UK BREXIT PLANS and AGREEMENT of EU Defence The Realisation of Permanent Structured Cooperation PESCO

UK BREXIT PLANS AND AGREEMENT OF EU
Defence the realisation of Permanent

Structured Cooperation PESCO
Published Tuesday, October 16, 2018
On 13 November 2017, 23 EU Member States submitted a Joint Notification
to the EU Council of Ministers setting out their intention to utilise the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) mechanism to further European
defence (CSDP). Ireland and Portugal notified the Council of Ministers of
their intention to join in early December and a Decision formally launching
PESCO was adopted on 11 December 2017. The first 17 capability projects
were formally launched in March 2018. The UK did not sign the Joint
Notification and will, therefore, remain outside of PESCO. In doing so, the UK
will have no decision making rights over its governance or veto over its
future strategic direction.
Jump to full report >>

At a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council (including Defence) on 13 November 2017,
Ministers from 23 EU Member States signed a Joint Notification on Permanent
Structured Cooperation. The first formal step in establishing PESCO, that notification
set out the principles of PESCO, the list of commitments that participating Member
States have agreed to undertake and proposals on PESCO governance and the overall
ambition for the project.
A Decision formally establishing PESCO was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 11

December 2017. Participating states also adopted a Declaration outlining the initial
capability projects to be pursued under the remit of PESCO. Formal approval of those
17 projects was given in March 2018.
Basics of PESCO
 Participation in PESCO will be voluntary and decision-making within the PESCO

mechanism will only be taken by participating states. Those EU states which do not
participate in PESCO will have no decision making rights and no veto over its future
strategic direction.
 PESCO will have a two-layered structure. The Council of Ministers will be
responsible for the overall policy direction and assessment mechanism to
determine if Member States are fulfilling their commitments. Each project will be
managed by those Member States which contribute to it.
 The PESCO Secretariat will be provided through existing CSDP structures,
primarily the EU External Action Service, including the EU Military Staff, and the
European Defence Agency. Any administrative expenditure will be charged to the
EU budget.
 As a treaty-based mechanism any commitments undertaken by participating
states will be legally binding. National implementation plans will be subject to
regular assessment by the Council of Ministers.
 Any participating State will be able to propose projects to the PESCO
Secretariat. With regard to capability development, the EDA will ensure that there
is no duplication with existing initiatives in other institutions, such as NATO. The EU
High Representative will make recommendations to the Council of Ministers on
those projects which contribute to the EU’s ‘Level of Ambition’ and are best suited
to furthering Europe’s ‘strategic autonomy’. The Council (only participating PESCO
states) will then decide, by unanimity, on the list of PESCO capability projects.
 Third party states may be invited to participate in specific PESCO projects,
where it is demonstrated that they bring “substantial added value”. Those states
will not, however, have any decision making rights.
 Capabilities developed through the PESCO mechanism will remain under
national control. They will not be “EU” assets and will not form the basis of an “EU
Army”. States will be able to make those capabilities available through other
frameworks such as NATO and the UN.
Next steps
Work is now underway by the participating nations of each individual PESCO project
to define objectives and timelines for each project. An update is expected at the next
meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 19-20 November 2018.
In May 2018 a call for new project proposals was also issued by the PESCO
Secretariat. Following a 6-month period of assessment, the next set of PESCO
projects is expected to be formally adopted by the Council in November 2018.
The conditions under which third party states may be invited to participate in
individual PESCO projects are currently under consideration, with a Decision, in
principle, to be adopted in November and formally agreed at the European Council in
December 2018.
Position of the UK
The UK Government did not sign the Join Notification on 13 November 2017. As such
it will remain outside of PESCO. In doing so the UK will have no decision making
rights over PESCO governance or any veto over the future strategic direction of
PESCO, which has been openly acknowledged as greater EU integration in the field of
defence.
Post-Brexit the Government has indicated its preference for third party participation in
mutually beneficial PESCO projects, determined on a case-by case basis, to remain as
an option. The UK has already expressed an interest in a Dutch-led project on military
mobility, which complements efforts currently underway on this issue within NATO.
However, the terms of third party participation are for the participating PESCO states
to determine, which the UK will have to find acceptable.
NOTIFICATION ON PERMANENT STRUCTURED COOPERATION (PESCO) TO THE

COUNCIL AND TO THE HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND SECURITY POLICY
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31511/171113-pesco-notification.pdf
Commissioner Rosenworcel’s full dissent to the net neutrality repeal issued the
following statement- “So many people rightfully believe Washington is not listening to
their concerns, fears, 2018-11-15
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-
348261A6.pdf
National University of Ireland THE ROLE OF IRISH MILITARY 2014

http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/5058/1/Brian_D_Martin_20140620160904.pdf
U.S. Military Edge Has Eroded to ‘A Dangerous

Degree,’ Study for Congress Finds (excerpt)
(Source: Washington Post; posted Nov 14, 2018)
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-
defense.pdf
National Defense Strategy Commission Releases Its Review of 2018 National
Defense Strategy (Source- National Defense Strategy Commission; issued Nov 13,
2018)
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-
defense.pdf
UK 'keen to support' French plan for European military ... The UK is backing a French plan to create a
European military intervention force separate to the EU's PESCO pact as a way to maintain strong
defense ties with the European Union after Brexit
https://thedefensepost.com/2018/05/05/uk-france-european-military-intervention-support/
PESCO LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS Subject-

COUNCIL DECISION establishing Permanent Structured Cooperation
(PESCO) and determining the list of Participating Member States
council decision establishing PESCO sets out a list of commitments by

members, including “regularly increasing defence budgets in real terms
in order to reach agreed objectives,
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32000/st14866en17.pdf
Declaration on PESCO projects On the occasion of the adoption of the

