Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to reply the many points made across what has been an exhaustive and extensive debate on international security and international trade at such a crucial time in geopolitics. We probably could have had two dozen debates on individual streams raised by Deputies. I really appreciate the sincerity and conviction of those who contributed, particularly those who I frankly disagree with. We must have the ability in this Chamber to disagree without being disagreeable. I respect every person who raised their points today. I am happy to continue to engage in my role as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I will rattle through two things and split what I have to say between security and trade. On security, I will start with the ongoing brutal attack on the sovereignty of Ukraine and its people by Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation. I reiterate Ireland’s absolute commitment to support President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine and to the fact that there can be nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Equally, there can be nothing about Europe without Europe. What we are seeing on Europe’s eastern border is an existential threat which we in this jurisdiction are not immune to. If we allow the Russian Federation and its cohort of ragtag allies continue to advance across the sovereign territory of Ukraine, we must ask who will be next. Deputy Daly pertinently raised the issue of the Baltic states. I am often struck by the entitlement of certain Deputies, none of whom are still in the Chamber at this stage of the debate needless to say, when they state there is no fear and nothing happening there and what about X, Y or Z. This is a Government that is increasing domestic spending on healthcare, education and infrastructure and making sure we are bringing waiting times down in our hospitals, reducing class sizes and ensuring the average life expectancy in this country is 82 years. It is not as if we are doing nothing. It is not as if it is a binary choice. We simply do not have the luxury to turn to our friends and allies in other EU states and say “I am sure that is a big problem for you but we are all right here, Jack”. We are not all right here. We are an exposed member state that is fully part of the European Union.

That brings me to the constant references to our neutrality. Ireland is a militarily neutral state. I say that from the point of view that I do not believe we should be. That is my conviction, but I accept the will of this Oireachtas and the Government of which I am a proud member that Ireland is militarily neutral. No obfuscation from the Opposition can change that fact but people should not for a moment confuse military neutrality with political neutrality. We have very clear allies. We are part of the European Union, with 26 fellow member states who have stood by us in good times and bad. We have made sure they are our allies and friends. They showed solidarity with us whether during the Brexit years, the bailout years or the times when Ireland was an economic pariah having just joined the European Economic Community. Our allies among the member states stood beside us just like there are like-minded countries around the world, Japan, Australia and many others, with which we consistently co-operate and with which we partner through European trade deals. However, in any debate on our neutrality, we hear constant references from certain Opposition Members, including Deputy Conor D. McGuinness and Deputy Gannon, to some sort of plebiscite for which there is no constitutional remit. Deputy McGuinness said let us have a referendum on neutrality. Respectfully, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised this eloquently in the House two weeks ago. The last time there was a proposal for a referendum on neutrality here was in the last Dáil from People Before Profit. It was such a binary discussion. If we are to be truly neutral according to the definition proposed in the referendum what on earth would we say to the people of Gaza who are being bombed day and night at the moment? We are not neutral. We stand on the side of peace in that conflict. Were we to go by that narrow definition proposed by former Deputy Bríd Smith and her colleagues, we would not be able to increase our funding to UNWRA, work with colleagues to make sure Irish citizens got out of Gaza in recent months or be party to court cases at the ICJ. We would not be able to stand up tall in the United Nations and make it clear because we would not be neutral if we did that. Let us treat the people who are watching this debate with an element of respect when we talk about that.

On the points about defence spending made by Deputies Duncan Smith and Daly, I agree that now is the time to increase investment in our Defence Forces. Deputy Smith spoke about pay and conditions. He is right, but does that mean we need to have further debate on how we decide the pay of our Defence Forces. Twenty-five years of public partnership has worked very well for the public sector, but is there a pinch point in the Defence Forces on which we might reflect? I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by Deputies Shane Moynihan and Geoghegan about multilateralism. Ireland believes in the work of the United Nations. It has brought forward its payments to United Nations agencies and Ireland believes strongly in multilateralism. However, the proposal to revisit the triple lock is not turning out back on multilateralism. I appreciate Deputy Gogarty’s closing intervention when he said, reasonably, that this is something that requires debate. We believe that. We are not rushing anything.

See this speech in context