1960s.

I have always been a great admirer of Gandhi and the methods he employed. Instead of killing people to achieve the independence of his country, he mobilised the people. He modelled himself on Daniel O'Connell, who mobilised the people against injustice. Therefore, we must always consider different ways.

Regarding Ukraine, we seem to think that there is only one way forward, that being, a proxy war in which each side keeps raising the ante. If the war swings one way, the West ups its supply of armaments. It is supplying armaments now that were unthinkable a year ago. Then Russia ups its armaments. I wonder whether anyone can be sure that, if it goes to the ultimate, someone somewhere - people here would say it would be Russia - will not get an itchy finger and press the button. When people are destroyed, will someone then raise a hand and say, "It does not matter that everyone is dead, because we were right"? It is as frightening as that, because it only takes one foolish and insane person or a small group of people in the wrong place for that to happen.

It is worth noting that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and also decent Russian people, have been killed in this war. In the main, ordinary soldiers are just doing a job. I do not go along with the jingoism that all Russians have suddenly turned bad. We need to stand back and be careful.

We are told about cyber threats. There are many such threats in the world, and we should co-operate with those who would oppose and work against such threats, be the threats from black or private actors or from rogue states. We must recognise that there are many states outside the EU that have values as good as ours and we should not confine ourselves to working in co-operation with EU countries. We should work to bring as many people together who want to have a world in which we act together.

Regarding cables across the Atlantic, I am not a great technical guy, but it seems to me that, outside our EEZ and somewhere between here and America, there is plenty of space that is in no one's territorial waters. If people could get down to the Titanic in a manned vehicle, I do not see why they could not get down to those cables outside our territorial waters if they wanted to. I do not know how we will defend against this, but to say that we will be safe if we simply keep them out of our waters is foolish in the extreme.

I agree with Deputy Berry, in that we need well-paid Defence Forces and clarity about their purpose - peacekeeping, drug interdiction, support for the civil power, protecting our coastal waters, emergencies, etc. I do not have time to go into all of those purposes today. The idea that we could ever defend ourselves against an all-out attack from any major power would be wrong.

I am opposed to a common defence and to handing over that key sovereignty whereby we, the people in this Chamber, are the only ones who can involve Ireland in any individual action. I listened with great interest to what Deputy Berry had to say about the triple lock.

I have not seen any, but if there are difficulties with supplying as many troops as we need to - at the moment, we can supply virtually none - I would not be opposed to tweaking the triple lock. However, I would be opposed to ripping it up, as seems to be the agenda. I asked a parliamentary question, and received the answer today, about all of the peacekeeping missions in which we had managed to remain involved. I hope that we will be careful in where we go, move slowly and move honestly in this debate.

Unfortunately, my time is up, but I will get other opportunities in this debate.

See this speech in context