Sharon Keogan (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House again. He is probably the most active Minister for justice we have seen over the past five years, since I was elected to the House. I wish him well, always, in the work he does. He plays a major role in how our society is going forward.

Today we have been asked to rubber=stamp Ireland's opt-in to two major EU programmes, the internal security fund and the asylum migration and integration fund, for the period 2028 to 2034. On the surface, these sound sensible. There is money on the table. Who would not want extra funding for our underfunded security infrastructure or for migration and border control infrastructure? However, let us call it what it is: cash for sovereignty. Every time we sign up to these schemes, we are not just taking money, we are handing over control. Opting in to the AMIF means binding ourselves to the EU migration pact with its mandatory solidarity mechanism. That means Brussels decides the rules and Ireland either takes relocated migrants or pays €20,000 per head for refusing. Is that sovereignty or is that a cheque with strings attached?

Look at Poland. Donald Tusk has clearly said that Poland will not implement any migration pact that forces it to accept migrants. That is a sovereign stance. The Netherlands and 14 other countries have signed letters demanding tougher rules and external processing. They are pushing back. Meanwhile, in Ireland we nod along, sign up and hope for a few crumbs from the EU table.

Let us talk about the internal security fund. Yes, opting in means more money for cybersecurity and for Garda resources, but again it is our own money coming back with conditions. Those conditions matter to the Irish people. They tie Ireland into the EU security strategies and operational frameworks. That is a slippery slope for a country that values neutrality. Today it is data sharing and infrastructure protection. Tomorrow, it could be deeper integration into EU security and defence policy. We need to ask, where does this end? Are we comfortable with Brussels shaping our policy priorities and, by extension, our security posture? Yes, we might lose some funding in the short term if we opt out. However, Ireland is a net contributor to the EU budget. We pay more in than we get out. Opting in does not change that, it just means we pay in and then beg for some of our own money back, with conditions attached.

If we are serious about sovereignty, we should opt out of the migration pact entirely and stop this precedent of surrendering control for cash. Instead of meekly signing up, the Government should be throwing its weight around Brussels and demanding a rebate for opt-outs at the next MFF negotiations. Other countries have rebates and we, too, should be negotiating a better deal for what we pay in and setting a precedent that Ireland will defend its sovereignty.For clarity, I do not oppose the approval of the opt-ins to a justice programme, nor to negotiations with the Republic of Korea, but I am calling on this House to vote against the first two motions, on the internal security fund and the asylum, migration and integration fund, because these represent a dangerous trade-off, sovereignty for short-term cash. This is about principle. Do we want to govern ourselves or do we want to be governed by press releases from Brussels? I say stop trading sovereignty for short-term cash. Opt out, stand firm and start using Ireland's position to get a fairer deal for all of our people.