Brian Stanley challenges £800bn EU defence plan and neutrality

I think you know there's a lot of badness around this £800 billion, the only thing certain is the £150 billion, and that's loans, loans to Member States. I can't help thinking that £800 billion is a shift in funding, and I know you mentioned it in a vague way that the private sector may have to see opportunities for investment or may not. But I think that it represents a huge shift in public spending from other areas, because, you know, the national cake in any country drinks the big, and I think you'd have to accept that. I think in relation to the overall £800 billion, I think it's as clear as mud where it's coming from. I think that point, I just want to make that point. I read the briefing documents, and I'm kind of interested in some of what's in them. You know, they talk about mobilising the £800 billion for defence, deepening the single defence market, enhancing the industrial capacity, strengthening the industrial base. Like it really is, there's a lot of, you know, a lot of heavy-duty mobilisation planned here, providing support, training and support for the Ukrainian armed forces to improve their military capabilities towards using the documents. Military capabilities. Now, again, like the previous speaker, I know once I would have tried it wrong, but that's not the debate here. But I cannot, in my head, square how assisting somebody directly to improve their military capabilities squares with our position of neutrality. And I don't know whether there's been any discussion around that at an official level. I mean, I've heard the political answer in the Chamber, but I just can't, I can't figure out how that works. And a few huge concerns around, you know, the priorities within, if you're taking it within SAFE itself, that the, you know, establishing a common strategic vision and concrete objectives to strengthen EU security and defence policy by 2030. It goes on to broaden your commitments to European solidarity and security, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine. And again, in the document it says, under SAFE, it says, provide training for Ukrainian armed forces to improve their military capabilities and support their defence. It's, you know, I mean, like we're not giving them pillows to sleep on around the night, you know, military capability is military capability. And I don't see how, you know, I mean, I've heard the Taoiseach answering these questions around this in the Dáil, and he talks about, he has talked about it, if I recall correctly, mine, you know, scanning for mines and that, and the like of that. OK, but improving military capacity is a completely different matter, which I'd just like to comment on that, that particular term, improving military capabilities and support. That to me, that cannot mean anything or any one thing. Is that enough? Yes. Thank you, David. I think we all would agree with the assessment that it would be preferable if the geopolitical situation didn't require Member States to invest in military capabilities to deter a Russian attack, particularly those Member States to the East. Member States, particularly those in the East, have made sovereign decisions that they need to increase their defence readiness to enhance deterrence and to preserve long-term peace in Europe. Sorry, Mr. Romero, you're taking me off in a different direction. What I'm asking is, what I'm asking is, what I'm asking is, what I've read to you there, you know, how does that, you know, can you see a contradiction in that, in terms of squaring that with our policy of military neutrality? What may I pass to Mr Fitzgerald? Thank you. Having sat in the room for the past three years, dealing with these regulations, and meeting and talking and engaging with Member States colleagues from the Eastern flank, it is very, very clear that the Russia's war of aggression highlighted severe weaknesses in Member States' defence capabilities. No, no. No, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Deputy, I will come out to my answer, I do apologize. Those same defence capabilities are the capability requirements of the Defence Forces. So, these mechanisms to support, are being designed to support all Member States, and it's voluntary, there may be projects that we will look at, we will look at engaging with, and we will see if they meet our own capability development needs. But it's, but it's for us to step into, it's certainly not something being handed down to us or dictated down to us by the Commission. But does, and you know, you mentioned it as well, Mr Fitzgerald, or Mr Romaro mentioned, deciding everything on the individual case, but I mean, if at a high level within Europe, if the direction of travel is very much in that direction, and I mean, you know, will it mean, for example, possible involvement in EU battle groups, and, you know, possible deployment of Irish troops, Irish boats on the ground in Ukraine? Thank you. Deputy, I'll just add on a little bit to my piece, and perhaps I'll hand over to Breein then, just on the European battle group. The, currently, certainly in 2024, it's estimated that European, Member States, European defence funds or investments in military equipment or defence equipment was about 340 billion. Roughly, roughly, approximately 80% of that went outside the European Union. So these industries are already in existence. What a lot, what, what, what main objectives of these regulations that we're talking about here now is to present the opportunities to Europeanise supply chains on behalf of Member States. That, why would we be sending so much of taxpayers' money outside of Europe, for example, to the United States, Canada, or elsewhere, South Korea, who produce a large number of defence products, when we could have our own domestic capability, our own domestic manufacturing? I think this is one of the core points here. We are talking about your taxpayers' money, and perhaps now this is the correct vehicle, or a good vehicle to try and, and, and, and keep, keep those opportunities here. And one of the angles from, I think, Senator Smith was talking about, it was, when we were, when we were sitting at the table, during negotiations, we were talking about, well, what is Ireland's policy? What are we looking for when we're reading these regulations? One of those key policies is, is that economic? Is there something here that is inclusive of all Member States, even the smaller ones who don't have a big prime industry? Is there a small SME in Limerick or Shannon or Cork that could have availed of European funding? Develop high-end jobs here. No, sorry. Yes. No, no. Sorry. The question I'm asking is, is this, is that, if this leads, you know, could this lead to a deployment of, of Irish boots on the ground in Ukraine? And, and possible engagement with Russian forces? Yes, I think you have dealt with the KIPA, please, but I'll hand over the brief for the, uh... I'm asking the question. My, my position is... I've heard a number of answers, but I haven't got, I haven't got the question answered. Yeah, sorry, I cover industry, please, so I'll pass over the brief. So I understand what the fund is for, that part of it for investment, if companies, yeah, too low. So, Devin, in, in, in, in, in terms of, um, you raised two questions, uh, one on the battle of participation and, um, and, and, and one on the, on the Ukraine. In terms of the battle group, uh, the EU and our EU partners accept that defence and security is a national competence. The Irish protocols, the Lisbon Treaty, specifically state that the Lisbon Treaty does not provide for the creation of, uh, of a European army. The battle group is not seen as that. It doesn't, participation in it has no effect on our traditional policy of military neutrality. Uh, our participation in the current iteration of the battle group takes place on a training basis. Were it ever to be deployed, it would be, Ireland participation would be, uh, considered on the basis of our, uh, current legislative provisions with regard to overseas deployments. In the event of Irish, Irish participate, potential defence forces participation in any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is, uh, is a whole other matter and a number of issues. I know the, the, the, the teaching and thought should have said that potentially we would be open to participation in that, but the circumstances aren't there at present. There would need to be a ceasefire. There would need to be UN Security Council mandate for defence forces participation currently. And, and those circumstances are not there. Okay. Thank you.