Council Decision establishing Permanent Structured Cooperation
(PESCO), the EU Member States participating in PESCO-
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32020/draft-pesco-
declaration-clean-10122017.pdf
The United States and Europe- Current Issues Security Policy (CFSP)
and Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).2 Meanwhile, NATO
remains the preeminent security institution of the Euro-Atlantic
community. Given the United States’ leading role in the Atlantic
alliance,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22163.pdf
Debates - Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - Treaty of Nice and
the ...
Treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union (2001/2022(INI))
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-
0168+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, four years ago, when I had the honour of
presenting the statement on the Treaty of Amsterdam to this Parliament, together with my friend Dimitri Tsatsos, I ended that
speech by recalling the words of Miguel de Cervantes who, when old and tired and weary of life, said that there were times
when one had to chose between the road or the inn, between moving forward and staying put, and I said: ‘we must chose the
road, we must move ahead’. Amsterdam is one more step in that direction. I remember that the Commissioner, our good
friend Marcelino Oreja, replied to me with more words from Miguel de Cervantes, telling us of the sorcerers, who can deprive
us of everything, but never of our hope.
Does the Treaty of Nice, therefore, represent that hope which the European Parliament had put its faith in? The answer is
clear: no, it is not what the European Parliament was asking for, because the European Parliament wanted a thoroughgoing
reform of the institutions; because the European Parliament wanted to prepare the Union for enlargement; because the
European Parliament wanted to deal with the problems of concern to the citizens. The truth, however, is that the
governments, which control the agenda at an Intergovernmental Conference, took a different decision and the agenda was,
therefore, not the one the European Parliament wanted.
The Treaty of Nice has not resolved many of these issues. It has only resolved some of them, satisfactorily in some cases
and insufficiently in others. I believe that the merit of this resolution – if it has any – and of this report that Antonio Seguro and
myself are presenting, is that it is a balanced document, which reflects that nature of a Parliament which is no longer merely
there to provide impetus but is now a co-decision maker. A co-decision-making Parliament means a responsible Parliament
and, therefore, a Parliament which has to do things in a balanced way.
I would like to pay tribute to all the members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs who have worked extremely hard to
reach a consensus, starting with its Chairman, Giorgio Napoletano, and also my good friend, Antonio Seguro, who has not
only been a solid and intelligent contributor, but also an honest one.
We are, therefore, talking about a balanced document, in which we explain what we do not like and what we want to see
modified in the future, because agreements, and the Treaty of Nice is an agreement, do not last forever – forever is no more
than an adverb of time – and are liable to be reformed. The Treaty of Nice itself contains the seed of such a reform. I believe
that this resolution looks to the future, towards that Declaration No 23, which lays down the basis for reform.
In this constructive spirit, we wanted to help the Swedish Presidency, with which we have had much contact over the last few
months, so that this European Council in Gothenburg may show us the future of the European Union through the responses
of its institutions.
Madam President, we want to see national committees set up in all the Member States so that the people may hold a
genuine debate, not a phoney one, and in that way we will discover what the citizens want of Europe in the future.
This Parliament also wishes to see the Intergovernmental Conferences prepared by means of a democratic method. We
believe that the convention that drafted the Charter on Fundamental Rights should provide the model for this democratic
method. Today, when we are seeing so many proposals from different people, all on the convention – which is a positive start
– I would say that what the European Parliament wants is a convention based on the model of the convention which drafted
the Charter of Fundamental Rights: on that one and none other; because that model was shown to be successful and it
brought together various authorities in order to achieve the desired result.
On the basis of the convention model, we want the result of that convention also to be the role played by the governments in
the Intergovernmental Conference. We are going to make constitutional proposals, and we must not be afraid of the term
‘constitutional’ because, when we talk of competences or institutional structure, we are talking about constitutional issues.
The result we are seeking is a European Constitution, and I wish to make this completely clear, a European Constitution
which makes everybody’s competences absolutely clear and, above all, makes it clear what each institution does within the
institutional structure. We want this to be ready before 2004, before the European Parliament elections, so that the political
groups in this House can go into these elections defending our choices.
Madam President, I believe – and I recall my initial comments – that this is a path of hope. We are facing the Europe of the
euro, the Europe of enlargement, and it is up to us whether this is a path of hope or a path which leads us to a situation of
stalemate in the European Union, which none of us want to see. I therefore want this resolution to make a constructive
contribution to this road of hope becoming ever broader and our becoming ever more European.
pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20010530+ITEM-
005+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=MT
IN THE CHAIR: MR COX

President
SAYS ‘ Irish people do not have clear concerns which they want
addressed before any further referendum on the Treaty of Nice. The
majority want assurances that Ireland's traditional military neutrality
will be fully protected BY EU
pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20020612+ITEM-
001+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top
The Council of the European Union established the Permanent

Structured Cooperation on security and defense (PESCO) consisting of
25 member states at a Monday, December 11 meeting of the Foreign
Affairs Council.
PESCO was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and allows states

participating the the joint framework to develop joint defence
capabilities, invest in shared projects, and enhance the operational
readiness and contribution of their armed forces.
The deal is part of a push from Germany and France for enhanced
defense cooperation and follows the announcement in June of a €5.5
billion ($6.4 billion) European Defence Fund.
The states participating are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.
On November 13, 23 states signed a joint notification on PESCO, while
Ireland and Portugal signalled their intent to join the defense
cooperation pact on December 7, leaving Denmark, Malta and the U.K.
as the only current E.U. members outside the deal.
Ireland’s decision to join PESCO is controversial. Opposition
lawmakers criticised the government, saying the allotted two hours
parliamentary debate on the decision was minimal and warned that
Ireland’s perceived neutral status could be further undermined.
Others argueit is contrary to the Irish Constitution, which says that the
state will not adopt a common E.U. defense where such a defense would
include the participation of the state.
The council decision establishing PESCO sets out a list of commitments
by members, including “regularly increasing defence budgets in real
terms in order to reach agreed objectives,” as well as its governance,
administrative arrangements and a list of 17 proposed initial projects in
training, capability development and operational readiness.
The projects are expected to be adopted by the Council in early 2018,
the release said, and include a network of logistic hubs; military
mobility; a deployable military disaster relief capability; an armoured
infantry fighting vehicle, amphibious assault vehicle and light armoured
vehicle; and indirect fire support (EuroArtillery).
The logistic hubs and military mobility – dubbed the “military
Schengen” – is a long-held goal of NATO and some E.U. member
states. The European Commission on November 10 said that it along
with EU High Representative and Vice President Federica Mogherini
will propose a plan on military mobility in Europe by March 2018.
European Defence Agency: Motion: 3 Nov 2016: Oireachtas

Joint ...
Deputy O'Sullivan that Ireland's traditional policy on military neutrality is
completely unaffected by the Treaty on European Union as amended by the
Lisbon treaty. We are not and will not become, as a result of the treaty, part of
any alliance or military
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SOLD US OUT, FF, FG, SF AND LB
SOME NAMES MENTIONED HERE AND WHAT COMMENTS THEY MADE AND
SUGGESTED
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas

source
All mobile phones should be switched off as they cause
interference, even if left in silent mode, with the recording
equipment in the committee rooms.
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following motion
which was referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann on 18
October 2016:
That Dáil Éireann approves the participation by Ireland in two
European Defence Agency Projects - (1) MARSUR Networking –
Adaptive Phase (MARSUR II) and (2) Cooperation on Cyber
Ranges in the European Union pursuant to section 2 of the
Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, and his
officials. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening
statement.
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)Link to this: Oireachtas source

