Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— that Article 29.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality";

— that Article 29.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination";

— that Article 29.4.9o of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State";

— that Article 28.3.1o of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann";

— that the "triple lock" reinforces Ireland's policy of neutrality and ensures that Ireland will not engage in military actions inconsistent with our neutral status, that through its requirement of United Nations (UN) approval for military deployments it ensures that Ireland adheres to the principles of international law and demonstrates a commitment to resolving conflicts through peaceful and diplomatic means, and that it ensures that decisions to commit Irish troops to military operations are made democratically and transparently;

— the declaration of neutrality referring to "Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality" was lodged along with the Single European Act's ratification instrument;

— that the Maastricht Treaty states that the treaty "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States";

— the Seville Declaration inserted into the Treaty of Nice, to facilitate the holding of a second referendum on the matter and the insertion of Article 29.9 into Bunreacht na hÉireann that the State would not take part in any EU common defence arrangement;

— the Irish Guarantee on the Lisbon Treaty which sets out that Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality will be unaffected, and which guarantee facilitated the holding of a second referendum on the matter;

— that repeated polls confirm the unwavering support of the majority of Irish people to Irish neutrality, and the most recent Irish Times/Ipsos poll, June 2023, found that 61 per cent of people surveyed favour the retention of our current model of neutrality; and

— the judgment of the High Court in Horgan v An Taoiseach [2003] IEHC 64 highlighting "the great historic value attached by Ireland to the concept of neutrality";

further notes:

— an estimate of at least 3.5 million US troops, along with onboard weapons, have passed through Shannon Airport since 2001;

— the exponential growth in European Union (EU) military spending and the commitment by EU member states to increase defence expenditure by €70 billion by 2025, bringing the annual EU spend on military and weapons technology to €284 billion per year;

— the devastating and catastrophic consequences of the war industry on climate change; and

— the involvement of Defence Forces' personnel in rifle weapons training of Ukrainian military personnel under the EU Military Assistance Mission Ukraine;

acknowledges:

— not being part of a military alliance remains a central part and fundamental pillar of our foreign policy since the foundation of the State;

— the long and proud tradition of Irish neutrality and its historical significance;

— Frank Aiken's commitment to the promotion of disarmament and peaceful conflict resolution on the international stage through his work at the UN and the subsequent successful adoption of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970;

— Ireland's record of peacekeeping around the world and the significant role our neutrality plays in enhancing our international reputation as a peacekeeping and non-aligned nation;

— that our policy of neutrality has earned respect for Ireland among the international community and entitled us to engage internationally in diplomatic efforts, to promote peace and to contribute to conflict resolution as a trusted mediator and facilitator;

— that neutrality necessitates active investment in peaceful solutions and conflict resolution and requires the allocation of resources towards the improvement of public services by investing in healthcare, education, infrastructure, and climate action, rather than in military expenditure; and

— at a time of increased instability in the world, now more than ever is the time for Ireland to use our role as a neutral country to facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts;

and calls on the Government to:

— affirm and reiterate our steadfast commitment to neutrality;

— initiate legislation for the purposes of holding a referendum enshrining neutrality in our Constitution;

— maintain and strengthen our role as a responsible, non-aligned and impartial nation, promoting peace, stability and diplomacy on the global stage;

— continue to support international peacekeeping efforts, diplomatic negotiations and humanitarian initiatives in alignment with the principles of neutrality;

— work to raise awareness of the importance of neutrality and its contribution to global peace;

— ensure the inspection of civilian and military planes travelling through Irish airports to verify that they are lawful, including in accordance with SI No. 224/1973 – Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973;

— properly fund and resource our Defence Forces; and

— confirm and ensure that Irish Defence Forces' personnel are not, and will not be, involved in lethal weapons training of foreign military forces.

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe a bhí sásta an rún seo a shíniú. Is iad siúd na Teachtaí Pringle, Joan Collins, McNamara, Harkin agus Fitzmaurice. Is cúis bhród dom seo a chur os comhair na Dála agus a rá go soiléir go bhfuil gá práinneach lenár nguth a úsáid, guth tír neamhspleách agus neodrach. Níos mó ná riamh, tá gá leis an nguth sin a chloisteáil. Táimid faoi scáth an chogaidh i nGaza. Agus muidne i mbun cainte agus i mbun díospóireachta anseo, tá daoine - gasúir agus leanaí - á mharú ar shráideanna Gaza, agus muidne ag seasamh agus gan rud a dhéanamh.

Sin an comhthéacs inniu ach bíonn comhthéacs ann i gcónaí. Bhí comhthéacs nuair a rinne na Stát Aontaithe agus an Ríocht Aontaithe cogadh mídhleathach san Iaráic in 2003, 20 bliain ó shin, an rud ceannann céanna. Is féidir aon bhliain a úsáid agus rud a chur i gcomhthéacs. An rud is tábhachtaí dúinne ná go bhfuilimid ag rá go bhfuil gá le neodracht gníomhach. Ní hionann neodracht agus seasamh ar leataoibh; ní hé sin atá i gceist againne.

Is é an rud atá i gceist againn ná ról gníomhach, bunaithe ar an méid oibre, obair na gcapall, a rinne fear d'Fhianna Fáil, Frank Aiken, ag dul siar, ag tógáil air sin agus ar an obair atá á déanamh ag ár gcuid saighdiúirí ar fud an domhain agus ag cur in iúl gur rud dearfach é polasaí neodrachta. Ní polasaí diúltach é ach polasaí a mbaineann dualgas leis chun a chur in iúl don domhan, de bharr ár n-eispéiris féin sa tír seo agus de bharr stair na tíre, go bhfuil bealaí eile ann agus a bheith sásta ár nguthanna agus ár dtuairimí a chur in iúl nuair atá rud mícheart ná éagóir á dhéanamh. Rinneadh éagóir ar mhuintir Iosrael nuair a chuaigh Hamas trasna na teorann. Níl drogall ar bith orm é sin a rá ach, ag an am céanna, tá dualgas orm agus orainn sa Dáil a chur in iúl go bhfuil éagóir ollmhór á déanamh ag arm Iosrael faoi láthair. Ní féidir seasamh a thabhairt agus cáineadh a dhéanamh ar dhream amháin gan cáineadh a dhéanamh ar an dream eile.

I thank the Tánaiste. It is an extremely important topic as he well knows, and I know it is dear to his own heart, although I might not agree with all of his views on it. I have put this motion today with the help of my colleagues, Deputies Thomas Pringle, Joan Collins, Michael McNamara, Marian Harkin and Michael Fitzmaurice, and I look forward to the support of other small and bigger parties here today.

I do this not to embarrass the Government nor to be contentious or argumentative. Now more than ever, with the focus on what is happening in Gaza, it is bringing into acute focus how we should use our neutral role in a very active manner. I have to say that having seen the Government's countermotion or amendment, and while I often use the word "despair" and try not to because we need to give hope, nonetheless I despair of what the Government has put back in response to my motion. I have set out the articles in the Constitution, the most recent one put in after the Nice treaty. I have set it all out, and the Government has absolutely ignored it. It has not even acknowledged in its countermotion that there is a constitutional basis obliging us to take a peaceful role in the world. Following the various referendums, we put in declarations, guarantees and warranties that we would not abandon our neutral policy.

Going back to the ratification of the Single European Act in 1987, it was acknowledged that Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality was lodged along with Single European Act's ratification instrument. The Maastricht treaty in 1992 said that the treaty "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States", including Ireland. When the people of Ireland voted against the Nice treaty, the Seville Declaration was put in to facilitate the holding of a second referendum. That took us up to 2001 and 2002. The insertion of Article 29.9 into Bunreacht na hÉireann, which I have laid out, says that the State would not take part in any EU common defence arrangement. Then we move forward to 2008 and 2008, and the Lisbon treaty. When it was rejected on the first occasion, we had a guarantee put in to facilitate the holding of a second referendum. We have had repeated polls confirming the people's support for Irish neutrality. The most recent poll in The Irish Times in June 2023 found that 61% of people surveyed favoured the retention of the current model of neutrality.

Regarding the consultative forum on international security policy, the report of which was published, and I thank the Tánaiste for that, although I have serious problems with the way that forum was initiated and conducted, I will quote from the report of the consultative forum on international security policy, the title alone of which I hope I have time to come back to. The chairperson acknowledges:

It was frequently expressed and rarely contradicted that there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality.

[...]

There was a palpable and widely held sense of pride in Ireland's value-based foreign policy and global reputation as honest brokers ... There was a particularly strong sense of pride in Ireland's history of peacekeeping since 1958 [an unbroken record] with 508 Irish soldiers deployed overseas as of 1 October 2023.

[...]

A considerable majority [that is a use of words that, when we have the debate, I will come back to] of those who spoke ... on this topic expressed the view that there is presently no public appetite for a change to the current position on neutrality [and so on].

I know the Tánaiste has repeatedly confirmed that the Government has no intention of joining NATO, and I take that on board. However, I find his statements with regard to our neutrality extremely worrying, agus gan dabht, tá blas na bréagchráifeachta i gceist. Tá bréagchráifeacht go smior sna ráitis a thagann ó Roinn an Aire. While the Tánaiste says the Government is not going to change our neutrality, his amendment tell us the Government has "no plans" at the moment. Given the history I have just outlined, there are "no plans" - that is exactly what it says - at the moment to change our neutrality "The Government reaffirms its commitment to a policy of military neutrality and reiterates that it has no plans to join a military alliance". There are "no plans".

Let me just look at what we are doing here. Twenty years ago, there was an illegal war on Iraq. The Tánaiste will remember that. There were huge protests on the streets. I was among 100,000 people who were on the streets of Dublin. I think there were more than a million people in London. It was an illegal war with fabricated reasons and propaganda. Twenty years later, Guantánamo Bay is still open, bringing home the consequences of what happens when we let a consensus mentality and propaganda take over. Twenty years later, the UN rapporteur, an tOllamh Fionnuala Ní Aoláin - her title is very interesting: the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism - visits Guantánamo Bay and praises the Biden regime for helping her out in allowing her technical visit. I am going to read the following out because it is important to say:

The [special rapporteur, 20 years later] ... reaffirms the UN Special Procedures finding of structured, discriminatory and systematic rendition, secret detention, and torture and ill-treatment at multiple (including black) sites and at Guantánamo Bay. She acknowledges that the vast majority of the men rendered and detained there were brought without cause and had no relationship whatsoever with the events that took place on 9/11. Every one of the 780 Muslim men who were held at Guantánamo Bay - including the 30 ... who remain [there, 20 years later] - lives(/d) with their own distinct experiences of unrelenting psychological and physical trauma.

