Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister and confirm that the Labour Party will support the Bill. I reiterate the statements made by my colleague in the other House, Deputy Brian O'Shea, who commended the Minister for the speedy way in which the Bill was published in September. It is impossible to discuss it without placing it in the context of Ireland's neutrality. One point that came across in the first Lisbon treaty referendum concerned the depth of feeling about a perceived threat to our neutrality which, rhetorically, is enshrined in the national mindset. However, it is clear that there are gaps in our shared understanding of what neutrality means. Many assume that Irish neutrality is protected in the Constitution but that is not the case. Such a misunderstanding means that policy changes such as those proposed and introduced in the Lisbon treaty can be misrepresented by groups and individuals to suit their own agendas. We saw this clearly in the first referendum and, to a lesser degree, in the second when various groups on the far left and far right introduced red herrings in respect of conscription and the formation of a European army to confuse and scare the electorate into voting against the treaty. Policy discussion in the public sphere is hampered by a soundbite oriented news media and a lack of trust in many of our institutions, elected officials and politicians. Neutrality is just one good example of a policy frequently misrepresented by those wishing to promote their own agendas.

On that basis, I welcome the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion on Irish neutrality and the implications for how we see the world and how it sees us. As part of that discussion, I would welcome an honest assertion by the Government and others that a policy neutrality, as recognised in its purest form, is not and has not been exercised by the State. Rather, Ireland follows a nuanced, flexible and legally ambiguous form of non-alignment. This policy has served us well and I do not criticise it per se. Rather, the misappropriation of the term "neutrality" has unnecessarily created confusion, fear and mistrust.

It is generally agreed that Sweden constitutes the best example of a European country which is genuinely neutral. Its position is reflected in the self-defined position that the country is not allied with power blocks in peacetime in order to remain neutral in wartime. Sweden has not participated in any war since 1814. In addition, Sweden has maintained a relatively high average spend on defence. Along with Switzerland it takes its position on armed neutrality very seriously. While it is rarely discussed, it is very clear that Ireland exercises no such policy. From the benevolent neutrality of the Second World War to the legal passage of an immense army through Shannon Airport, it is clear that our approach to neutrality is bespoke and represents an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Bryan O'Boyle of NUI Galway sets out a similar view when he states, "The flexibility of Irish neutrality has enabled successive governments to affirm or elongate the policy of neutrality in appropriate situations and, on other occasions, to contract or diminish and even ignore neutrality to comply with other policy considerations." The Shannon stopover debacle highlights the frustration of the people at our willingness to abandon the central tenets of a traditional neutrality. It also indicates the Government's willingness to utilise the flexibility of our approach for political and economic gain.

I recognise this flexible approach also has advantages and these lie in our role as peacemaker and peacekeeper throughout the world and the Labour Party fully supports Ireland's role in peacekeeping duties on the international stage. I refer to the sentiments expressed by the security correspondent of The Irish Times, Tom Clonan, late last year. He stated that participation in EU military structures has allowed Ireland to continue its tradition of UN service under an EU flag. Such participation has also provided Ireland with unique leadership opportunities, such as our lead role in the EU's mission in Chad. In that vein, I welcome the development of permanent structured co-operation which addresses capacity building and synergies among other issues. It is important to note that Ireland retains a veto and the right not to participate in future missions. Additionally, formal UN, Government and Dáil and Seanad approval would be required for any such missions.

I agree with Senator Boyle that the European Defence Agency could be a relatively benign development in the context of Irish foreign policy. The development and pooling of defence capabilities in areas of key concern to EU peacekeeping missions is a positive development as is the capability to share procurement and promote specialist research and development.

Nothing in the Bill negatively affects Irish neutrality such as it exists today. However, I encourage a realistic debate on the practicalities of our nuanced and ambiguous position on neutrality. Arguing in defence of something that does not exist is unlikely to become any easier in the years ahead.