Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Monday, 13 November, 22 EU defence ministers signed the permanent structured cooperation agreement, PESCO. Ireland was not one of the 22 to sign up immediately. However, after the meeting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, signalled his support for Irish participation calling Irish involvement a good thing.

PESCO is part of a renewed drive towards a standing EU army and the militarisation of the EU project. Irish involvement would completely violate Irish neutrality. PESCO is a realisation of the defence articles in the Lisbon treaty. During the debate on that treaty Sinn Féin and many others pointed out that ratification of the treaty would facilitate the creation of an EU army. We were told we were scaremongering and exaggerating but sadly we have been proved right. During the debate the Government's official statement was that the Lisbon treaty did not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. Now we know this was entirely bogus and events and actions have proved us correct. Not only is the EU sprinting ahead with the creation of an EU army but we know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach want Ireland to be the front and centre of this army. It has taken a few years but Articles 42 and 46 of the Lisbon treaty are now starting to go live.

PESCO is not some benign humanitarian force: its mandate, as outlined in the Lisbon treaty, includes the requirement for the participating states to make troops available for deployment as part of PESCO missions. Does the Minister not agree that PESCO presents a fundamental threat to our neutrality and that Ireland should remain completely outside it?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State have any understanding of what neutrality is and how positive or active neutrality works? Does he even understand that every change in terms has seen an erosion of this State's neutral position? I will list some but not all of these changes: the Partnership for Peace, the rapid reaction force, the European Defence Agency, the battle groups, and here we are talking about another substantial change in respect of Ireland's role in the EU army, which is totally at odds with our Constitution. Does he agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in the first instance and if he does has he sought legal advice as to the position vis-à-visthe Constitution? Has the Minister of State, his line Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade thought out the consequences of this, engaging Irish troops in EU wars? Does he know what he is signing up to?

Currently Irish defence spending is between 0.6% and 0.7%. The Minister of State is committing this State to increasing that to at least 2% annually and possibly much more given that most of the countries involved are North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, countries which are now committing to what Donald Trump is demanding, a 6% expenditure of all our moneys. By signing up to PESCO the Minister of State is giving a commitment to allowing the EU to monitor and interfere with the defence spending in this State. When we raised this during the debate on the Lisbon treaty it was suggested that we were scaremongers.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of PESCO. I am happy to inform the House that the Government earlier today approved for the formal notification by Ireland of our intention to participate, subject to Dáil Éireann's approval of same. I will bring this issue to the House shortly. All of us here are fully aware that threats to international peace and security are complex, multidimensional, interrelated and transnational in nature. The ever-changing complex and intertwined nature of threats to our citizens, individual states and to international peace and security must be acknowledged. As I have stated many times in this House, no country acting alone can address such challenges. The best approach for Ireland continues to be to ensure that the countries on the borders of the EU and beyond the European neighbourhood are stable, secure and prosperous.

Our continuing membership of the European Union and the United Nations allows Ireland to deepen and sustain democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights through, among other things, participating in overseas peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, which in turn will make Ireland more safe and secure. As the Members of this House are aware, PESCO provides a treaty based framework designed to improve the means by which EU member states can participate jointly in projects to develop capabilities that will enhance contributions to crisis management and peacekeeping operations undertaken by the EU under the common security and defence policy, CSDP. Participation in any PESCO project is entirely voluntary and it is a matter for each member state to decide for itself whether or not to participate on a case-by-case basis. Ireland has always strongly supported the development of CSDP and of EU capacity to respond to international crises in support of the UN and has participated in all aspects of CSDP since it was established. Ireland has also been one of the leading contributors to CSDP operations deployed under UN mandates or with the support of the UN.

PESCO is a further initiative in strengthening the Union's capacity in this regard and developments in CSDP have been supported by the UN Under-Secretary-General as potentially providing additional capabilities for UN mandated operations. The PESCO notification explicitly recalls "the commitment of the European Union and its Member States to the promotion of a rules-based global order with multilateralism as its key principle and the United Nations at its core". PESCO can contribute to improve the capacity of the EU and member states to support international peace and security, both as EU and as troop contributors on UN mandated missions. It is also a means of enhancing interoperability and, working with EU partners, ensuring that our troops are equipped with the latest and best equipment and training.

A key challenge to the European Union's capacity to mount crisis management operations has been a lack of essential capabilities and the political will from member states to commit the required capabilities for CSDP operations. PESCO has been designed to address this challenge, enhancing the political commitment of member states to both develop and deliver capabilities in support of CSDP.