I have to say that this report is a moderate one in context. She looks at the victims and the effect on victims as well. She follows up three different strands, one of which is the prisoners and what they suffered. I use that to say that, 20 years later, that is just one of the consequences of what we allowed to happen, an illegal war in Iraq based on propaganda. Today, we look in the context of Gaza, and while we have rightly condemned Hamas, there has been absolutely no condemnation of Israel for the breach of international law; absolutely no condemnation. If we look at Hamas and who the greatest supporters of Hamas are, I quote the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, back in 2019. He made a statement at a March 2019 meeting of his Likud Party's Knesset members, which was reported in the newspaper Haaretz:

Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian state. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organisation with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars [and so on].

This was Benjamin Netanyahu back in 2019. It has repeatedly been printed in various media to say that was the active policy of Israel regarding Hamas. The Tánaiste might reflect on that. In March 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu told his party that "anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas". This was reported in lots of papers.

To return to the motion before us today, if the Tánaiste is committed to neutrality, I have no idea why he could not accept even the first part of the motion, which sets out our tradition, our constitutional provisions and the comments of the Supreme Court in the case taken by the very courageous Ed Horgan, who acknowledged that the traditional policy of neutrality was held dearly by the Irish people. I have no idea why the Tánaiste could not have acknowledged that and come back to us to give us reasons it cannot be enshrined in the Constitution. He is going against the wishes of the majority of the people in Ireland. My experience, reading and listening have told me that the vast majority of people in Ireland want neutrality as an active policy enshrined in our Constitution, allowing us to take a proud position in the world with regard to conflict resolution building on our past, the Troubles and what we have done in Colombia, of which we have been very proud, and what we have done throughout the world. Why can we not enshrine that in our Constitution? There is no argument other than the one made by the Tánaiste yesterday at the forum and presumably today that we need flexibility. If anything, neutrality has been extremely flexible since its origins back with Wolfe Tone. It has permitted each Government great flexibility but the kernel is that we remain non-aligned. The kernel is that we are not afraid to speak truth to power as in this case with Israel.

While I have the utmost understanding of where the Israeli people and the Jewish people have come from and understand their fears and dread, what they have done to Gaza is simply unacceptable. It has been an open-air prison for almost 17 years and there has been refugee status in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for 70 years. It has faced constant humiliation and degradation. The Secretary General of the UN has begged for a humanitarian opening for one, two or 20 trucks to go in. On a daily basis up to now, I understand that between 100 and 500 trucks were needed to keep the people alive, as 80% of them depend on outside help and humanitarian assistance. Now we are not even letting in one truck. Humanitarian organisations and UN organisations are telling us that they will pull out tonight. Collective punishment of the Palestinian people is a war crime. It is against all international human rights provisions and laws. I have no idea why we cannot stand up, say that and use our voice to say "what you're doing is wrong; we will work with you for a peaceful solution". I have no idea why we cannot do that. I do not know why we have to play games or engage in the hypocrisy of saying one thing but not something else.

It is worth looking at an tOllamh Fionnuala Ní Aoláin's title because there was no mention of human rights in the consultative forum. Look at the title and the framing of that. I will not use too much of my time on that except to say that I was horrified at the manner in which it was set up and the framing of the discussion with no mention of human rights and no open discussion of neutrality or how it could serve us. There was a framing in terms of terror, fear and the war industry. The Tánaiste can shake his head all he likes but at the end of the day, we have to talk to each other as human beings and have to find a way to reflect what the people of Ireland want. I have resorted to shaking my head myself. It does not really help matters. The Tánaiste needs to tell us why he thinks we need to be more flexible in our neutrality policy given the debacle that has ensued following the Hamas attack on Israel and Israel's war on the Palestinian people, the debacle in Europe and the comments of Ursula von der Leyen and others when we are waiting for a common response. We are a sovereign independent nation and fought dearly for that status. Why are we not using our voice loudly and clearly to Israel and equally to Hamas to bring a perspective to the situation that differs from Europe?

The misuse of the veto has been put forward as one of the reasons we should get rid of the triple lock. The triple lock was vital in getting the various treaties passed so that we would need a UN resolution and the agreement the Government and the Dáil. Repeated statements from the Tánaiste tell us that this needs to be changed and flexibility allowed, without any analysis of what has happened regarding the veto in the UN. I agree that the veto has been misused on occasions by Russia and the US, almost equally if you look at the history of the veto. I understand that recently when Brazil brought a motion on stopping the war or having a humanitarian pause, it was the US that objected to it. I understand when you look at President Biden's speeches, not his less nuanced speeches but the more nuanced speeches, he is saying "don't do what we did; don't do what we did in Iraq and face the consequences of that". When you talk about training, and this brings the hypocrisy to the fore, we will send troops over to train Ukrainian people to defend themselves. It would never even be conceived that we would send our Army to help the people of Gaza. I am not saying one should or should not do it. I am asking the Tánaiste to reflect on our hypocrisy and how we will take a certain stand and adopt a certain narrative when it suits the powers and when it does not, we will do something else. That is not what neutrality means.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— Ireland's policy of active military neutrality and non-membership of military alliances, as per the Programme for Government: Our Shared Future;

— Ireland has a longstanding commitment to contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security, as enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter;

— Ireland's policy of military neutrality is an important strand of our foreign policy and is characterised by non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements;

— as practised by successive Governments, our foreign policy is informed by an active approach towards peace support operations and crisis management, our contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, our work for human rights and development, and our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction;

— Ireland has a long tradition of international engagement, including through participation in UN and UN-mandated, European Union (EU)-led peacekeeping missions;

— Ireland supports a strong EU role in supporting the maintenance of international peace and security and engages actively in the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), including, since 2017, through the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO);

— the Government convened a Consultative Forum on International Security Policy from 22nd-26th June, 2023, with a view to building public understanding and generating discussions on Ireland's foreign, security and defence policies;

— the Chairperson of this Consultative Forum, Louise Richardson DBE, recently submitted a report of these discussions and the associated consultation process, to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Micheál Martin TD;

— this report was brought to Government and subsequently published online on 17th October;

— this report highlights the pride in Ireland's role in the world in peacekeeping and peacebuilding, as well as a broad consensus on the importance of continued international engagement, particularly in the UN and the EU contexts; and

— this report also demonstrates a clear recognition that Ireland faces new and emerging threats, including in cyberspace and in the maritime domain, and the value of working with EU and like-minded partners in these and other areas;

recognises that:

— the Government reaffirms its commitment to a policy of military neutrality and reiterates that it has no plans to join a military alliance or enter into a mutual defence arrangement;

— the Government does not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution is appropriate;

— the multilateral system – with the UN Charter at its heart – remains our strongest protection and the State’s most important security asset;

— Russia's brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, blatantly violating the UN Charter and international law, has nevertheless fundamentally changed the geopolitical and security landscape in Europe;

— in its wake, countries all over Europe have examined their foreign, security and defence policies;

— as a highly globalised country, Ireland cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events; and

— in this context, the Tánaiste is currently reviewing the report on the Consultative Forum and considering its conclusions; and

further notes that the Government:

— is committed to a Dáil debate on the outcome of the Consultative Forum, including on the Chairperson's report, and on possible next steps, without delay; and

— will consider in this light whether to bring forward a set of specific follow-up actions and policy recommendations, building on the report of the Forum, and focusing in particular on opportunities for ongoing multilateral and international engagement, further capability development and investment in the Defence Forces, and steps to tackle new and emerging threats, including through engagement at the UN and EU level.".

Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil ár dtír gníomhach i gcúrsaí agus i bpolasaithe idirnáisiúnta sa UN agus san Eoraip. Táimid neamhspleách agus tá meon neamhspleách againn i gcúrsaí gnóthaí eachtracha. Tá traidisiún ann ó Frank Aiken ar aghaidh, agus tá sé sin le feiscint i láthair ar fud na hEorpa agus ar fud an domhain.

Today’s debate on neutrality provides us with an important opportunity to clarify what Ireland’s policy of military neutrality does, and does not, actually mean. In Ireland’s case, our policy of military neutrality as practised by successive Governments over many decades means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. Let me be very clear on this. This Government has no plans to alter this policy. It is not part of the Government's agenda and it is not in the programme for Government. I have been a member of successive governments that have never changed our policy of military neutrality despite all of the allegations and accusations levelled.

However, it goes without saying that military neutrality does not mean we either wish to, or can, isolate ourselves from the challenging security environment we find ourselves in today. Nor does it mean we can ignore our responsibilities towards our own citizens or other international partners.

Last week, the chairperson of the recent consultative forum on international security policy, Louise Richardson, presented her report on the forum and the consultation process. On behalf of the Government, I commend her on this work. I find it extraordinary that Deputy Connolly is quoting liberally from this very honest, open and objective report even though she and many other Deputies tried everything to stop this consultative forum. Protests were organised and baseless allegations were made about the forum. Now that the forum has reported, they are quoting liberally from it. To me, that needs reflection in this House. Why was there such a concerted effort in the House to undermine that forum from the outset? Allegations focusing on the personalities and on the chair have all turned out to be baseless.

I suggest that the motion put forward by the Independent Group effectively seeks to pre-empt discussions on this report and the outcome of the forum before they have even properly begun. One of the most striking elements of the chairperson’s report is the degree to which there was broad consensus on some of the most important elements of our security and defence policies. These issues are often portrayed in a polarising light. It is worth recalling the level of agreement that exists, which the chair has helpfully reflected in her report. This includes, for example, the pride we feel as Irish people over our contribution to international peacekeeping, or the palpable desire to sustain and build on Ireland's role on the global stage.

There is recognition that we face new and emerging threats. We are increasingly aware of the havoc that can be wreaked by malicious actors in cyberspace, a reality brought home very powerfully by the cyberattack on the HSE in 2021. The only way to deal with cyberthreats is by working with others, collaborating with others, and pooling information and expertise. At the same time, our geographic situation as an island in the Atlantic forces us to confront vulnerabilities in our offshore infrastructure. One only has to look at what happened to Finland and Estonia when the gas connector and interconnector were sabotaged recently.

While the debate before and during the forum made clear that many people in Ireland have a strong attachment to neutrality, one of the most useful things that Louise Richardson drew out in her report is that there is still evident confusion as to what this does and does not mean in an Irish context. This is precisely why we need to have this forum and why we require an evidence-based debate about some of the conclusions that the report draws. Indeed, I find it hard to understand why the Independent Group is attempting to close down that discussion before it begins.

During the forum, many contributors expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners at UN level, our European Union partners and NATO's Partnership for Peace, of which Ireland has been a member since 1999. The consultative forum was also valuable in shining a light on the areas where we must consider our national security arrangements and examine what we can do to meet the challenges we face today. For example, there was widespread acknowledgement of the need to invest more in the capabilities of our Defence Forces. Indeed this investment is already taking place through the implementation of recommendations made by the Commission on the Defence Forces and the allocation of €1.23 billion in budget 2024, demonstrating this commitment. We anticipate that this significant level of funding will enable further progress as outlined in the recently published strategic framework.