In commending the motion to the select committee, I will briefly
outline the function of the European Defence Agency, EDA, and
the background to the programmes in which Ireland wishes to
participate. The EDA was established by a joint action of the
Council of the European Union in 2004, "to support the Member
States and the Council in their effort to improve European
defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to
sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands
now and develops in the future". On 6 July 2004, the
Government approved Ireland's participation in the framework of
the European Defence Agency on the basis of a memorandum
submitted by the Minister for Defence, in association with the
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The EDA is an agency of the European Union. The High
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy and Vice President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini,
is head of the agency. Federica Mogherini is also chairman of the
EDA steering board, its decision-making body, which is composed
of defence Ministers of the 27 participating member states, that
is, all EU member states except Denmark, which has an opt-out
on defence matters under Protocol 5 to the Treaty of Amsterdam,
and the European Commission.
Ireland participates in the framework of the agency and
contributes in the region of €311,000 to the annual costs of
running the agency including its annual work programme.
Outside of the annual general work programme, the agency also
supports a range of other work programmes and projects funded
on an ad hocbasis by the member states in various compositions.
In some instances, all member states will participate in these
projects and programmes unless they specifically decide to opt
out. These are referred to as Category A projects or
programmes. In other cases, a small number of member states
will group together to pursue a particular initiative. These are
referred to as Category B projects or programmes.
The EDA is focused on assisting member states in capability
development, obtaining better value for existing spending levels,
improving competitiveness and securing greater efficiency
particularly in the areas of research, technology, manufacturing
and procurement, which have been notable for fragmentation
and duplication. The Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009
regulates Ireland's participation in EDA ad hoc projects. It
prescribes that participation in Category A or B projects or
programmes is subject to Government and Dáil approval. The
primary reason for Ireland's participation in the EDA is to support
the development of Defence Forces capabilities for peacekeeping
and international crisis management.
I will give a brief outline of Ireland's involvement to date in EDA
projects and programmes, following Government and Dáil
approval. Ireland participated in a Category A programme on
force protection, which is now completed. This involved measures
to protect military forces engaged in operational activities. This is
a key issue for the Defence Forces engaged in peace support and
crisis management operations overseas. We participated in
another Category A programme, which is also completed, on
chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection. This is a
key capability area for the Defence Forces. Participation in this
programme and access to the results of the research, studies and
development work packages undertaken by the programme
enables the Defence Forces to remain at the leading edge of
capability development in this key area.
Ireland is participating in a Category B project on counter-
improvised explosives devices manual neutralisation techniques,
which was set up to address counter-improvised explosives
devices manual neutralisation techniques training, which has
been identified as a crucial skill and capability to be developed.
Manual neutralisation techniques are used for explosive ordnance
disposal and improvised explosive device, IED, disposal.
Operators, on occasions, cannot use remote or semi-remote
techniques to render an IED safe, and these complex explosive
devices have to be neutralised manually. For example, manual
neutralisation techniques are used where there is an immediate
threat to the life of hostages who have an IED attached to them.
The project began in 2014 and will run for four years.
Ireland has participated in another Category B project, which is
now completed, on maritime surveillance. This programme
further developed the recognised maritime picture exchange
network technology that allows for the sharing of information
among the wider EU defence community in support of the EU's
Common Security and Defence Policy and the EU Commission's
initiative to establish a common information-sharing
environment.
The proposal I am putting to the committee is to seek approval
for Ireland to participate in two EDA projects, one in the area of
maritime surveillance and one in the area of cyber ranges.
MARSUR Networking – Adaptive Maintenance, known as MARSUR
II, is a Category B project, and is a follow-on to the Category B
project on maritime surveillance networking, which I mentioned,
which ended in October 2015. The objective of that project was
to develop an automated information-sharing environment
through the development of software technologies and the
formation of a network to enhance information sharing within the
maritime surveillance community.
This web-based system is now operational and information on
the positions of ships, fishery protection and maritime safety and
security is exchanged in a number of electronic forms between
member states participating in the project. While the national
operational system in Ireland is located in the naval base, with
the user interface located in the naval operations centre, the
system can be accessed from a remote location, including when
ships are deployed. This is proving particularly useful for the
Naval Service which is carrying out humanitarian operations in
the Mediterranean. Classified information on the location of other
craft in the area, as well as the locations of migrants who need to
be rescued, is being exchanged with the Italian authorities. The
original 13 member states, including Ireland, contributed
€80,000 each to develop the system.
The main objective of the follow-on Category B project is life
cycle support of the existing maritime surveillance capability
through the provision of adaptive maintenance, system upgrades
and enhancements and technical support. The project is
necessary to ensure Ireland gets the full value of the initial
project. It will ensure the system is maintained, kept up to date
and adapted to meet the outgoing needs of the Naval Service. In
order to maintain and increase our capability in this area, it is
important that Ireland participate in the follow-on project. It will
also improve the Defence Forces' inter-operability and
operational effectiveness.
I will now give the committee some detail on the second EDA
project - co-operation on cyber ranges in the European Union.
The EDA Category B project aims to maintain and improve cyber
resilience, as well as the levels of awareness, insight and
expertise of member states' personnel. Cyber attacks pose a
potential threat to the communications and command and control
systems of the Defence Forces, both at home and overseas. The
need to be able to defend Defence Forces' systems against cyber
attacks has been identified as a specific capability requirement by
the Defence Forces. Cyber ranges are a virtual environment used
for cyber training, exercises and technology testing and
evaluation. They also provide the means to help to strengthen
knowledge of cyber defence operators and the performance of
the computer information systems. They provide tools that help
to strengthen the stability, security and performance of cyber
infrastructure and IT systems used by the military. They can be
remotely accessed in one country by personnel from another
location or country. Remote access to cyber ranges and joint
development of exercises and training events allow participants
to benefit from better quality events and increase cost efficiency.
The Department of Communications, Climate Action and
Environment has the lead role in the whole-of-government
response to the cyber threat. In 2015 it published Ireland’s
national cyber security strategy. This document is a high level
policy statement from the Government acknowledging the
challenges in facilitating and enabling the digital economy and
society. The Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána provide
inputs from the security perspective to this work. The
Government task force on emergency planning which I chair
maintains cyber security as a standing agenda item. Two
members of the Defence Forces are seconded to the Department
of Communications, Climate Action and Environment’s computer
security incident response team. In any emergency or crisis,
once defence systems are supported, the Department of Defence
and the Defence Forces will provide support for this team in so
far as resources allow. Details in this regard are being developed
in a service level agreement to be agreed between the
Department of Defence and the Department of Communications,
Climate Action and Environment. Participation in the training and
exercises available through the EDA Category B project will
enhance the capacity within the Defence Forces to secure,
protect and defend their own systems against cyber attack and
also to contribute to enhanced capacity within the incident
response team.
The total budget for the new maritime surveillance Category B
project is €675,000. The cost of Ireland’s participation in the
project is €15,000, per annum and €45,000 over the life of the
project. With regard to the second project, cyber ranges, there
will be no financial contribution to the project. Member states will
contribute to it in kind, that is, through participating and
exchanging information and knowledge of cyber range training
and exercises. For Ireland, the maximum resource commitment
is 100 man days for the life of the project.
I reiterate the benefits of our participation in both programmes.
The success of the original maritime surveillance project hinges
on the positive continuation of the follow-on project, MARSUR II.
Without technical support, the services will degrade over time
and ultimately become unserviceable. In order to maintain these
benefits and further increase our capability in this area, it is
extremely important that Ireland participate in the project. The
cyber ranges project is an ideal opportunity for the Defence
Forces to gain access to cyber ranges and enhance and protect
the capability they already possess. They will be given an
opportunity to gain access to best practice and standards in an
extremely cost efficient manner. Our contribution to the project
will be through participation and the exchange of information.
Cyber defence is a key capability for the Defence Forces and their
participation in the project will strengthen that capability.
Ireland’s participation in the EDA affords us the opportunity to
keep abreast of best practice and new developments in the
defence environment, particularly as it impacts on multinational
crisis management operations. By participating in EDA projects
the Defence Forces gain access to the most up-to-date
technologies and can develop the capabilities and skills required
to fulfil their role, including in peacekeeping and humanitarian
operations, at reduced cost. The Government’s White Paper on
Defence, published in August 2015, states Ireland will identify
opportunities to participate "in multi-national capability
development projects within the framework of the EDA in support
of the Defence Forces’ operations, capacity and capability". The
two projects being discussed are prime examples of how the
Defence Forces can develop their capabilities in maritime
surveillance and cyber defence. I commend the motion to the
committee.
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas source