Participation in PESCO, which is provided for in the treaty of the European Union, Articles 42.6, 46 and Protocol 10, was introduced under the Lisbon treaty and has no implications for Ireland's policy of military neutrality, for the triple-lock or the crucial roles we play in crisis management and peacekeeping operations.

The participation criteria expressly stipulate that PESCO will be undertaken in full compliance with the Treaty on European Union and the associated protocols and will respect the member states' constitutional provisions. Participation in each project is on an opt-in basis and is therefore entirely voluntary. Three other neutral EU member states, Finland, Sweden and Austria, have already committed to joining PESCO.

It is important to remind this House that PESCO was comprehensively discussed in the context of the Lisbon treaty and was approved by the Irish people when they voted for the treaty in October 2009. PESCO was specifically referenced in the Lisbon treaty protocol to address the concerns of the Irish people and Ireland’s declaration and that the legislation setting down Ireland’s approval process for PESCO was published in advance of that vote and enacted in November 2009.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will have to try to incorporate the rest of his response into later comments. I gave him five minutes.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an understatement to say that I am disappointed. The Minister of State says that he is happy to announce this. I do not know if the Government had any plan to announce it at all. Ireland's deeper integration into the EU's military system is completely unacceptable and unwanted by the vast majority of Irish people.

Does the Minister of State accept that there are many people working within the EU structure who wish to build a military structure to complement NATO and clean up its mess under the guise of peace building? This is what PESCO is about. We are told there are no spare funds to go to positive social and economic programmes in areas such as youth unemployment projects, community regeneration, and improving public services such as health care, but it has already been announced that €1.5 billion will be spent annually on aggressive military projects which ultimately will facilitate a standing EU army. Any EU policy which aims to increase EU militarisation is a potential threat to Irish neutrality and the Government should veto these plans. Today's announcement is hugely disappointing. There has been no conversation or discussion in the House on the matter, just an off-the-cuff remark. It is lucky that we put this question down for the Topical Issue debate or the Minister of State would have barrelled ahead without any debate in the Dáil whatever, just as he usually does.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an absolute scandal. So much for the supposed support of the Ministers of State, Deputies Finian McGrath and Halligan, and the Minister, Deputy Ross, for Ireland's neutrality. It will be interesting to see how their supporters react to this and how they can justify such a move. The Minister of State has just said that the Government accepts this and that ties these three Ministers or Ministers of State, who have given their support for neutrality in this Chamber, to this move. This is a scandal. The aim of PESCO is to develop defence capabilities jointly and make them available for EU military operations. That is at odds with Irish neutrality. Our capabilities should be available to the UN and the UN only. The Minister of State should bear in mind that it also allows for the EU to act alone. It is not obliged to act with UN support. It can also be used to support NATO operations. When we raised this during the debate on the Lisbon treaty, we were told that we were scaremongering. Here we are a few years later and we have been proven right. Ultimately, the Minister of State is talking about going to war.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to tell this House, as I told the Seanad earlier today, that there is no possibility of our position on neutrality being questioned in any way as a consequence of PESCO. Contrary to Deputy Crowe's statement, this has not been hidden away. It has been discussed in the open at EU level for years at every-----

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why did the Minister of State not discuss it in the House?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have spoken about it here in recent months in response to parliamentary questions and at committees. I have hidden nothing. I do not want Deputies to leave the Chamber saying that our neutrality has been brought into question. The situation could not be further from the truth. The final PESCO document reflects the position of neutral countries, of which we are not the only one. Other neutral countries have already signed up to PESCO.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has to ask this neutral country.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, because I respect the triple lock. I respect what I have to do here. I could have signed up to this last Monday without a problem but I have respect for the Government and the need to have it passed by the Cabinet and then the Dáil.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has no choice but to come here. He has no choice.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Snodaigh, please.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only then, if it is passed by the Dáil, will I sign up. I will sign up when it is the wish of the Parliament. This passed at Cabinet earlier. I will bring it before the Oireachtas next week or the week after. If I secure a majority of this House to vote for PESCO, I will sign up to it. If I do not get a majority of the Parliament to vote for it, then I will not. It is the right thing to do.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will conclude his remarks.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Projects such as this are something our military people want to partake in. They see it as the right thing to do.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will conclude his remarks. I have been very lenient on time.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring it to the House within the next two weeks to seek its approval.