The question of the triple lock was also raised on a number of occasions. Here too, it is clear that there is no one viewpoint on how best to manage the basis for deciding how and in what circumstances we should deploy Irish troops abroad. In my view, we cannot ignore the deep and systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council. That is most evident in how difficult it is to agree or renew UN peacekeeping mandates, as we saw at first hand while serving on the council in 2021 and 2022. Even when it comes to renewing humanitarian corridors in areas such as Ethiopia and Syria, Ireland was independent and stood out for its firm and principled stand on the UN Security Council, much to the anger of some vested interests in other countries that did not agree with our position. The idea that we are not independent, that we do not have an independent voice and that we are not calling out or standing up is fundamentally wrong. We are a very proactive country. We are very active in international affairs and in conflict resolution across the world. We need an honest articulation of that. We do not need the pretence that we are not proactive, or that putting something into the Constitution would somehow enable us to do that better. In fact, it would reduce our capacity to be as proactive as we are in terms of articulating our values internationally.

As we live in an increasingly unpredictable world, it is all the more imperative that we work together to navigate the real and complex choices we face from a baseline of facts and evidence. The consultative forum and the chair's report give us a very important element of this baseline. I am committed to continuing this conversation, especially in this House, with a view to taking forward a positive and proactive international role in the area of security and defence policy. In the view of the Government, the motion we are discussing today would serve to seriously undermine this proactive international role. While paying lip service to our engagement in international peacekeeping, diplomacy and humanitarian action, the motion, if agreed, would serve to curtail Ireland’s efforts to contribute to international peace and security, rather than enhancing them in any way.

In particular, the Government would have real concerns about the proposal to hold a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. We do not believe this would be an appropriate or responsible course of action. We are fundamentally a parliamentary democracy. What definition of neutrality are people suggesting should go into the Constitution? The policy of military neutrality has always been, and remains, a deliberate policy choice on the part of successive governments since the Second World War. I have already said that the Government has no intention to alter this policy. The consultative forum reflects the esteem and respect for this policy. This does not mean that we cannot and should not continue to discuss our international security policy and challenges, and the choices we face. If this motion were passed, it would constrain the Executive's ability to exercise its policy-making authority in respect of the conduct of external relations, as already articulated in Article 29 of the Constitution. We know from previous experience that inserting overly simplistic provisions into the Constitution on sensitive and complex issues does not serve this State well.

Therefore, the motion as presented holds real risks. Why would we wish to prevent a current or future Irish government from using the full range of instruments and tools at its disposal, either bilaterally or through the European Union? Whose interests does this serve? We need to retain our right to chart an independent course of action, but this cannot be at the expense of maintaining the vital network of bilateral and multilateral partnerships, particularly as an EU member state, that we currently enjoy. These relationships, and the flexibility needed to maintain them within our policy of military neutrality, help to keep our country safe and our people secure. As I have said, a major theme that emerged from the consultative forum is the need for Ireland to leverage these partnerships to address new security challenges, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity, tackling hybrid threats and protecting undersea infrastructure. It is clear to me that we need this renewed focus on our core national security interests in an increasingly complex and contested world.

I will finish with a few words about the current international geopolitical context. We are living in unprecedented times. Russia’s appalling actions in Ukraine have demonstrated an utter disregard for international law, the UN Charter and Europe’s collective security architecture. We are also facing an appalling situation in the Middle East. The Government has repeatedly said that a commitment to multilateralism - the rules-based international order, with the UN Charter at its core - is the cornerstone of Irish foreign policy. This situation is no different. This will remain our strong and consistent message throughout this crisis. Most importantly of all, we must be cognisant of the reality of this challenging security environment and what this means. Simply put, we cannot afford to tie our hands, to isolate ourselves or to ignore our responsibilities towards our own citizens, our fellow EU member states or other friendly partners. Inserting provisions on military neutrality into the Constitution without allowing for a serious discussion of the threat environment and the appropriate policy response, as reflected in the recent report on the consultative forum, simply closes off that conversation just as it is beginning. This is the context in which the Government opposes this motion and the constitutional amendments proposed here by the Deputies. Looking ahead, I will reflect on the report on the forum and will consider whether to bring concrete recommendations to the Government by way of possible follow-up. The Government will hold an early debate in the Oireachtas on the issues involved.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Pauline Tully)

Is Deputy Pringle sharing time with Deputy McNamara?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I am supposed to be sharing time with some other Deputies. If they arrive, they arrive. If they do not, I will keep going. There is plenty of information here to keep me going for another while.

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for the opportunity to speak today. I thank my colleague Deputy Connolly for bringing forward this motion. It is a very detailed, well-written and sensible motion, which is why the amendment put forward by the Government is incredibly disappointing and nonsensical.

I will get to that later.

I wholeheartedly support the motion and particularly its call for the Government to hold a referendum to enshrine neutrality in our Constitution, to raise the awareness of the importance of neutrality and its contribution to global peace, and to ensure the inspection of civilian and military planes travelling through Irish airports to verify that they are lawful. This conversation is more important now than ever with the war in Ukraine and the ongoing conflict in Palestine attracting global attention recently. It is at this time that our neutrality will mean the most and it is at this time that our voice is most important. We should be loud and proud in our calls for peace and ceasefires in the region.

Ireland is a small neutral nation. Our strengths have always been in peacekeeping and speaking out against injustice not in military might. This is something that we should be incredibly proud of and our neutrality gives us a standing. It gives us an important voice that other countries will listen to. As well as being a former colony, we also have a strength where we can bridge the gap between the EU and modern western democracies, and the former colonial states. We can have an honourable role in that regard.

Maintaining our neutrality does not mean that we condone the atrocities occurring across the world. We will always stand up for what is right and do all in our power to sanction the perpetrators and assist the victims. Again, we need to stress the importance of our focus. Our focus should always be on the victims and assisting them. Abandoning our neutrality only serves to facilitate wars and does nothing to support victims. It only serves to appease European and American leaders, which the Government is so desperate to appease despite the fact that the response from both has been constantly appalling particularly in recent weeks. America and the European Community are very quick to speak in solidarity with Israel recently, having ignored the oppression and mass bloodshed of the Palestinian people for decades. We, in Ireland, have a very proud history of speaking out against Israel's apartheid against Palestinians. Recent protests around the country have shown just how differently we view the situation compared with American and European leaders.

We have consistently shown in this country that our military neutrality does not equate to political neutrality. We always have been and always will be outspoken on international matters.

I take this opportunity to again condemn the US military's use of Shannon Airport and its ongoing criminality across the world. We cannot continue to facilitate the US in its wars. In 2022, there were 480 flights through Irish airports carrying weapons. A total of 465 of them were through Shannon Airport. That is a shocking figure that goes completely without comment here in this neutral country. In 2021, there were 259 flights through Shannon Airport. Are we facilitating war by the increase in arms-carrying flights? One thing for sure is that the Government will not ask that question because its silence about it is deafening.

Despite reassurances from the Tánaiste that the intention of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy would not be to encourage a change in Ireland's neutrality policy, that is exactly what it is trying to do. The Government's amendment to the motion continues the scaremongering regarding cybersecurity. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we would abandon our neutrality in order to protect our fibre-optic cables.

The Government's recent criticism of both neutrality and the triple lock, and present focus on questioning whether it is fit for purpose, are extremely concerning. The Government has claimed that Ireland cannot rely on our geographical isolation for our security, or isolate ourselves from world events. However, this could not be further from the truth. How would the fact that we are neutral mean we are isolating ourselves from world events? When in the past have we been isolated from those events? It would, in fact, increase our credibility in international relations if we were proactive. We could contribute immensely to peace talks and ceasefires across the world. The Government amendment also mentions the chair of the forum, Professor Louise Richardson, who has in the past made questionable justifications for US involvement in Chile and Cuba, as well as questionable justification for involvement in Iraq. I have previously raised concerns about her.

Worryingly, neutrality is something that we who value it are having to defend as of late. It is not necessary to be a cynic to see that war is big business. It is no surprise that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are eager for Ireland to get in on the action. We absolutely must protect our neutrality. On an international political stage, neutrality must not be confused with apathy. We care deeply for the plight of the oppressed, colonised and displaced, those who face hardship at the hands of governments, terrorists and other nations. We only need to look at the response of the ordinary people across Ireland at the shocking events and Gaza and the West Bank in recent weeks and the ongoing response to Israeli aggression against Palestinians. However, it is vital that we maintain a neutral stance in terms of engagement.

Whether we like it or not war is never straightforward. While religion or race might be cited as reasons, we can be sure that underneath it, it comes down to money and power. Oil and gas resources are the source of most conflicts if truth be known. Protecting our neutrality allows Ireland to protect the oppressed.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I wish to speak on behalf of the motion and against the Government's amendment. I listened very carefully to what the Tánaiste had to say before he quickly departed the Chamber. It seems to me that he has offered no reason whatsoever as to why the Government is not prepared to even accept Ireland's traditional position of neutrality and encapsulate that in the countermotion, as Deputy Connolly pointed out. It is almost as if we are embarrassed by Ireland's history of neutrality.

There is a war in Ukraine. I call it a war; only the Irish Government and the Russian government seem to say it is not a war. The Russian government calls it a special military operation and the Irish Government has its own reasons because we are now training people who are belligerents in what the Russians regard as a war. We seem to be saying it is not a war and we are training people to defend themselves. Rightly or wrongly, we are training belligerents in a war. I think we should discuss the rights and the wrongs of that in this Chamber.

The Tánaiste accuses us of wanting to shut down a pre-emptive debate, but we are not. We want to hand that debate over to the Irish people by way of a referendum because this Dáil does not allow for debate.

The original motion referred to a Horgan v. An Taoiseach. We must accept that the President of the High Court, who delivered judgment in that case, held against the plaintiff, Dr. Horgan, and found that the use of Shannon Airport and use of Ireland generally did not conflict with our constitutional provisions. I would respectfully say it is a huge step from that to where we are now which is arming belligerents with non-lethal weapons and training them in the use of lethal weapons.

Horgan looked at many US cases where he talked about the rivalry and the challenges between the Executive and the Legislature when it came to the declaration of war. Let us be honest, this Legislature, as it has evolved since the foundation of the State, never seriously challenges the Executive and less so now than ever before. We do not have a system as exists, for all its many manifest and evident faults, in America, where the legislature can hold the executive to account particularly in such crucial matters. We do not have that here. The only people who can hold the Executive to account and can constrain the Executive - the Tánaiste is terribly afraid of its being constrained - are the people by way of an election. By then, of course, if you have declared war on somebody, it is a little bit late. That is why the people should be given a voice now to debate and to determine what constraints they want to put on the Executive.