I welcome our participation in the European Defence Agency as it
allows us to multiply the resources we have available. We can
connect with other members states, pool our resources and
benefit from economies of scale in training provision and having
access to knowledge and resources. That can only be good. As
has been said by many Deputies, our participation in these
training programmes and projects ensures our personnel and
soldiers receive the most up-to-date training and gain expertise
in order that when they are operating overseas, they can do so
safely and come home safely because they will know what they
are doing. Our participation in projects such as this ensures we
have access to the most up-to-date technology and expertise
worldwide, which is good.
The annual cost of €311,000 represents huge value for money
and money well spent. Our spend on defence as a proportion of
GDP is one of the lowest in the European Union. Over time, as
more resources become available to us, we should seek to
increase our spend, given the many threats we face, both at
home and internationally. Certainly, I am very happy that there
is co-operation with other member states at European level. The
reason we participate is that the Defence Forces carry out many
peacekeeping missions abroad. Just because they are
peacekeeping missions does not mean that there is no danger
involved for our troops. When they participate in peacekeeping
and peace enforcement missions, they are sometimes under
threat and fire; it is vital, therefore, that they have access to be
the best training we can provide for them.
I am very happy that we have participated in a programme on
chemical, biological and nuclear protection. Unfortunately, this is
the direction warfare is taking and it is becoming more
sophisticated. Things previously unseen are coming down the
tracks in terms of the capabilities of other armies. It is incumbent
on the State, therefore, to ensure it is up to speed and has the
most up-to-date knowledge available by sharing knowledge with
other member states. Where we can do some things very well,
other states might do them slightly better and vice versa. In
pooling knowledge we ensure this expertise is shared.
On countering improvised explosive devices, we have such
experience in this country, while at international level we have
seen atrocities and people using these devices on an individual
basis to harm others.
I hope we never see anything like it on our shores but at the
same time we need to be prepared and we need to have training
for troops. I very much support the two projects being put
forward.
In terms of maritime surveillance, more of our landmass is under
water than above water. We have a huge area to cover and
protect. The fact we can exchange information with other
member states is positive. I am particularly delighted that we
were exchanging information with the Italians using the system
while we were conducting our operations in the Mediterranean.
That shows what can be achieved. I have no doubt it saved lives
by directing our personnel where to go to pick up and rescue
those in need. It is a very positive programme. The continuation
and enhancement of that programme are very good.
The cyber ranges project shows we are thinking ahead. There are
already a number of threats to the country and our democracy
and on an international level through cyber activity. Our forces
are very well equipped and have the best knowledge but co-
operation on cyber ranges, the sharing of knowledge and the
pooling of resources will minimise inefficiency. One hundred
man-days is a minimal amount to put to any project so it
represents huge value to the State in terms of what we will gain
back as a country.
The Minister of State has my full support on both projects and I
look forward to hearing reports on how our people have gotten
on when they have been completed.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this: |

Oireachtas source
I welcome the opportunity to go through this and acknowledge
that minimal cost is involved but that does not mean I support it.
There is a danger in moving in the way we are moving. I raised
this when the European Defence Agency and all it entailed was
first being discussed. Nobody disagrees with increased
efficiencies but part of the European Defence Agency's purpose is
to increase capacity across the Defence Forces, which means
expending money. If that expenditure is being dictated by other
member states, the vast majority of whom are in NATO and
whose underlying desire is to enhance NATO or have
interoperability between the EU military structure that is now
emerging and NATO, I would question it. The context to all this is
the debate since the British referendum on EU membership.
Since the English decided they would withdraw from the
European Union, there has been a rush by some countries to
reignite the debate about the European army. The Minister of
State has replied to my questions on this in the past so I will not
raise it as an issue here. We will have other opportunities for
that.
I accept that the proposals before us will incur minimal costs. I
am fully supportive of any move which will enhance the capacity
of our Naval Service as it carries out its humanitarian work in the
Mediterranean in particular. I also accept that as a small country,
we need to learn from other countries and other navies and on
occasion to co-operate and share but there are some questions
that need to be answered about these two proposals. In some of
the research I did I looked at the European Commission's joint
staff working document on the implementation of the EU
maritime security strategy action plan which emerged in June of
this year. It states: "Cooperation with NATO (action 1.1.3.)
remains a priority for Member States as emphasised throughout
the reports". That should be answered. Ireland does not play a
role in that but it is not reflected in the Commission document.
Do we play a role in it? When we agree with the European
Defence Agency and all that entails, we become dependent. It
entails interoperability which by its very nature, especially in the
field of computer technology which we are talking about here,
means that we become dependent. Becoming dependent means
that there will be a huge cost if we move away from systems that
are shared with other countries and that is the danger. If one
looks at the MARSUR proposal, the reason MARSUR II has been
proposed, as the Minister of State said, is that the first
programme is at an end and it needs to be continued because of
the benefits gained from the first programme. That means we
will be tied to that programme into the future because we have
invested time and effort into it. We will have to continue to buy
into such a programme because as computers, technologies and
systems develop we become more and more dependent on them.
We have the ability to opt out of the category B programmes
because they are not binding on all member states but the
category A are because we did not take the option Denmark took
to opt out. I do not know what other programmes come under
the European Defence Agency. Are there ones that we have
opted out of? Is it the case that we are in a rush to get involved
in everything because we want to play with the big boys?
The bomb disposal proposal was mentioned by the Minister of
State. During the years the Defence Forces have gained an
expertise which they have shared throughout the world and that
has been recognised. It was one of the reasons there were Irish
soldiers in Afghanistan very early on in that conflict. They were
there to train Afghani police to identify IEDs and to help in
whatever way possible. On that basis, one could say it was a
humanitarian approach.
The problem with the second project for the EDA cyber ranges is
that when one looks at some of the documents in the
background, the idea is that information sharing on maritime
issues would not be confined to the European Union. There is talk
in the documents of going beyond the existing European Union
structure. Will the Minister of State elaborate when it is hoped
that will happen? What work has been done in recent times on
expanding beyond the existing EU members?
The other issue is that in some ways the cyber range programme
deals with a virtual environment and not actual events. In some
ways, it is setting out scenarios that would result if there was a
cyber attack. The dangers I see as a lay person, which is the
problem when one is dealing with something as highly technical
as cyber security, is that it will help to strengthen the knowledge
of cyber defence operations. A state is sharing its information
with 26 other member states, or perhaps 25 if Denmark is not
involved. By its nature, sharing information and giving remote
access in one country to personnel from another location or
country undermines cyber security.
The ability to use such schemes can be undermined once other
security services, military forces or navies have some idea of the
work and practices involved. Given what we have seen, even in
the US presidential debate, if we are to believe what has
emerged about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and whether the
Russians are involved, it is other countries that are mainly
involved in cyber attacks. We have also seen supposed allies
targeting cyber attacks on each other. We need only take Angela
Merkel as an example. It was the Americans, her supposed allies,
who were tapping into her e-mails and telephone conversations.
Therefore, being dependent or reliant in any way on schemes
developed by other countries is a dangerous road to go down.
Those countries may currently be allies but, as we have seen
from the history of Europe, in particular, that can change quite
quickly. Could we not do it ourselves? The cost is minimal and it
is a virtual environment rather than a real-life situation. I hope
we will never face the real-life situation.
The specifics of these programmes are not laid out in full in the
briefing document we received from the Department or in what
has been said by the Minister of State. There was a reference to
100 hours on the part of some military personnel. That is not
huge; it is minor. How long will it last? Is it expected that there
will be another follow-up programme? In some ways, some kids
would probably be able to do this on their computers, given it is
a game, albeit an important one, if it is a virtual scenario. I know
from speaking to military personnel during the years that they
are keen to develop their capabilities and their understanding of
how armies are becoming more dependent on computer and IT
systems. There was a concern that armies were becoming more
reliant on them and that, in the event of a war, much of their
capabilities, if they were computerised and not as mechanical as
they previously were, could be knocked out. If scenarios have
been developed on how to respond to emergency situations
based on computer simulations, then everyone will go by the
textbook. The enemy or whoever is attacking will have a grasp of
the likely response in certain scenarios because they have been
practised in this virtual environment.
Add your comment
Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)Link to this:

Oireachtas source
I have had three different experiences of foreign affairs
committees since I was first elected to the Dáil. The first one was
very much focused on human rights issues. The second one, in
the previous Dáil, added "trade" to the title of the committee.
Now this one has "defence" in its title. We have broadened our
horizons considerably in recent years.
Having heard the Minister of State's presentation, two things
come to mind when thinking about Ireland and defence. The first
one is the preservation of our neutrality, which has been
undermined in recent years. We must be strongly committed to
our neutrality. The second one concerns the reputation of our
peacekeeping forces. Both are connected. It is because we are a
neutral country, along with our development aid programme,
that we have an excellent reputation. Our peacekeeping troops
abroad have been exemplary in all their missions. I know that
there are serious issues with how peacekeeping troops from
other countries handled situations, but the Irish peacekeeping
troops have been excellent. I had those two aspects in mind
when reading the Minister of State's speech.
Perhaps I should know the answers to my questions, but defence
is a new element to this committee. My fellow Deputies here are
their parties' spokespersons on defence. Why did Ireland not look
for an opt-out clause similar to that of Denmark? What does it
mean in real terms if we do not have that opt-out clause? The
participation in category A and B projects are subject to
Government or Dáil approval. Again, perhaps I should know the
answer, but when was the last time we had to do something that
required the Minister of State to come to the Dáil? The term
"international crisis management" is vague. Keeping in mind our
peacekeeping troops and our neutrality, is there a danger that
we will end up in a very different role in an international crisis
management situation?
My other question concerns fishing and the role of the Navy in
protecting our fishing waters. In years past there has been great
concern on the part of the fishing industry about the attention
paid to it as opposed to that paid to intruders in our waters, that
is, the big factory ships. There is a perception among some in the
fishing fraternity that they were being targeted. I am not saying
whether they were breaking the law but the focus on them was
disproportionate to that on other fishing fleets. Will the Minister
of State provide some further information on the protection of
our fishing waters?
Add your comment

I will deal with the last questions first. Denmark is
constitutionally debarred from participating. I assure Deputy
O'Sullivan that Ireland's traditional policy on military neutrality is
completely unaffected by the Treaty on European Union as
amended by the Lisbon treaty. We are not and will not become,
as a result of the treaty, part of any alliance or military
formation. Legally binding guarantees secured by Ireland at the
European Council prior to the second Lisbon treaty referendum
clearly state that the Lisbon treaty does not affect or prejudice
Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. Any form of
common defence can only come about if all member states agree
unanimously. Even if member states were to so agree, Ireland
could not participate without a separate referendum to approve
its participation. While issues have been raised concerning the
European army, nothing in the treaties provide for the
establishment of such a European army. I refer to Deputy
Aengus Ó Snodaigh's question also.
There is no doubt that we are broadening our horizons and
pushing out the boundaries, but I assure the Deputy that we
remain neutral. She can be absolutely assured of that because
there are many people around here who would be forced to put
their hands up, as it were, if we were not keeping within the
realms of our neutrality. However, when we go abroad and speak
to personnel on the ground, they tell us of the importance of
working with like-minded states. We are a small country and
nation. If we do not keep up to date with what is out there, we
will be left behind and we will not be able to participate in the
likes of UNIFIL or UNDOF missions abroad.
There is a perception about sea fisheries protection. I speak to
those in the Naval Service regularly. They treat everyone the
very same. When they are on sea fishery patrols, they do not
target those from specific countries over others. If someone is
fishing illegally, they do their best to bring them to book.
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh had a number of questions. We opt
out of a number of projects. It is not that we are ready to jump
in to every project; we do opt out. We have opted out on many
occasions, but we examine the benefits of each and every project
to the Defence Forces.
It is important that we look upon every project in that manner.
Reference was made to cybersecurity which is an absolutely huge
issue, not only for this state but right across the world, because
there are people ready to attack. The question was asked if we
are we allowing people to attack our systems and get access to
our information. These are training exercises. This is not about
sharing information or anything like that. It is about specific
exercises with cyber attacks that are set up in a very controlled
environment. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh made a reference to
the European army. I have responded to the Deputy about this in
parliamentary questions on many occasions.
I very much welcome Deputy Lisa Chambers' comments and her
support for the projects. I believe there is great value for money
here, as the Deputy has outlined. It is important to participate in
chemical and biological exercises because we are in a very
changing environment in a changing world. We have to be ready
for that, and participating in the projects under the EDA is
beneficial to the Defence Forces.
Add your comment
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this:

Oireachtas source
I still have a number of questions as I refer to the document but
perhaps I am bouncing the Minister of State into it. I think I
bounced myself into it last night when I started reading it. I want
to talk about the implementation of the EU maritime security
strategy action plan. Have we signed up to that, which dates
from 2014? If we have, were we concerned when for instance in
its report on MARSUR the European Commission's joint staff
working document on the implementation of the EU maritime
security strategy action plan says that:
[T]he MARSUR Networking community is preparing to expand to
additional Member States [and that is literally what we are
speaking about now] and entities such as the EU Satellite Centre
and is exploring options to integrate valuable surveillance
information from different Maritime Security Regimes reaching
beyond the boundaries of the European Union.
That it is reaching beyond the boundaries of the European Union
is the aspect I am interested in given that throughout the
document it speaks of co-operation with other nation states. In
one place the document discusses increased co-operation with
north African countries, in particular with a view to improving the
safety of navigation in the Mediterranean. These are laudable
aims but they are beyond the bounds of the European Union and
they have not been discussed, to my knowledge, in the Dáil or in
this committee.
When people signed up, through the referendum, to the
European Defence Agency there was a presumption - perhaps
wrongly by most people and I know I tried to highlight what the
European Defence Agency was talking about at the time - that it
was going to increase capacity and increase interoperability and
not just within the European Union but beyond. The
Commission's working document on the implementation of the
EU maritime security strategy action plan says that co-operation
with NATO remains a priority for member states with "The need
to promote closer cooperation with NATO on standards and
procedures". There is continuous emphasis on NATO in what is
supposed to be an EU document on maritime security. It also
says that MARSUR is the defence layer of the common
information sharing environment. Therefore, this is not about
just sharing information for the sake of maritime protection, it is
regarded as a defence mechanism.
The document also speaks about how "At international level,
relevance is given to the work developed under NATO and to its
High Level Committee of Emergency Civil Planning, to the NATO
Civil/Military Transport Working Groups". They seem to be
intertwined continuously and there is a logic to that because
most of the EU countries are in NATO and most of their armies
have developed an interoperability and a sharing of information
based on their membership of NATO. The danger is that the more
we tie ourselves in to the EU military structures, our military and
our IT systems then become synonymous with the NATO systems
and become dependent on them.
Page 17 of that document also cites, "The importance of taking
into account NATO when determining the development of
capacities is also suggested, as a way of enhancing
complementarity of efforts while benefiting from the work
already developed, in particular in the areas of normalization and
standardization". That is the concern. I remember when the
referendum was held and Ireland signed in to the European
Defence Agency and Denmark did not. These were the concerns
people had, that we were getting tied. I am not arguing about an
EU army in this case. I am whether, in all of the opt in or opt out
options, full account taken of the dependence or interdependence
that will arise from Ireland getting involved in programmes that
are underlined or underscored by NATO which seems to have a
greater interest in the European Union going in this direction?
Add your comment

I have a few final remarks. Every time we speak about the
Defence Forces participating in any project where we share
knowledge and work with other member states, there is huge
suspicion and I do not understand why. At the end of the day, if
on the one hand we support our troops participating in
peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, which I believe
most Deputies do, then we cannot on the other hand say that the
troops cannot participate in projects where they work with other
member states. If we are going to send troops overseas, they
need to be properly equipped and they need to know what they
are doing. They need to participate in training exercises or we
are sending them overseas and they are not safe. They are not
going over there on holidays. They are going over to participate
in missions that are inherently unsafe for their welfare and
possibly their lives. If the troops are not properly trained and if
they do not have the most up-to-date knowledge, then they are
at a disadvantage. I do not buy this idea that somehow our
neutrality is being attacked because we participate in cross-
training exercises. We should make no apology for equipping our
troops to the best possible standards that we can.
We must ask ourselves why we do this. We do this because we
know that we will benefit from economies of scale by sharing
knowledge and expertise. We know that we will learn from other
member states and other armies. Our troops tell us this. Every
time they come back from an exercise they tell us how much
they have benefited; therefore, why are we sheepishly asking for
support to participate in the next training exercise? We should be
fully supporting this because if we are sending them over and
they are not properly trained, it is on our heads. It is up to us to
ensure they are properly trained and equipped to do the missions
we send them overseas to do.
I have no doubt that we do opt out of some these training project
projects and programmes. I have no doubt that our troops would
love to do more projects and would love to learn from and
interact more with other armies. The point is being made that we
are a very small nation and we do not have the answer to
everything. We do not have access to all of the equipment
available internationally and all of the knowledge. That is why we
do these programmes. Expanding capacity or enhancing
interoperability are not bad things. They are good things, and we
should be proud that we are doing them and proud to be
proactive about it. It annoys me that every time we participate in
a defence mission or defence project abroad, there is a
suggestion that we are somehow undermining neutrality. At the
end of the day we have a triple-lock system. We paddle our own
canoe.
It is important to remember that simply because another
member state has its own ideas about a European-wide army or
has its own idea about what they would like to do with defence
policy in their country does not make any difference to what we
do in our own state. We decide for ourselves, as we have always
done. The protections are in place in the treaties to ensure that
decisions with regard to our own defence policy will always be
taken by ourselves in our own State. The protections are there
for neutrality and the protections are there for us to decide our
own policy. This fear and suspicion needs to be put to bed. We
should be very loud and clear in explaining to the public and to
Deputies who oppose such projects why we are doing this. We
are doing it to protect our own troops because we send them
overseas regularly, and if we do not train them properly, we are
putting their lives at risk.
Add your comment
I wish to confirm that the EU and NATO declaration confirms that
future co-operation will fully respect the decision-making
autonomy of both organisations.
It will not prejudice the specific character of the security and
defence policy of any member state. We partake in the maritime
security strategy, but we are protected by our own treaty and
the triple lock arrangement. It is not often that I agree with
Deputy Lisa Chambers, but I agree with her absolutely this
morning. She is dead right that we must participate with like-
minded countries in projects and training exercises because we
have a very small defence force compared with some of the
larger states. When we go abroad and see our peacekeepers with
UNIFIL or UNDOF on the ground, they tell us about the
importance of interoperability, working with like-minded states
and the experience of co-operation. We will take command of
UNIFIL from Finbatt at the end of November. If we did not have
the opportunity to work alongside other member states before
partaking in the joint battalion with UNIFIL, we would be in
serious trouble. It is a great opportunity for members of the
Defence Forces to work with others from like-minded countries
and participate in training exercises and the projects we are
discussing.

