Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is no secret that I was very vocally against this forum and its set-up. The constitution of the panels at the forum was completely skewed towards those who are either opposed to Ireland’s current policy of neutrality, or those who seek to weaken it. Those with expertise on peacebuilding, arms control and humanitarian work were a significant minority on the panels and so you can understand why I am very sceptical of the report that came from this forum. We have said time and time again that if the Government wanted to start a national conversation, as the Tánaiste mentions in his opening statement, then this should have been done in the form of a citizens’ assembly. This forum was not a national discussion; it was a discussion between security experts and therefore those who have an interest in advancing military capabilities in Ireland, despite the opinion of the population. The chair’s report itself admitted this, saying "it must be borne in mind that the submissions were not a random or representative sample of the population, rather the views of citizens engaged in these issues; therefore, it would be unwise to extrapolate from these views to the population-at-large". Yet that is what the Tánaiste does in his opening statement today. He said this is a national conversation that has been taking place here, when clearly it has not. He goes on to contradict himself in his opening statement as well, where he talks about the need to get over the fact that the Security Council has not approved any new peacekeeping missions for us to participate in but then generally goes on to talk about how the Security Council is important. What is happening here is an absolute sham and dressing up to get participation and military responses right across the world; that is what we are seeing here. What is in the Tánaiste's statement is just a way of making sure that will happen on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, which are willing to participate in this. That is what is absolutely wrong.

The Government will make sure it will not give the people a say in this because the one thing they can be certain of is that the Irish people will have a different view and will want to ensure this will not happen and the ongoing militarisation that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens have been pursuing will not happen now or in the future.

I also strongly disagree with the chair’s opinion that "It would seem, therefore, that Ireland’s policy of neutrality is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs." There are many organisations that would also disagree with this assessment, including the New Agenda Coalition, of which Ireland is a member, which are committed to nuclear disarmament. Ireland’s policy of neutrality has been praised many times by NGOs and even UN officials. It is seen as a great asset to peace negotiations in the likes of Colombia and to discussions on things like nuclear disarmament.

It was not just the make-up of the forum that was questionable but also the content of it. I was disappointed at the lack of focus on biodiversity, especially since the greatest threat to our collective security is the climate and biodiversity crisis. Although cybersecurity is important, it will mean very little when we are faced with the enormous threat of climate change. In her conclusion the chair states "it will be important to ensure that future Irish governments have maximum flexibility to respond with deliberation and speed when called upon to ensure the safety and security of our citizens". Our citizens know that they have that through peaceful co-operation and the neutrality policy we have pursued.

See this speech in context