There are lots of examples. There are constitutionally neutral states just as there are states that are neutral by accident of geography. I have heard people even say that Ireland is neutral by accident of geography. So are many other countries. Austria is arguably neutral by accident of history and geography just as Ireland is, nevertheless it is avowedly neutral, something that has served it very well. I would have thought it has actually been to its economic and financial benefit as well as its geopolitical benefit, just as it has been beneficial to Ireland up to now.

We like to forget that because it might be a little bit embarrassing for us to look back at the Second World War and the words that we used or failed to use against the Nazi regime and compare them to the bellicose words that both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have had about Russia, about how it was barbaric and a rogue state. They could not find enough words with which to condemn Vladimir Putin. If it is wrong - and it is wrong - to bomb civilian areas and target essential civilian infrastructure in Bakhmut, Mariupol or in any of those places, it is equally wrong in Gaza, but those words are not there because we want to be part of the club. The Tánaiste is obsessed with being part of the club and people see that. That is why it is important to constrain the Executive because we might have as weak a Tánaiste again in future who is so desperate to curry favour with his partners, as we call them. The Ceann Comhairle used the word "ally" when introducing Zelenskyy which I found a very inappropriate word to use in the circumstances. We may sympathise with him, but that does not make him an ally.

People talk about the risks now and how it is unprecedented.

For all the military alliances the countries that are served by Nord Stream are in, it did not stop the pipeline being targeted. We still do not know even who targeted it.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I have outlined before that Sinn Féin's vision is for Ireland to play a constructive role in the wider world and to be committed to diplomacy, humanitarianism, peacebuilding and co-operation with other states on the global challenges we face, including poverty, world hunger, climate change, conflict resolution and migration. They are laudable goals. An independent foreign policy and military neutrality are crucial in allowing Ireland to play that important role in the wider world. We should be proud of our military neutrality and resist attempts by some, particularly in government, to recast it as a weakness or a failing.

The events of the past week in Palestine and Israel and those of the past two years in Ukraine have crystallised the absolute need for neutral actors, those who can act credibly as interlocutors and agents for conflict resolution. The Irish Government's approach to both events, however, shows the need for us to reinforce our independent foreign policy. When it comes to Ukraine, Irish Ministers have been the most vocal in rightfully condemning Russian breaches of international law, but in respect of the horrendous assault on Gaza, the words "condemn" and "Israel" have not passed the lips of a single government leader in the one sentence. In the Tánaiste's contribution and in the Government's countermotion, there is no mention of what is happening in Palestine. The Tánaiste said, "Russia's appalling actions in Ukraine have demonstrated an utter disregard for international law", and went on to say: "We are ... facing an appalling situation in the Middle East." Does the Minister of State not see the hypocrisy and the dichotomy in the Government's approach to both issues? The reason, of course, is that others with whom the Government would have us align are quite happy for Ireland to criticise Russia but might not be as happy with our criticising a state that enjoys preferential treatment by the EU. Being an independent state with an independent foreign policy means calling out war crimes regardless of whether they are committed by Russia, Hamas or Israel.

This motion is timely. I welcome it and will support it because it calls for a referendum and recognises other things we need to do, including adequately funding our Defence Forces. The protection of neutrality within the Constitution is important because when governments make decisions on foreign affairs issues, those decisions can have long-lasting and profound consequences. The decisions, therefore, should be based on an agreed framework. That is why Sinn Féin has advocated for a citizens' assembly which would be charged with proposing a framework which would then be put to the people to endorse. Other countries, such as Malta and Austria, have neutrality in their constitutions and it serves them well.

There is a related matter. The Tánaiste was at pains to talk about how we are a parliamentary democracy and how the Constitution may somehow constrain him. There is, however, the question of how we authorise, manage and account for our participation in missions abroad. What usually happens here is that there is the shortest possible Dáil debate, with a briefing note provided beforehand, and it is a fait accompli. This Government, with its countermotion today referring to parliamentary democracy, opposed Sinn Féin's and others' efforts to have any type of oversight of those decisions, particularly through the Oireachtas committees.

Our Defence Forces serve us very well. Their record on peacekeeping missions has contributed to the positive reputation Ireland enjoys across the world. I am conscious that today Irish troops are on duty on UN missions in Lebanon and Syria, in the midst of war zones, essentially. We send them our sincere gratitude and the best wishes of the Irish people. The least they deserve is that when we send them abroad, we do so only after the maximum democratic oversight that ensures that their actions are always in line with their stated objectives and with Irish neutrality. They also need and deserve investment in people and equipment that will allow them to do their job. Ironically, however, it is those parties that would have us align to EU military frameworks that have overseen the systemic undermining of our Defence Forces.

When we talk about these things, the starting point always needs to be whether a particular action will enhance or undermine our neutrality. If it undermines our neutrality, we recognise that it also undermines Ireland's position in the world and undermines our ability to be a positive force for conflict resolution. Statements and actions have consequences. Neutrality and having an independent foreign policy allow Ireland to be consistent advocates for international humanitarian law and champions of the United Nations framework. The alternative is a return to might is right. Surely this country, with its history, is perfectly placed to convey the damaging implications of such an approach.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh Gníomhaigh, for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I thank the Independent Group for bringing it forward.

The issue of neutrality is one which Irish people hold incredibly dear. The policy has served us well. It has allowed us to have an objective and even-handed approach to international conflicts. This approach allows us to play a leading role in the pursuit of justice, equality and peace on the international stage. It is this neutral and objective analysis of conflict that has allowed us to maintain a broad perspective, especially in respect of persecution and oppression and the pursuit of humanitarianism.

It is precisely because of this that we need to make sure that we match these aspirations and that workers are protected when they express revulsion at persecution and oppression. I reiterate my concern about recent reports of the alleged dismissal of a worker for comments they made on social media criticising the actions of the Israeli state. I am also extremely concerned about the possibility of workers being censured in their workplaces for expressing views online, outside of their workplaces, on the conflict in the Middle East in a manner that is non-discriminatory, not meant to cause offence and neither Islamophobic nor anti-Semitic. It would be remiss of me not to add that concerns about attempts at censure relate to workers expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. It must also be stated and reinforced that criticism of the actions of the Israeli state and army is not anti-Semitic. While workers can take unfair dismissals cases to the Workplace Relations Commission, there are no mechanisms within the current industrial relations machinery to preclude employers from attempting to censure workers for legitimate, non-discriminatory political views expressed outside of the workplace. This leaves workers in a vulnerable position. Reports of workers being coerced into supporting a pro-Israeli stance in their utterances on social media by their employer are also deeply disturbing and go against our position of neutrality.

I have brought these matters to the attention of the Minister as they constitute a very worrying development, especially when we look across Europe, where there are numerous reports of workers being reprimanded for expressing support for the Palestinian people. It is not enough for us just to aspire; if we are to fulfil all the prospects our neutrality affords us, we have to be fit to protect workers in their workplaces in expressing such views.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

At times like these, I hope people see the value of our neutrality and the ability of a small nation such as Ireland to have an outsized voice that can call for de-escalation, diplomacy and peace, even when larger powers call for greater confrontation, greater militarisation and further escalation.

The Tánaiste's security forum has finished and its report has been produced. For those of us who support neutrality, its finding are just what we expected. The overwhelming majority of people support our status of neutrality. As regards the discussions, it was clear there could be no change to our neutrality as the people did not want change. Instead, therefore, it was discussed in the context of the triple lock, which was targeted. It was recognised that if that could be got rid of, it would be the thin end of the wedge.

Since those discussions, however, things have changed. We see genocide unfolding in front of our eyes. Yesterday, French President Emmanuel Macron was in Israel and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President Macron told him he wanted to organise an international coalition to fight terrorism, just like was done in Iraq, which was called the "coalition of the willing". Only a day before that, we saw US Republican Senator Mitch McConnell say that the world now needs to confront a new axis of evil.

Can people not see what is going on? Can they not hear the same lines that were peddled two decades ago? Have they forgotten that quickly the lies and the crimes of the war on terror? It seems to me it is a case of back to the future. I listened to Israeli Government figures say that they are waging a war on terrorism and that they will fight until victory - but what is victory here? It is the annihilation of a people.

That is why we need to speak up for conflict resolution and for the just settlement of the Palestine issue and to promote peace at a time when the world is heading for a new war. We will be best placed to do that as a neutral country, as a country that many in the global south, in the Middle East and in the developing world look to and as a modern democracy, not a former colonial power. Neutrality is a force for peace, so we must protect it.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus leis an nGrúpa Neamhspleách as an rún seo a chur ar aghaidh. In every poll, the electorate has shown itself to be in favour of keeping our military neutrality. It is, as our popular President called it, a cornerstone of our foreign policy as a State. That neutrality is all the more precious in light of Russia's war in Ukraine and Israel's ongoing war crimes being committed relentlessly and with political impunity against the civilian men, women and children of Gaza. While Ireland remains militarily neutral, we will never be neutral in our humanitarianism and our compassion for and solidarity with the oppressed. We have an exemplary record as peacemakers in the world. I heard Lieutenant Colonel MacEoin this morning talking about the situation facing our peacekeepers in the Middle East right now. I know that our highly trained and professional soldiers are bringing a degree of stability to that part of the world.

As a junior spokesperson on defence, I want to honour the families of those who serve in our Defence Forces. We acknowledge their sacrifice in watching them go, their pride and relief when they come home and the life-shattering grief if they do not. We must preserve our neutrality as the precious value it is in order that they know our presence anywhere is for good and signifies our strength, our careful reflection and our self-awareness internationally, because there is too much war in the world. War brings suffering and death. We see the human misery it brings to our screens in the slaughterhouse that is Gaza.

President von der Leyen must be told that if withholding food, energy and water are war crimes for Russia, then those same actions are war crimes for Israel. The war crime is the act itself, the criminals will be decided by The Hague. Our Tánaiste must go to the EU Council meeting to push for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for fuel and medical aid to get into Gazan hospitals without delay. I do not doubt that he will have a job on his hands but the EU must be reminded of our so-called European values of peace, and for this they might as well be told about by an Irishman. He must tell them that Ireland calls for an immediate ceasefire in the name of humanity and we call for hostages to be returned to their families who are distraught and horrified by the atrocities committed by Hamas. Their heartbreak is swamped by the immediate and brutal response by the Israeli defence forces, where there are at least now 5,791 men women and children, including 2,055 children, killed, 305 yesterday alone, and where nearly 1,500 babies will die when the incubators run out of energy. Palestine needs a ceasefire and EU thoughts and prayers do not cut it in what is fast becoming a thoughtless and God-forsaken institution.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank Deputy Connolly for bringing this motion to the floor of the House. We are living in a world where it appears that the consequences of warfare can appear less important than the alliances that were formed in light of the way things have happened with unconditional support. This is a time when the sound bite overrides and deliberately obscures the real consequences of the actions that are essentially being approved through the use of language which contains no indication that limitations apply to the actions of war. We have heard examples of this recently with regard to actions taken against the Palestinian people in the name of defence.

