Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I reiterate my gratitude to the various Members who spoke. I will pick up on what Deputy Harkin said. I could not say it any better than she did. The motion was signed by my colleagues and supported by a huge section of the Dáil. We called on the Government to consider eight points. The Tánaiste chose to focus on one of them: the proposal for a referendum - and steadfastly ignored all the others.

For example, on Shannon Airport, I asked for an inspection of "civilian and military planes traveling through Irish airports to verify that they are lawful". That was studiously ignored. I understand the Minister of State brought a little balance in his speech by referring to the Constitution. However, in the whole of the Tánaiste's speech there was no reference to the Constitution or to the many battles we have had about amendments to various treaties when people were concerned about the gradual erosion of our neutrality.

He told us that the motion holds real risks and asked why we would wish to prevent a current or future Government from using the full range of instruments. According to the Tánaiste, my motion, signed by five other Members and supported by a huge number of Deputies is the risk. He did not refer to the risk of losing our neutrality, or of leading a narrative in a so-called debate characterised by the consultative forum on international security policy - that is the title. There is no mention of human rights or the Constitution in the whole document produced by the forum, like in the Tánaiste's speech. The debate is framed by international security policy, not human rights or how we can use our neutrality in a positive way. That approach was continued in the Tánaiste's speech today in which he told us that the motion we have put before the Dáil today pre-empts the discussion that he wants to have in the frame or narrative set out by Professor Dame Louise Richardson. He accused us of quoting liberally from her report. I am absolutely aghast at how it is written. It is badly written. It is a self-serving narrative and a framed debate.

As Deputy Harkin pointed out, we will have a debate on the report, not on neutrality or on how it can be used in a positive way. There is no confusion about what neutrality means on my part or the part of anyone I listened to today. It means taking an active, proud role in world affairs. It does not mean stepping back. It is not what certain sections of the media call "free riding". It is about using our voice and experience to promote peace. Can the Minister of State imagine, if instead of talking about a military-industrial complex and vast profits - because companies that are equal partners with or on the same level as the Commission and unelected officials in Europe are the only ones winning - we were to use our collective voice to promote peace in the world?

See this speech in context