Oireachtas source
In response to both Deputies, I have never said I am opposed to
engaging in joint exercises or training abroad or working with
countries within the European Union, but that is not the point.
The issue is whether we are aware that in making these decisions
that over time we will become more dependent which will
undermine our ability to take decisions for ourselves. This is a
tiny country and we do not have huge destroyers or tanks on the
scale similar to that in Germany or anywhere else and no one is
suggesting we should. In fact, in some ways, there is no need for
us to do so because we are a small nation on the outskirts of
Europe. We have some skills that we can sell, as I mentioned,
and we can train others. That is the benefit of co-operation.
However, one has to be careful about the underlying trend, which
is why I have continuously raised this issue. If I did not raise it, I
would not be doing my job.
There is a concern. A huge number of people in the State are
concerned about the drift towards the militarisation of Europe
and the world and have voted in different referendums at
different levels and on occasion have won. We have to satisfy our
concerns by asking questions. Every time we engage in
international co-operation or take part in international operations
with countries which are involved in military alliances, we must
ensure we do not compromise ourselves in any way. I have
accepted the bona fides of different Ministers and programmes. I
am not opposed to use of the virtual environment. I have just
raised questions as to whether it is as secure as we want it to be.
If one takes part in a cyber attack simulation, is one exposing
oneself? Have we taken steps to ensure those who take part in
such simulations will not end up disclosing how Ireland, if it was
to come under such an attack, would react?
As I said, NATO has been in existence for 60 years and the
European Union is younger. If one looks at history, in particular
the history of Europe, most of the countries involved are former
imperialist powers, most of which are still involved in imperial
adventures abroad. We are not. We have suffered from this and
have a different history from most of those with which we are
working. While it is cost-effective and efficient to ensure that if
we are operating in the Mediterranean, we can use the best
others make available because we have only one ship operating
in that entire sea, one has to be concerned. The Minister of State
reassures us when the questions are asked and it is my job to
obtain that reassurance. The Minister of State has done it, as
have previous Ministers, but I would not be doing my job if I did
not raise concerns.
From relatives of mine in the Defence Forces who have operated
overseas and participated in joint exercises, I am aware of the
experience they have gained. They have said it is a lot better
than sitting in barracks or training on the Curragh because they
get to learn from and train others, as we have succeeded in
doing. However, we should as much as possible seek to engage
in exercise with countries which are not members jof NATO. I am
not irrational about the ease with which we can find these
opportunities. There is not a huge number of countries near our
shores in which people speak English and which would be able to
take part in such exercises, but one has to go looking as near to
home as possible to make it cost-effective for our soldiers and
sailors to benefit from the shared experience and knowledge that
comes from these exercises.
source
We should always remind ourselves that the Nice treaty included
provisions affirming that Ireland could not take part in a common
defence without further amendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann. I
sincerely hope that possibility will never arise. We also have the
Seville Declaration of 2002 in which we obtained agreement
among our EU partners on Ireland's position on military
neutrality. That is very clear and it is included in the Constitution.
That is our source of governance and we will stick by it. There is
also the triple lock arrangement, to which Deputy Lisa Chambers
referred.
The Minister of State has outlined clearly that Ireland's
participation in European Defence Agency projects enhances the
capacity of the Defence Forces in their peacekeeping and crisis
management operations. We should take every opportunity in
the Oireachtas to record our appreciation of the huge
contribution made by Permanent Defence Force personnel over
many decades in working in the most difficult of peacekeeping
missions. All of the soldiers involved did the country proud and,
sadly, some made the ultimate sacrifice. I represent two counties
which have a huge tradition of participating in the Permanent
Defence Force and know many families in which a number of
siblings have participated in peacekeeping missions. These
families have always taken great pride in the fact that their
members were able to participate in missions in the most difficult
of circumstances. The least the Defence Forces deserve is to be
properly equipped when they participate in very challenging
missions. Anything that can enhance their capacity within the
parameters we all support is welcome and necessary.
Participation, co-operation and collaboration enhance the
capacity of the Defence Forces and ensure they have the most
up-to-date skills and access to the most modern technology.

I agree with Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh that if there is a concern
among the general public that our neutrality is somehow at risk,
we should absolutely take it on board. It is incumbent on us as
Deputies to ensure, in respect of the protections we have all
outlined that assure our neutrality, we will decide for ourselves
our policy and what we will or will not participate in. We must
ensure information is provided for the public and that we tell
them why we are doing what we are and set out the benefits for
our soldiers. This refers not only to the cost benefits but also to
the benefits of the knowledge and training our soldiers will
receive, all of which are intended to keep them safe. We should
put this information before the public to a greater extent. We
may at times have failed to inform it properly of the operations in
which the Defence Forces participate and why. We must reassure
it that this remain at all times a neutral state and that we have
no intention of ever changing this.
My comment on the suspicion of some Deputies of participation
in defence operations was not directed at any one individual,
rather it was a general comment to the committee.
In recent months when we had to discuss participation in the UK
battle group there was huge resistance in the House to that
participation. I could not understand why because in my view it
would have been an opportunity for some of our troops to gain
extra experience and knowledge and to educate themselves
further, which would be a good thing. A further conversation
about how we might embark on a public relations exercise, for
want of a better phrase, on behalf of the Defence Forces about
participation in this type of project with other European member
states and how we might better inform the public of what is
going on, would be very beneficial to the Defence Forces.
Add your comment

source
There is an onus on us all to amplify the provisions in the Seville
Declaration which is very clear about what we can and cannot
participate in. We should all give that more currency when
debates on this arise. Maintenance of our neutrality is a strong
issue for us going back many decades. That cannot be diluted in
any way whatsoever. That is the overwhelming view of the
people of this country.
Add your comment

Oireachtas source
I am concerned when I read some of the Commission’s
documents. The need for the European Union to kowtow to NATO
appears in every document. I have never seen the phrase, "with
respect to Ireland’s neutrality" stated. Even though we are part
of a document, that is not stated anywhere in the document I
have been quoting from. There is no footnote to say Ireland is a
neutral country or has the opt-out. Our officials should ensure ad
nauseamthat it is reflected in those documents because then
there will be no question of undermining our neutrality or officials
not doing their job. That is something we can refer to. This is a
working document; therefore, perhaps, there is time to do that,
unless it has been passed. There are many references to NATO
and obviously it has capability but when it states the European
Union must enhance its capacity in line with that of NATO, those
of us who have concerns about militarisation need to see
someone hold up a flag and state Ireland’s key position and the
key decisions we have taken in recent years. That would be
useful.
Add your comment
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this | Oireachtas

source
At the recent parliamentary meeting on the Common Foreign and
Security Policy held in Bratislava in conjunction with the
Presidency, I took the opportunity in any discussions to reaffirm
very strongly the Irish position. Officials have told me that
predecessors of mine and other people who participated in those
parliamentary meetings took the opportunity to outline exactly
the Irish position. That is what we should do at all times.
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh is right in one respect, we had a
debate on neutrality when there was a Private Member’s motion
on a Friday in the previous Dáil. The Minister of State with
responsibility for defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, was there. I spoke
on behalf of Fianna Fáil. President Juncker had not long taken
over as President of the European Commission. He had made
outlandish statements in regard to common security policy. I
recall stating at the time that his remarks were totally
reprehensible. When senior Commission officials make
comments, we should be quick to pounce on and reject them.
Add your comment
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)Link to this:

Oireachtas source
I absolutely respect the concerns and viewpoints of the Chairman
and members although mine might differ from theirs but that is
the best thing about a parliament, we all have different
viewpoints. If we do compromise or if there is any impact on our
neutrality, there is the opt-out clause. The Deputy says we
should work with like-minded countries that are not aligned with
NATO but our options are limited. The Deputy did recognise that.
We have to consider the language barrier. The Chairman is right
that when we send our troops abroad they must be fully
equipped and have the skills to carry out their duties and
responsibilities in a professional manner. It is my responsibility
and that of the Government to make sure we give the forces the
equipment and skills to ensure they are able to carry out their
duties in a professional manner.
The EU-NATO declaration of July this year confirms that future
co-operation will fully respect the decision-making autonomy of
both organisations and will not prejudice the specific character of
the security and defence policy of any member state. It may be
only two or three lines, but it is clearly stated in the declaration.
Add your comment
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this | Oireachtas

source
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending and
Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Maureen O’Sullivan and Lisa
Chambers for their participation in the debate.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committ
ees/?id=2016-11-03a.57
Militarisation of Ireland’s Foreign and
Defence Policy: A Decade of Betrayal,
and the Challenge of Renewal
European Security and Defence Identity which the EU‟s Rapid Reaction Force
is intended to express”.75 During the first attempt to secure a ‗yes‘ vote on
the Nice Treaty in Ireland – in 2001 – attention was focussed by Afri and others on
the militaryimplications of the Treaty
https://www.scribd.com/document/34112893/The-Militarisation-of-Ireland-s-Foreign-and-Defence-
Policy
Commons Briefing papers CBP-8149