Thankfully, this House has voiced reason. We have called for a ceasefire on all sides while others appear more intent on developing alliances as populations of people are displaced, bombarded and are ultimately being denied any protections that the supporters of these actions would expect to apply to themselves. I would prefer that while they use the language of war that we use the language of diplomacy, that we demand an end to the madness and that we call for a ceasefire. Our voice stands out because we speak from a position of neutrality where averting war is better than supporting it. Calls for restraint are now being voiced by some who failed to do so at the start. We have had a proud history of peacekeeping. We get involved, but we get involved in trying to bring about peace and protection and this world needs this attitude more than ever.

My thoughts are with our Irish peacekeeping troops serving in south Lebanon. I want to recognise the significant role they play in these efforts. As we have shown, we can be a sober voice among those who seek to gain alliances through military exchange and the progression of war. This is crucial in today's world.

We cannot allow decades of underinvestment in our Defence Forces and in the technology which would allow us to monitor our own waters and airspace, and our subsequent reliance on others to fill the space, to move the focus to us questioning the viability of our neutrality. Our shortcomings in this area are purely because of underinvestment by successive Governments. Neutrality does not mean that we cannot invest in protecting our territory. Compromising our neutrality will not guarantee investment in monitoring our own sea and air space. Our neutrality, therefore, is something to be protected and, as has been the consistent stance of Sinn Féin and as is referred to in this motion, we support the idea of a referendum on Irish neutrality. We believe that such a referendum would be the correct forum for a discussion on Irish neutrality to take place. Polling suggests that the majority of Irish people believe in this, as do I.

Deputy Mark Ward

The Irish passport is one to be proud of. It is a passport which is seen differently to others. Why is this? It is because of our neutrality and of our history. Just this morning I was listening to the radio and to Irish soldiers talking about the role and the massively important work they are doing. I reiterate that our thoughts are with them today as they face serious dangers from Israeli shelling. People across the world see Ireland as a country which has experienced colonialism and has seen conflict for centuries, and still suffers from the partition of our country. The Good Friday Agreement and the peace process are held up across the world. Our neutrality is cherished at home and is respected across the world. A clear majority of Irish voters consistently support the retention of Ireland's current model of neutrality. Asked if they support the current model of neutrality, 61% of voters said they favoured it. Our neutrality is one that we should and must protect. It is clear that many in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are desperately trying to bring us closer to an EU-NATO military alliance. That would be a disaster for their small nation's reputation.

To be honest, I am quite shocked by the silence of the Green Party at the disclosure that the Irish Army is providing small arms training to the Ukrainian army. To say that this is not a breach of our neutrality shows that we cannot trust our neutrality in the hands of any Government parties. Ours is a country which suffered through colonialism and conflict to become one that is seen as a voice of the oppressed all over the world while operating within a European and western sphere. Ireland has a leading voice which helped bring an end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. We can do so in other regions such as being a voice against the ongoing apartheid occupation and genocide in Palestine.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Ireland has a long history of neutrality, of being non-aligned and of independent foreign policy. Like many who have spoken before me and to whose voice I will add mine, the reason I will do this is because it is our history. We are not a colonial power like many others. We were the colonised. We had a history of trying to find a roadmap towards self-determination. We have had great difficulties in this regard and we all know that many would have seen the Northern conflict as intractable but it was where one of the most successful peace processes in the world was put in place. While every situation is not absolutely comparable, there are definitely lessons that can be won. The Irish people remain committed to that idea of neutrality and non-alignment. We need to ensure that we protect that because I, like many others, would be very worried by what has been said by commentators from the other side of the House and, in particular, that from Government Ministers. The fact is that the people completely believe in the importance of our neutrality.

Many have spoken about listening earlier to "Morning Ireland" and the talk with regard to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. I was very taken by the fact that this was an operation which allows for tripartite communications which involve all of the stakeholders, and one can imagine what that involves in south Lebanon. It involves de-escalating if we have situations where that is required. The other thing is that it is the eyes of the world that are being provided in a great many cases by Irish soldiers on the situations so they cannot fester or escalate. Beyond that, their duty is to defend civilians. This is what we must protect.

Many have also spoken about what we have unfortunately seen from many, who would like to see us more aligned with themselves. We have seen greenlighting from them for Israeli barbarism.

We have all called out the barbarism of Hamas and the Irish Government has been positive against some of the pushback at European level but we need condemnation and we need a ceasefire. We need the sort of strength of language that was shown against Russian imperialism. We cannot have what we have had from Emmanuel Macron, Joe Biden, Ursula von der Leyen, and Rishi Sunak; unfortunately the list is almost endless. We sometimes have to be the brave people who take the stand and we can only do that from a position of neutrality and non-alignment.

Deputy Duncan Smith

I thank Deputy Connolly and the Independent Group for bringing this very timely motion for discussion. Discussing our neutrality against the backdrop of what is happening in the Middle East is very pertinent and very important. It brings that debate through our lens, which is needed. We, in the Labour Party, are on record as saying we were not happy with how the consultative forum was set up. It was nothing to do with personalities as the Tánaiste put across to Opposition Members this morning. Instead, we would rather have seen it come through a citizens' assembly, a forum which is well-suited to dealing with difficult, politically complex subjects. We have seen the citizens' assembly deliver a report on decriminalisation of the drug user and other topics. Given the depth of feeling and passion for our military neutrality in this country, a citizens' forum would have been the more appropriate place. There is an inexorable move from the Government to a weakening or a shaving of our neutrality and that pressure is coming from Europe. I have no doubt it is uncomfortable being Ireland in the context of the EU and discussing foreign policy but we should be proud of that. We should be proud of our difference and of being a squeaky wheel because we are unlike our European neighbours due to our history. We were not the colonisers; we were the colonised. We have a rich, deep and true history of peacekeeping, disarmament and non-proliferation. I acknowledge and am happy to see in the motion, the acknowledgement of our role and that of Frank Aiken leading the charge for Ireland in the UN to deliver what ultimately became the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In a former life, I was proud to be a very junior member of a delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2010 to New York and I saw first hand the power of Irish diplomacy and the esteem in which Irish diplomats are held in the area of disarmament, non-proliferation and in related areas of peacekeeping.

If we come back to what we have experienced in this Chamber in the past year, set against the context of the Middle East, two of the three most recent guests we have had in this Chamber to address us have been Ursula von der Leyen and Joe Biden. As a whole, this House extended to them a very warm welcome and one of respect in order to hear what they had to say. However, from 7 October, when Israel was responding to the Hamas attacks, which we all condemn wholeheartedly as barbaric attacks, it was Ursula von de Leyen and Joe Biden who were the first two global leaders to go out to Israel and give support - wholehearted support in Ursula von der Leyen's case, and Joe Biden not so far behind - for the Israeli response. They have given the imprimatur, the go-ahead, the green light to what is happening in Gaza now which is the slaughter of the innocents and the civilians.

Irish people have traditional support and kinship with the oppressed and with people living under oppressive regimes. That is where we sit. That is the mainstream view in Ireland. It is deeply worrying that we are in a situation where people who are articulating that view are being let go from work or are having difficulties in their workplace because that is the view of the Irish people. We stand shoulder to shoulder with innocent people who are facing slaughter from a hugely disproportionately powerful military force.

My entire life, I have heard through the news and the western media that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. That in itself is contested in terms of the type of Israel is. Even if we take that and do not challenge that aspect of it, there is responsibility on those of military might and power to act in a proportionate and restrained manner in the field of military conflict. That is not happening in Gaza at the moment. I have studied international security and many conflicts and wars, and in all my time I can not remember any occasion where a UN organisation, in this case the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, had to cease operations because it had no fuel. I have never heard the likes of this. The level of blockage that Israel is placing on Gaza is such that the agencies of the United Nations, the international organisation that is supposed to promote and keep peace in the most difficult places, is being denied fuel to operate at a most basic level. That is the level of international law that is being broken by Israel and this is where we need to stand up in our Parliament and as a country and express that power, which I have seen first hand we are capable of doing. However, that is under threat because we are being swept along with the European and EU consensus on common foreign and security policy.

We need to look at the UN as well and operate within the UN as to how fit for purpose it is in providing peacekeeping in modern times. There are three peacekeeping missions in the Middle East at the moment, one of which dates back to 1948 in the West Bank, the Golan Heights in 1973, and Lebanon the most recent in 1978. Ireland needs to work to see how we can deliver peacekeeping in the modern age and in modern conflicts. We fully support the triple lock as a protection on our neutrality at the moment and we support it particularly now when we feel the Government is moving us in a direction that will reach beyond where the Irish people want to be regarding our neutrality. It is not about being impotent in world affairs. We do not think Ireland is, has been, or should be, impotent. There is a threat related to our cybersecurity and we have to resource that area. We have to resource our own Defence Forces to ensure we can protect our own waters and shores. That is not unrelated to the debate here and it is one for which we should be able to call in isolation from also wanting to protect our neutrality.

We are anti-war in Ireland. We are against war and suffering, no matter who starts it, contrives it, or supports it. We will call it as we see it and I am proud to be Irish and of Irish people because we do that. We do it if it is America invading Iraq with the coalition of lies, if it is Russia invading Ukraine, and we are doing it now as we are seeing the massively disproportionate illegal barbaric response of Israel on the people of Gaza. That is where Ireland is. We need to protect our military neutrality and stop training other forces including Ukrainians in small arms, which is another point we would like to make. I thank the proposers for their motion which we support.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I begin by thanking Deputy Connolly and the Independent Group for bringing forward this motion. It is hugely timely and appropriate that we discuss Ireland's position in the world now despite what the Tánaiste said in his comments earlier today.

Last week, I began my contribution to the statements on the conflict that has been raging in the Middle East, with an expression that feels warranted to reiterate here today. We are living through horrible times. In the 109 years that have passed between today and the beginning of the First World War, the world has not been bereft of conflict, war, massacres, genocides, terrorism, evasion, and loss of life on an industrial scale. I certainly would not try to create a hierarchy of these tragedies and their impact upon the generations on whom they befell; I just know that once again we are living through horrible times. Though fortunate enough to be far removed from these horrors, we must each have particular atrocities etched in our minds that capture the barbaric nature of the war. Is it the bombings of the maternity hospital in Mariupol; the counter-offences from Ukraine where every yard of heavily minded territory is being fought with the loss of an, as yet, incalculable number of human lives; the barrel bombing of Aleppo; the drone warfare rained upon the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; the first climate-related conflicts in the Sahel; or the tragedies currently unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East?

