Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by addressing some of the misapprehensions that have been suggested today. The first is that those who have concerns about or are opposed to PESCO are in some senses less committed to Europe or anti-Europe. I am extraordinarily pro-Europe. I have campaigned for Europe. I work with European NGOs. Right across Europe there is concern and it is partly my European citizenship that also drives me. That needs to be resoundingly rejected. Also, I would like to address a significant error that has been put forward a number of times that somehow in the vote for Lisbon, and it was in the Minister of State's speech, participation in PESCO was provided for and introduced under the Lisbon treaty. The Irish people did not vote on participation in PESCO. Let us be clear. In the debate on the Lisbon treaty, PESCO was referenced not as something that was being agreed to but that the legislation would set out Ireland's right to either approve or reject PESCO. That is what was promised and what was debated. I have endless quotes from members of the Minister of State's party as well as members of Fianna Fáil who spoke at length about how we would not be moving towards permanent co-operation without due process. I am sure if it had been said at the time of the Lisbon treaty that we would approve this in a week, that there would be a paucity of debate and that the Seanad would only get to talk about it after the fact, I am sure the people would have been very disappointed. Let us be very clear about this as a matter of respect for the population and for the many who voted for the Lisbon treaty.They did not vote for PESCO. They voted for Ireland to maintain a separate and autonomous decision-making process around participation in anything such as PESCO.

I wish to address claims made by members of Fianna Fáil outside this Chamber earlier this week. They suggested that not joining PESCO would show that we were less committed to working with other member states to ensure security and peace across the European Union and that suggestion was made again in here today. Let us be very clear, Ireland does work with other countries. We work with other countries through the United Nations and have a very proud record of doing so. In fact, Ireland has lost more UN peacekeepers in Lebanon than any other country. I do not think there is a monopoly on pride in our UN peacekeeping, but given the centrality of UN peacekeeping to our role, is it not shocking that the PESCO notification makes no reference to UN peacekeeping, to peace or to peace building and the UN is mentioned only once in this document? This is a core concern.

We have spoken already about intelligence and research and development. The European Commission has been very clear that research and development will be taking place in the context of procurement in terms of the European defence fund. The commission has said that "development and acquisition of defence capabilities are inherently linked" and that "Member States have committed to jointly finance further development [and to] ... procure the final product". We are talking about procurement of military equipment, essentially. In any talk about efficiencies or value for money, we are, in the end, talking about the circumstances under which Ireland might contribute, directly or indirectly, to the loss of life. The bar should be set very high.

I have a number of direct questions for the Minister of State. First, will all joint procurement contracts be subject to the triple lock? Will we be able to see the contracts or will commercial sensitivity be invoked? What do we know about how the military equipment, which we may jointly purchase, will be used by countries that have different mandates, histories and interests? Will it always be within a UN mandate? The answer to the last question is "probably not" because Germany, for example, has many troops with NATO missions in Afghanistan. Will these weapons be used against former or current colonies, for example, as we saw in the Falklands, or tested, as we saw in French Polynesia? Will the weapons be used within Europe? We hear that militarisation is the key to unity and cohesiveness but I beg to differ on that. Austrian armed personnel carriers and troops were sent to the Brenner Pass crossing with Italy recently and Austria came dangerously close to electing a fascist leader, as did France. In that context, how can we account for the future use of our jointly procured weaponry or military equipment? The crux of the matter is the question of what we are defending. Are we defending life or are we defending interests? Crucially, are we ultimately going to see these weapons used against the most vulnerable of people, migrants who are fleeing wars driven by a militarisation agenda? Mr. Donald Tusk seems to think that such a danger exists because he has said that the migration crisis has made us aware, with full force, of the need to build effective control of our external borders. Will we see some of these weapons used as we saw in the past when arms were used against refugees who were marched out of Croatia into Serbia, when a six year old child died? Where will accountability lie? I would like the Minister of State to answer those questions.

Finally, if we had walked into that meeting on 11 December without signing up to PESCO, we would have been just as much proud members of the European Union and would have been able to contribute to what Europe needs, which is peace building and acting as a bridge. We would have maintained true faith with our UN, European and international role. An opportunity has been lost. I look forward to debating this issue further with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, who needs to answer on the wider question of how this fits with our foreign policy and peace building role.