Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It is no problem. We oppose any involvement in the European Defence Agency or the project of European militarisation, which is accelerating at a shocking rate. We will support the Sinn Féin amendment to refer the motion to the committee but, in our view, there is no justification for getting involved with the European Defence Agency. We have opposed it, root and branch, and continue to do so because it is part of arming Europe for war, a global escalation of militarism and developing the military-industrial complex, which inevitably leads to war. Even the most cursory look at history shows that, before the other great wars, there was a process of armament and of dividing Europe and subsequently the world into armed camps. When you divide the world into armed camps, at some point, those camps go to war. Anybody who does not understand that does not understand, even at the most basic level, what history has told us over the last 100 to 150 years.

The only argument put forward for this motion is that, because of the inexcusable and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, we have to arm ourselves. The logic is that, if we arm ourselves to a sufficient level, we will deter Russia from doing the sort of thing it has done in Ukraine. There is a big problem with this logic because, prior to the war in Ukraine and Russia's invasion, NATO was spending 17 times more on weapons and armaments than Russia was. It was spending four times more than China was. That was before the war. Did that deter Russia? No. Not even remotely did it deter Russia. However, it is now being used an excuse to say that we need to arm even more. An additional €200 billion in expenditure is projected. That is a dramatic increase in spending in the European Union. Arming yourself and turning Europe and countries across the world into armed camps has never deterred war before. It did not deter this war and it will not deter future conflicts. It will do the exact opposite. It is preparation for war and makes it more likely.

There is then the strategic compass, of which all of this is part. Europe is developing its strategic defence and security compass. I will tell the Minister of State what kind of compass NATO and the European Union need. It is not a strategic compass but a moral compass. That is what they need. In the face of warmongers, authoritarian governments, totalitarians and people who have no respect for democracy and human rights and who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, what you want is a moral compass to determine your policy. Is there any sign of a moral compass operating in NATO or in the project of European militarisation? There most certainly is not.

I look at the recent comment of Jens Stoltenberg of NATO, in which he said:

Maintaining our technological edge has helped to keep our Alliance strong and our nations safe for more than seventy years. But today, nations that do not share our values, like Russia and China, are challenging that lead.

Factually, they are not. As I have explained, NATO countries are spending way more than them. However, why are only Russia and China mentioned? Apparently, they do not share our values. I agree; they are brutal authoritarian regimes. Saudi Arabia is not mentioned, however. Do we share values with that country? The European arms industry is selling billions worth of material to it. All major NATO and European powers go to Saudi Arabia for arms fairs where, ironically, Russians, Ukrainians and Israelis are also selling arms. Israel's arms industry and its exports to Europe and elsewhere in the world have received a great boost since the war in Ukraine started. In addition, Europe is selling Israel arms to kill Palestinians as we speak. German arms, Spanish arms, Italian arms, British arms and American arms are being used to bomb, kill, shoot and murder Palestinians. There is no mention of a problem with that. We are against the motion.

See this speech in context