While fully appreciating our position in the world is, at this point, a luxury, why in the name of God would we wish to be anything other than a voice of peace in this horrific world? More than ever, as war rages in so many areas around the world and nuclear armed superpowers are once again actively engaged in proxy wars, the world urgently needs voices for peace and countries working towards de-escalation, demilitarisation and disarmament.

I want to spend some time discussing several findings from the much-maligned and much-discussed consultative forum on international security policy that was initiated this year by the Tánaiste. There was an assertion that Ireland's neutrality "is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs". It was reminiscent of the Tánaiste's comments that Irish neutrality is not a lucky charm to protect Ireland and that a reimagining is needed. I will return to this point. I highly refute the assertion made by the consultative forum. There is no evidence for it in the reality of Ireland's position in the world as it is today. It is almost revisionist of the position we have etched out painstakingly through decades of work by Irish politicians and diplomats at UN level over the course of almost 70 years. Let us also not forget the people who put themselves in harm's way in the name of peace on UN missions.

From the outset, the values of self-determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism which derived from Ireland's colonial and post-colonial experience have defined our contribution to peace proposals at the United Nations. Liam Cosgrave, our first Minister for External Affairs to attend the UN, outlined that Ireland is unique in that it is the only western country that has long experience of being treated as a colony, not only having been temporarily occupied during a war but having been governed over many generations by a foreign country whose rule people rejected and strove to shake off. He said this at the UN plenary meeting in 1956.

Ireland's diplomats and our Ministers have used this history to claim some understanding of the psychology of opposing belligerents and have always appealed to both sides in a conflict. This is reminiscent of the Taoiseach's words yesterday when he asked us to take a step back and understand the psyche of some of our European counterparts. Let us understand our own psyche and our own position. Frank Aiken, who was member of the Minister of State's party, said that like many fellow members of the UN, Ireland was a young state but had a people with a proud and ancient history. He said it was coming from such a country that he spoke in the hope that Ireland's profound conviction, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry weight with the UN Assembly. He spoke these words on 23 September 1957. In the present day, Irish ambassadors have explained that most UN member states, being small and former colonies, identify with Ireland's size and history, with Ireland's commitment to the rule of law, equality, justice and multilateralism, and with its discourse, policies and voting positions on decolonisation and disarmament at the UN. This is the exact soft power that is invaluable to our position in the world. It is something we should not let go of lightly.

Frank Aiken insisted that Ireland should maintain independence and not become any part of a tight group bound by agreements to support one another no matter what the subject for discussion. Radical and groundbreaking proposals from Aiken led to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is probably one of the greatest achievements of Irish diplomacy and diplomacy as a whole in the past 100 years.

I wish I was addressing the Tánaiste, who has spoken on this. Since the foundation of the State it has been precisely our position and our adherence to neutrality that has given us legitimacy on the world stage. Any eroding of this impacts on our standing. This is an important point to make. I feel we are entering an era when politicians on the Government side see our position on neutrality as a weakness on the global stage. It is the exact opposite and always has been. The sense of having a maverick independence is what has given us credibility, legitimacy and a place. When the dogs of war and the hawks are assembling, will the Irish position simply be to go in and give a little bark behind them or will we stand forthright and be a voice for peace?

Another point I want to refer to with regard to the consultative forum is that there does not exist in Ireland a popular mandate to abandon the policy of neutrality. I did not need a consultative forum to tell me this. I am reminded every day by the people I meet on the street and when I knock on doors. I live in a constituency that has a proud tradition of people entering the Defence Forces, going overseas and putting themselves in harm's way in the name of peace. The greatest defence they have in this has always been our position on neutrality. I did not need a consultative forum to tell me this.

The Tánaiste went to great pains to speak about the triple lock and the complications that come from it in its current iteration. There is an element of cowardice in the fact he keeps speaking about engineering the conversation but never lays out a plan. This is the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If he has this conviction, he should stand over it. More to the point, he should put it to the people, either in a referendum or laid out as a policy position going into a general election, and let the people decide. This half-conversation, stating we need to speak about it and that there has been a change, is cowardly.

I want to take up another point that was made yesterday at the Security Council, that eastern Europeans here are more inclined to support NATO. I live in a constituency in the north inner city and I am very proud to come from there. A total of 40% of people in my area were born outside of Ireland. Many came here from conflicts. I remember the first refugees from Kosovo coming in the 1990s and how they enhanced the football teams. I know these people as adults now. There is no sense from them, having come from conflict, that they wish in any way to place themselves back in it. They are stringent voices for peace. We should never forget there is no evidence to support the statement that was made.

There is an idea that neutrality is not defined. If it is the case, I believe it is a purposeful and constructed ambiguity. We should not step away from Article 29 of the Constitution which states:

1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2 Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3 Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

What is wrong with this definition? It has served us very well until now. It is given us the proud place we hold in the world and we should not diminish it in any way.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I thank Deputies Connolly and Pringle and the Independent Group for tabling this timely motion before the Chamber. I am sure that when they decided to table it, they had not envisaged the horrors we are witnessing in the Middle East and Gaza. To go back to where it comes from, we have been witnessing the erosion, slow up to a point, of our neutrality over recent years. This has been led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It has rapidly speeded up. The drumbeat of PESCO and how we engage more with European armed forces has been rapidly speeded up since Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine.

Ukraine has been very much used as an excuse to state, as the Government amendment to this motion does, that as a highly globalised country Ireland cannot rely on geographic isolation for our security nor isolate ourselves from world events. Nobody is arguing we should isolate ourselves from world events. In fact, we in this House on the left lead the chants to support the people of Gaza and Palestine and get rid of the brutal oppression that Israeli forces are visiting on them.

We must remember that millions of troops passed through Shannon during the Iraq war and this is likely to continue unless we really question where we are going with our neutrality. The Government side will argue we have to take ourselves seriously in the big bad world and that we have to work with like-minded people. This may have held some water until two weeks ago. Now it is completely blown out of the water. If we look at what has been going on with EU leaders in recent days, one after another every Prime Minister is going to Israel to line up with the butchers of Gaza, shake their hands and put themselves on side. The Government expects us to believe it when it states we must work with our EU partners. We must tell our EU partners they are not doing it in our name when they line up with those who are killing a child every 15 minutes. This will accelerate when the power goes off in the hospitals in Gaza and the incubators are turned off. We cannot speak about this except in terms of genocide. We have to divorce ourselves from any relationship with it.

The motion is timely.

I will finish by quoting from the Rebel website, "In a world already buckling under the weight of multiple, interlocking crises—rapidly expanding inequality, climate catastrophe, a brutal, protracted war in the Ukraine, the growing menace of a resurgent far Right—the turn to merciless slaughter in Gaza has brought us to a precipice." The article on the same website continued by stating that the chant "In our thousands/ In our millions/ We are all Palestinians" is not just "a neat rhyme" and that this was because:

Whatever corner of the globe we ... [live in], humanity’s collective future is very much on the line, right now, in Gaza and ... [in] Palestine. The stakes could not be higher.

On 4 November, the Irish Neutrality League, along with the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Irish Anti-War Movement will be holding a demonstration at 1 p.m., leaving from Parnell Square. I urge everybody who believes in what James Connolly said, that "we serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland", to be on that demonstration.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank Deputies Connolly and Pringle for moving this motion, which we are glad to support to try, at this critical movement, to stop the deliberate, sly push by the Government to abandon our neutrality. In the short time available to me, let me make an obvious point. Let us look at the strength of language and the litany of adjectives used by Government spokespeople to describe the brutal and savage invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the immediate rush to say the Ukrainian people had the right to defend themselves against that savage imperialist onslaught. It was quite right to describe Putin's war in that way and to acknowledge the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves against an illegal and brutal invasion and occupation.

Let us contrast this, however, with the situation concerning the Palestinian people. They are oppressed, although we would not know this if we listened to the Government. The Israeli state is the oppressor. It is occupying the Palestinians' land. It has ethnically cleansed them from their land. It has denied them rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination. For 75 years, the Israeli state has persecuted and oppressed the Palestinians, violated every law under international law and committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. Even in the face of the slaughter we are witnessing in Gaza, does the Government describe Israel's actions as "barbarism", "savage" and "murderous"? No, it does not. We are, instead, concerned. We think that maybe there should be a pause.

Why is this the case? It is because the Government wishes to cuddle up to NATO, the United States and the EU militarists. I do not have time to go through the extent to which Europe is arming and supporting Israel and European funding is underpinning Israel's ability to slaughter the Palestinians. If we were to look at the funding being given to Israeli universities to fund security and weapon innovation, however, we would see that billions of euro of European money are going to sustain the brutal, apartheid regime that is oppressing the Palestinians, and our Government is supporting all this.

Deputy Mick Barry

Louise Richardson's Consultative Forum on International Security Policy report referred to neutrality not being necessary for Ireland's reputation. Regarding the triple lock, it stated that, "While there was not a consensus on this point, the preponderance of views, especially among the experts and practitioners, is that it is time for a reconsideration of the Triple Lock as it is no longer fit for purpose."

These arguments themselves, however, have been weakened by the events of the past two and a half weeks in the Middle East. The very states and institutions this Government would have us align our foreign policy more closely with are precisely those states and institutions that have given the green light to the Israeli state to conduct a war that can only result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Joe Biden, Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron have all done the dirt on the Palestinian people. Biden has sent a Marine Corps three-star general and several military officers to advise the Israeli military. NATO has also had a long and friendly relationship with the Israeli state. As recently as 12 October, the Israeli war minister, Yoav Gallant, dialled into its military committee meeting. This is the same Yoav Gallant, by the way, who said that he had ordered "a complete siege on the Gaza Strip" and:

There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.

I think it is very clear that the case for this country staying out of military alliances has been very much strengthened and not weakened in recent weeks.

Deputy Seán Canney

I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. People's minds have focused on this subject in recent weeks. When we talk about Irish neutrality, this is something that is part of our Constitution. As a State, we are a neutral country. In recent decades, major advances have been made in digitalisation and technology, etc., and it is important we re-examine where we are at in terms of our neutrality. We have issues with cybersecurity, the protection of our seas and areas like this. This means we must collaborate with other nations. Even in the drugs war, we have police officers over today from the United Arab Emirates to talk to people here.

This is a major change from where we were at when our State was founded. It is important, however, that we retain our neutrality. To speak to what has happened in Israel and Palestine in the past two and a half weeks, two wrongs never make a right. I believe the Palestinian people have been used as human shields. They have been starved of water, food and medicine by Israel, and this must be condemned. I also believe that if we are to find a solution in that part of the world, it will not happen overnight.

The saddest thing is we have had this conflict going on for 75 years. It has come at a cost, and that has been in human lives. This continues to be the case. In recent weeks, though, we have seen the use of innocent people, men, women, children and innocent families, in the advance of I do not know what. Even if Hamas were to be wiped out tomorrow morning, that would just be sowing the seeds for something worse than it to emerge in five or six years' time, in the context of young people being indoctrinated in respect of what is being inflicted on them now. We must, therefore, think long and hard about the consequences of going into Palestine and just trying to wipe everybody out to get at a few people. It is purely wrong, and we must say this. We must condemn it and say "Stop".

When we look at Ukraine, we are very much on the side of the Ukrainians because their country has been invaded by Russia and has been targeted, resulting in innocent civilians being killed there. Again, this includes men, women and children. We have proven ourselves to be very good at the humanitarian aspect of the response to this situation.

Looking back in time as well, we can see what we have done in terms of the UN and peacekeeping. It is very important we retain this as our uppermost objective in places where we have conflict in the world. I refer to us acting as peacekeepers who can go into those areas to try to help out. I wish our next cohort of peacemakers well. I think they are leaving Ireland next week to go to Lebanon. May God direct them in their work is what we should be saying to those people because they are going to a place full of conflict. This is an important aspect as well.

From a reputational perspective, because we are a member of the European Union, we may feel we must conform with our European partners in how we deal with war and conflict around the world. As a nation, though, we have been through enough ourselves and through enough conflict to understand conflict does not pay and does not get us anywhere. When we look at what happened in Northern Ireland, the large number of lives lost there over many years, and then the subsequent arrival of peace, it is evident it is important for us to focus on how we can help to deliver peace. We cannot just fall in behind the leaders in Europe or statesmen across the world who believe they are doing the right thing. I say this because no matter where we go, the major powers always have an ulterior motive when they get involved in wars. This ulterior motive can be economic or for some other reason.

Ireland has to keep itself clear that we are a neutral country. We have built a reputation on that and we need to continue to be that beacon of light for lots of countries, especially smaller ones. We as a small nation have been able to offer huge influence internationally and globally when it comes to war. That has been achieved by the fact that we are a neutral country and that we remain neutral. We do not have to define it. We just have to put peace before war and put human people before conflict, money or power. It is important we recalibrate our thinking and actually look at our neutrality. I believe the people of this country want to remain neutral and want to make sure we retain our neutrality even if we are a member of the European Union and even if more of the European Union members want to do something different. We have to stand out, as we have done in the past, and lead by example as a small country that can have a positive influence on the world.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I thank the people who have been involved in our overseas peacekeeping, as the Minister of State will too, I am sure. I am thinking of people like a good friend of my own, Gunner Kevin Quinn from Blackwater, who has served with distinction overseas. This type of service is so important and I thank all the men and women from Ireland, as I know the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach would too, who have served us bravely and put themselves in danger's way to help stabilise safety and peacekeeping around the globe.

In the present day the world is in a precarious state. The first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a proliferation of pre-emptive military actions such as the controversial invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, dominant world powers have resorted to military force as a tool for foreign policy and power projection. This has had profound and destabilising repercussions, often extending beyond what the initiators had initially envisaged. The motion before us rightly underscores the critical fact that Ireland's choice not to partake in international military alliances has been a pivotal tenet of our foreign policy since the inception of the State.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the motion. Like everyone else in this House and around the country, I abhor the atrocities that are going on in the Gaza Strip and the loss of life. When we see young little children injured, murdered and dead in their parents' arms, we can only think what it would be like if it were our own children or our grandchildren. None of us wants that but Ireland has to remain neutral. It will serve nobody's interest by going on one side or the other because we do not have the power.

I thank all our own peacekeeping forces and the great work they do out there. We know what they have done in the past. John O'Mahony from Scartaglin was shot and his two buddies, his comrades, were killed. We appreciate the great work the peacekeepers do and have been doing.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

Why are Irish people welcome all over the world? It is because we are not a threat. In the world cup, why do people say "Ireland standing tall"? It is because we are not a threat. I do not like what is happening in Gaza. It is absolutely disgraceful. The same thing happened in Ukraine. Ireland is seen as a protector but also seen as neutral. This is why we are welcome everywhere.

Given the language being used by the Government, I ask the Minister of State to not make us a threat. In doing so, the Government would put every Irish person in this country at risk. We have no weaponry and we have no way of protecting ourselves from other countries if they decided to target us. I put it to the Minister of State that the Government must be very careful on how it words things. It must make sure we are seen as protectors and not as an enemy to anyone.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I, too, compliment, ar an gcéad dul síos, an Teachta Connolly agus a grúpa for putting the motion forward. I know how passionately she feels about this topic, on which I listened to her speak many times here.

I put it to an tAire Stáit that this motion is very important. Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, we have diminished, damaged and almost destroyed our neutrality and our record. We have had this debate previously and the Minister of State got annoyed with me. The Tánaiste has said our neutrality is an outdated concept. Imagine; as if he had not done enough damage to this country, he now wants to damage our neutrality.

I salute the peacekeepers who have gone out. I think of those who were in Jadotville and the battle there and what Deputy Micheál Martin promised them before he was in power. Now he will not even meet with them. These are the men who are the survivors and they cannot get the recognition. I see now they are getting recognition from Australia and the Australian Parliament.

Our neutrality is so important to us here. Our Irish passport is important to us here. Everything Irish is so important to us and we are entitled to have that. We can punch above our weight if we have the clean image of being neutral and not send out bombs and not have a Ukrainian flag flying out here beside the Tricolour, which I believe is scandalous and undermines our neutrality. It is time we copped on to ourselves now. I was leaving the Houses at dusk and saw the military police - as they do - taking down the Tricolour flag and the Ukrainian flag. The Ukrainian flag goes up and down every day as if it were as important as our own Tricolour. We need to cop ourselves on here. We need the Tánaiste to go out and tell Ursula von der Leyen that she cannot make those comments she made. The EU now just wants to warmonger and Ireland is tagging along to be nice guys. I heard the Taoiseach speaking in the Chamber yesterday when he told an Teachta McDonald how she has to learn about what happens in diplomacy when dealing 27 member states. We, however, stand for ourselves. We stand for Ireland and its proud people. We are proud of our soldiers, those who went out and are now going out and down into bunkers. I hope they come back safe. Some are from my own village in Tipperary. We have a proud record of service as a neutral country.

The Tánaiste has the idea that our neutrality is outdated. He had a roadshow going around and he got his answer. He went to four venues to try to get the people ready, like a citizens' assembly event. He tried to ready up the people for a change here, like he is the man who will completely change everything. Stand by our neutrality. It has done us well.

Deputy Michael Collins

Our neutrality is of huge value to this country. More of late I have seen Ministers questioning it and kicking it around as if it is a political football. It is not a political football. It is of utmost importance to this country. I will look at two reasons. Number one is that our Defence Forces are poorly funded. In recent times we have had helicopters flying and losing doors and Russian ships floating over our communication cables that lie under the seas off the south-west coast and we do nothing about it. Ireland is in a very difficult position if we are going to take on the world with our viewpoints and our senior ministerial viewpoints. We must work towards peace. There is a very upset world out there that is heading to a world war, as somebody said to me recently. Instead of us being at the forefront where we can be for peace in our country, we are now starting to take sides and starting to stoke up unrest in parts of the world where we should not be.

It is time to step back. The majority of the people of this country want us to stay neutral. This is the majority in the polls. I am quite proud to think we are living in a country that is neutral, but we need to work on this neutrality. We must work with the bad people out there as well as the good people to try to see if we can marry them together and create peace in this world, peace in Gaza and peace in Ukraine. We must not be seen to take sides and cause more conflict and anger. Deputy McGrath mentioned the good people who have fought in places such as Jadotville and who have not been recognised. They met with us recently. I also pay tribute to the peacekeeping forces n Lebanon who have been doing their utmost best, with lives lost because of that. It is an opportunity now, and the Minister of State needs one.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I have a question for the Acting Chairman. What kind of a clock have you in Mayo? In the dividing of the time here, whatever way you managed it, I only got a minute and more fellas got four minutes.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

You got your time. It was eight minutes for the whole lot. How you take it is up to yourselves.

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media (Deputy Thomas Byrne)

I am very pleased to join the debate on behalf of the Tánaiste, who is at another event during this part of the debate. I thank Deputies for their valuable contributions. I acknowledge that many people have been very consistent on this issue over many years, as Fianna Fáil has and this Government has. I welcome the recognition of former Fianna Fáil Deputy, Minister and international statesman Frank Aiken in the motion. That is welcome. However, there has also been some crazy stuff said in this debate today. Deputy Michael Collins accused the Government of stoking up unrest. Deputy Mattie McGrath mentioned something about sending out bombs. Deputy Cronin, I think, described the EU as a thoughtless and godforsaken institution.

Deputy Réada Cronin

That is what it is becoming.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I am not saying Deputy Gannon was crazy in this context but he mentioned that Kosovans in this country do not want conflict. I am absolutely certain they do not; he is right on that. However, our peacekeepers in Kosovo have been cited by Sinn Féin in its policy document on neutrality as a threat to our neutrality and as an erosion of it. Peacekeeping in Kosovo is included in a list of things that have eroded our neutrality. There have been a lot of things said in this debate that do not add up. There has been a lot of criticism of the US. I do not speak for President Biden but Members should take a look at his last few tweets. They have all been about the Palestinian people and about aid and support for Palestinian people. There has been criticism of France, one of our closest allies.

Yet there are contradictions. Deputy O’Reilly rightly said that Ireland has played a leading role on the international stage through our diplomats, governments and representatives over many decades. Deputy Ó Murchú said the Irish Government has been a positive. That is the case because of the steady hand the Government has had on foreign policy. We react where it is absolutely necessary and consider things over time. It is fair to say that the initial position of the Tánaiste is now basically the position that pretty much the rest of the EU has taken. There have been divergent views around the EU table - that is not a secret - but that was the position the Tánaiste took on day one. He did not take two days, like the leader of the Opposition, to condemn that Hamas attack. The position he took on day one is the current position and is the correct position in terms of what is right by international humanitarian law, namely, that we condemn it unreservedly when 1,200 people get killed by Hamas and acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself but we also say to Israel that it has to do this within the confines of international law. That applies to everybody.

The Government has said in relation to neutrality that there is a changed geopolitical context and a wider threat environment in Europe, and that this calls for a serious consideration of our approach to international security issues and the contribution we can and should make to the safety and security of Europe. In a highly globalised economy, and Ireland is a highly globalised country, we cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events. As we debate these issues, it is important to be clear on precisely what we are discussing. Ireland’s policy of military neutrality has been practised by successive governments over many decades, and Fianna Fáil Governments are very proud of that policy because it has contributed to the global standing of Ireland and has contributed to world peace. Those who have actually implemented it on the ground, our soldiers, deserve the greatest thanks of all. This means we do not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. It is also important to reiterate that there are no plans to alter our policy of military neutrality. The Government’s countermotion explicitly reaffirms this position, a policy that I have been proud of for many decades.

I also want to reinforce the important aspects of Ireland’s foreign policy which have shaped our engagement for decades. We have a long-standing commitment to contributing to international peace and security, as enshrined in the UN Charter. This means we take an active approach – we do not sit back - towards peace support operations and crisis management. We contribute to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, work for human rights and development and promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. This is our consistent position, which, to be fair, is acknowledged in this motion and has been acknowledged by some of the speakers in the Opposition. We also support a strong EU role, with our fellow democracies in Europe, in supporting the maintenance of international peace and security and we engage actively in the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and since 2017, through the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO.

PESCO is presented by some members of this House as a Trojan horse, leading to the eventual participation by Ireland in a notional European army. This is a false narrative that is deliberately peddled by some in an effort to misrepresent the reality. Many people today quoted neutral Austria but they did not tell us the reasons Austria is neutral. There is a very complicated historical picture there around the Soviet Union leaving Austria. Austria is also a member of PESCO but it does not see it as a threat to its neutrality. Our participation in PESCO is entirely voluntary, with groups of EU member states co-operating with one another on projects of mutual interest. Ireland has the joint lowest rate of participation of the 26 participating member states. The Government believes we need to do more, not less, through PESCO, if we want our Defence Forces to have the capabilities they need. The Opposition talks about providing our Defence Forces with that capability. Particularly in Kildare, in Deputy Cronin’s area, the Defence Forces would support further capabilities for the work they need to do.

We believe that a multilateral system, with the UN Charter at its heart, remains our strongest protection and the State’s most important security asset, though getting involved in the world. Ireland’s commitment is to a values-based foreign policy, to multilateralism and to a policy of military neutrality. That does not insulate us from the harsh new security environment. As the Tánaiste said, neutrality is not a magic charm to protect us from malign actors. Against this backdrop, the Tánaiste recently convened a consultative forum on international security policy. The aim of the forum was to build a deeper level of understanding of the threats faced by the State and to examine the security policy options available. The forum discussed these issues in a wider foreign policy context, including Ireland’s work to protect the rules-based international order and the lessons from our UN Security Council membership. The chairperson of the forum recently submitted a report which provides an overview of these discussions and the public consultation. The report is now being reviewed by the Tánaiste and has been published online.

It is the Government’s view that the motion presented by the Independent Group effectively closes off deliberations on this report before they have begun. This also has the effect of reducing those options to the binary ones presented in the motion, rather than holding a nuanced, open conversation on the international security challenges facing the State and the best way to address them. Further, we do not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in our Constitution is appropriate. There are already several provisions in our Constitution that underpin Ireland's foreign and security policy. In particular, Article 29 reads, "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." There are certainly outdated provisions in the Constitution de Valera wrote and we need to change them, but here is one that is certainly not outdated. Article 29.4.9, which is an amendment from more recent times, states, "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." In other words, we cannot take part in a European common defence without a referendum. We just cannot do it. This has been widely thrashed out in various European referendums we have had. Indeed, the protocols attaching to the Lisbon treaty specifically recognise Ireland’s policy of military neutrality. They state, "The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality." That is one of the protocols.

At the same time, the motion makes reference to the need for the State to ensure its territory cannot be used by other states to transport war material or personnel to third countries for the purpose of war or other armed conflict. Everyone in this House already knows that foreign state and military aircraft that are permitted to land at Irish airports, including at Shannon Airport, must comply with strict conditions. These include routine stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence gathering, and that the flights in question must not form part of any military exercises or operations. These conditions are applied to all international partners. They are not specific to individual states, and are with full respect for Ireland’s military neutrality. These will continue to be held up.

As the House is aware, earlier this year the Government approved Ireland’s participation in the EU assistance mission in support of Ukraine, the mandate for which is to strengthen the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces to defend the country’s territorial integrity under international law and to deter and respond to Russia’s aggression. In July, the Government agreed to increase the level of the Defence Forces’ engagement, including through the provision of basic military training, mine flail training, leadership training and drill instructor training. These training modules respond directly to the identified needs of the Ukrainian armed forces and reflect the capacity and capability of the Defence Forces. All training delivered will be within the terms of the Government’s approval. Ireland has participated actively in CSDP crisis management missions across the world for many years.

Importantly, the Government’s view is that the countermotion proposed sets out the context of Ireland’s international engagement more accurately and more comprehensively than as provided in the original motion. It does not pre-empt the important discussions the Dáil has to have on the outcome of the report prepared by the chair of the consultative forum. It is clear from the substantial engagement in the forum, as well as the debate here today, that there is a real interest and diverse range of views on Ireland’s international security policy.

As the Tánaiste said, this is welcome. The countermotion calls for an ongoing debate on these important aims. It explicitly commits to having a Dáil debate on the outcome of the consultative forum, including its report, and possible next steps without delay.

Deputy Marian Harkin

I will largely refer to comments made by the Tánaiste this morning. There are certainly one or two points I take issue with. He said we need a debate to draw out what we mean by neutrality. The debate on the motion this morning certainly does that. We need that debate and we are having it this morning, but I note that the Government's amendment to the motion states that the Government "is committed to a Dáil debate on the outcome of the Consultative Forum" it established and that it "will consider in this light whether to bring forward a set of specific follow-up actions and policy recommendations, building on the report of the Forum", etc.

The Minister of State accused us of closing down the debate, but the Government amendment considerably narrows the focus of the debate. As I said, its proposal is to debate the outcome of the forum and bring forward, if appropriate, recommendations building on its report. If that is the extent of the discussion, rather than a broad open discussion on neutrality - this motion is certainly a useful part of the discussion - and if that is the extent of the Government's proposals, it needs to examine its conscience, as the Tánaiste stated, about closing down aspects of this important debate. This motion is not the final word on any discussion on neutrality - far from it - but it is an open, reasonably balanced attempt to look at many of the different aspects that impact on our neutrality.

The Government's amendment states "the Government does not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution is appropriate". It seems the Government made that decision before any debate took place, but it says we are closing down the possibility of drawing out what is meant by neutrality. I would have thought a decision on a referendum on neutrality would be the end-point of detailed discussions rather than a decision being taken that it would not even be considered. I agree with the Tánaiste regarding simplistic constitutional amendments. They would hold real risk, but no one is suggesting simplistic constitutional amendments. We did not suggest wording; we simply suggested that work needs to be done to find a wording and put it to the people.

Our Constitution provides the foundation for our action on neutrality. The Defence (Amendment) Act 1960 stipulated that overseas deployment of our Defence Forces could only happen with UN approval and a resolution by the Dáil and was built on by the triple-lock amendment to our Constitution as part of the Nice treaty. To say as a starting point that we cannot or should not touch our Constitution to refine or update it in regard to our policy on neutrality, rather than have that as an end-point to any discussion, closes down certain aspects of the debate.

The Tánaiste said the motion, if passed, would constrain the Executive's ability to exercise its policymaking function and authority in the conduct of external relations as articulated by Article 29 of the Constitution. I would like to see more clarity on that. I have looked carefully at what we called on the Government to do. It was to:

- affirm and reiterate our steadfast commitment to neutrality

- [hold] a referendum....

- maintain and strengthen our role as a responsible, non-aligned and impartial nation...

- continue to support international peacekeeping efforts.....

- work to raise awareness of....neutrality

- ensure the inspection of civilian and military planes....to verify that they are lawful...

- properly fund and resource our Defence Forces; and

- confirm and ensure that Irish Defence Forces' personnel are not, and will not be , involved in lethal weapons training of foreign military forces.

How will any of that constrain the ability of the Executive to act? What actions is the Government thinking of taking that would be constrained by this? The motion contains a reasonable request. We want to be part of the debate on neutrality and to see that it is not constrained by being based only on the recommendations of the forum.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I reiterate my gratitude to the various Members who spoke. I will pick up on what Deputy Harkin said. I could not say it any better than she did. The motion was signed by my colleagues and supported by a huge section of the Dáil. We called on the Government to consider eight points. The Tánaiste chose to focus on one of them: the proposal for a referendum - and steadfastly ignored all the others.

For example, on Shannon Airport, I asked for an inspection of "civilian and military planes traveling through Irish airports to verify that they are lawful". That was studiously ignored. I understand the Minister of State brought a little balance in his speech by referring to the Constitution. However, in the whole of the Tánaiste's speech there was no reference to the Constitution or to the many battles we have had about amendments to various treaties when people were concerned about the gradual erosion of our neutrality.

He told us that the motion holds real risks and asked why we would wish to prevent a current or future Government from using the full range of instruments. According to the Tánaiste, my motion, signed by five other Members and supported by a huge number of Deputies is the risk. He did not refer to the risk of losing our neutrality, or of leading a narrative in a so-called debate characterised by the consultative forum on international security policy - that is the title. There is no mention of human rights or the Constitution in the whole document produced by the forum, like in the Tánaiste's speech. The debate is framed by international security policy, not human rights or how we can use our neutrality in a positive way. That approach was continued in the Tánaiste's speech today in which he told us that the motion we have put before the Dáil today pre-empts the discussion that he wants to have in the frame or narrative set out by Professor Dame Louise Richardson. He accused us of quoting liberally from her report. I am absolutely aghast at how it is written. It is badly written. It is a self-serving narrative and a framed debate.

As Deputy Harkin pointed out, we will have a debate on the report, not on neutrality or on how it can be used in a positive way. There is no confusion about what neutrality means on my part or the part of anyone I listened to today. It means taking an active, proud role in world affairs. It does not mean stepping back. It is not what certain sections of the media call "free riding". It is about using our voice and experience to promote peace. Can the Minister of State imagine, if instead of talking about a military-industrial complex and vast profits - because companies that are equal partners with or on the same level as the Commission and unelected officials in Europe are the only ones winning - we were to use our collective voice to promote peace in the world?

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

We are.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We are not doing so. We are absolutely not. We are getting rid of our neutrality bit by bit.

We recently had a 45-minute limited discussion with a guillotine on the European Defence Agency and the European Defence Fund. I understand from comments in the media that representatives of the European Defence Agency fund were recently wined and dined in Ireland and entertained by members of the Government to facilitate the arms industry in the future. It was probably naive of me to think the Government might see sense and not see the motion as a risk or danger, but rather as an open invitation to stand together to assert our policy of neutrality in a world that greatly needs our voice.

To conclude, I return to the Tánaiste condemning Russia and not a mention of Israel. That undermines our credibility as a neutral State.

Amendment put.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time this evening.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023