Author: Claire Mills
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/S
ummary/CBP-8149
A European Defence Fund: €5.5 billion per year to boost

Europe's defence capabilities
Brussels, 7 June 2017
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1508_en.htm
Communication Launching the European Defence Fund

Document date: 07/06/2017
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/23605
Draft General Budget of the European Union for the

Financial Year 2019 Working Document Part IV Pilot
projects and preparatory actions
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/2019/
WD%20IV-PP_PA_web.pdf
EU agency for law enforcement
cooperation — Europol
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32009D0371&from=EN
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on
the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement
Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council
Decisions 2016 /JHA and 2009
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32016R0794&from=EN
They dont even try to hide the push for an EU army

anymore.
If the EU managed to create this EU army, it will go the
same way as all other EU institutions and end up under
German control.
How long after they get this EU army will it take before
Germany decides they want to "liberate" Poland or
Hungary from what the liberal German media have started
calling their anti democratic right wing governments.
They have already threatened to remove their EU
commission voting rights.
France has already stated we need an EU army to defend
against the US.
Dont let Fine Gael sleepwalk the Irish people into an anti
democratic military alliance.
Brian Cowen (Taoiseach; Laois-Offaly,
Fianna Fail)
Dáil debates Wednesday, 17 December
2008 What are Dáil debates? European
Council Meeting: Statements
European Council in Brussels on Thursday and Friday,
11 and 12 December. I was accompanied at the meeting
by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál
Martin, the Minister of State with responsibility for
European Union affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, and the
Attorney General. The Council had an unusually heavy
agenda. While the bulk of discussion centred on the
Lisbon treaty, energy and climate change negotiations
and the economic and financial crisis, other issues were
also dealt with. That such a heavy agenda could be
completed with unanimously agreed conclusions is
testament to the excellent French EU Presidency of the
past six months. France deployed its own highly
successful mix of pragmatism, determination and
dynamism. In acknowledging France's success, I single
out the particularly effective role played by President
Nicolas Sarkozy. I met him on several occasions in recent
months. We are indebted to him for the leadership and
assistance he has provided for Europe. President
Sarkozy has shown himself to be a friend of Ireland.
When I reported to the House following the October
European Council, I said our task in the period ahead
would be to work out how to address our concerns on
the Lisbon treaty in a way which could be endorsed by
all 27 member states. With the co-operation of our
partners in the European Union, the outcome of last
week's Council represents a significant step towards
delivering the way forward. Before outlining the detail
of last week's meeting, I will briefly recap on the context
against which it took place, and the steps the
Government has taken since the referendum. The
Government accepted the outcome of the referendum
last June, and undertook to manage the impasse arising
as a result of it. We sought to gain an understanding of
the reasons underlying the rejection of the treaty. That
included the commissioning of very comprehensive
research, the findings of which have been published and
with which the House is familiar. The Government co-
operated with the other parties in the Oireachtas in the
establishment of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future
in the European Union, which undertook intensive and
broad work, hearing from some 110 witnesses from
more than 40 organisations. We then brought the key
concerns, as identified in the Government's research
and examined by the sub committee, to our partners in
Europe and requested that these concerns would be
addressed. We did this through direct and extensive
contact at many levels. The Minister for Foreign Affairs,
the Minister of State with responsibility for European
Union affairs and our diplomatic network were very
active in engaging with all other member states. I stayed
in close contact with President Sarkozy, meeting on
several occasions. As the Council meeting approached, I
undertook a number of visits to European capitals to
meet leaders and to discuss our approach with them and
to hear their views. Early last week I spoke by telephone
with as many of my European Council colleagues as
proved possible to outline again our concerns and
explain the nature of the response we felt was required.
Last week, we took those concerns to the European
Council. The following is a summary of what I said last
week to my EU counterparts at the European Council. I
began by reminding my colleagues that Ireland had
agreed in October to seek to identify the elements of a
solution which could command the support of all at the
December Council meeting. I stressed the Government's
belief that the Lisbon treaty is important for the Union's
future development. I also recalled that it could only
enter into force if it is ratified by all 27 member states. I
made clear that the concerns of the Irish people as
expressed during the referendum must be reflected in
any solution. I elaborated on my comments in October
about those concerns. Many people felt that they lacked
sufficient information or understanding to vote "Yes".
Many were concerned at a perceived loss of influence to
Ireland, especially when the Commission ceased to
include a national of every member state. Others were
concerned that decisions on important social and ethical
issues, especially, but not only, abortion, would be taken
out of Irish hands. Some were concerned that workers'
rights would somehow be constrained. Some felt that the
position on tax, notably corporation tax, was somehow
undermined by the Lisbon treaty. Others were
concerned that our traditional policy of military
neutrality, to which very many Irish people, whether
they voted "Yes" or "No", hold a very strong sense of
attachment, would be compromised by the Lisbon treaty.
Some were even misled to fear that it could lead to
conscription to a European army. I said that while some
of these fears and concerns were misplaced or based on
misapprehension or misinformation, it did not take
away from the fact that they were sincerely held and
require a respectful response. I briefed my colleagues on
the European Council on the work of the Oireachtas Sub-
Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union,
noting that it had representation from across the
political spectrum. Again, I record my appreciation for
the work of that committee and the way in which it
carried out its business. I informed the European
Council that the Committee's report stated clearly that to
help secure Ireland firmly at the heart of Europe, the
concerns that arose during the referendum campaign
must be addressed. I made clear that the response to the
concerns of the Irish people had to be satisfactory. I then
set out the nature of the response to the concerns that I
believed was required. I stated that retaining a
Commissioner was a real concern for the Irish people.
There was no doubt that this was a very significant part
of the debate during the referendum campaign, and that
a change was necessary to respond to the belief among
the public that the loss of a Commissioner represented a
considerable loss of influence. Second, I stated the
Government needed an undertaking that the other
concerns of the Irish people, which I had set out and that
are recorded in the annex to the conclusions, would be
addressed satisfactorily and in a legally robust manner,
where appropriate. Moreover, such an undertaking
required the inclusion of a reaffirmation by the Union of
the value it attaches to issues such as workers' rights
and national competence in respect of key public
services. Negotiations on the conclusions lasted for
many hours last Thursday evening and resumed on
Friday morning. I am pleased to report to this House
that the Council was able to reach unanimous agreement
on the response to Ireland's concerns. This unanimous
agreement represents an extremely encouraging
response to the concerns of the Irish people. Our
partners are prepared to adjust the institutional balance
agreed within the Lisbon treaty to provide that member
states keep a Commissioner each in response to Irish
concerns. This is a very significant move. While several
member states were strongly opposed, ultimately they
accepted that this change is required. Second, with
regard to the other areas of concern I have outlined
previously, the Union agreed that our concerns should
be responded to satisfactorily, including through the use
of legally binding guarantees. While the detail is yet to
follow, our partners are clear about the nature of those
guarantees. The Union also agreed on the need to
confirm the importance of issues such as workers'
rights. On the basis of the agreement on these elements
and on condition of our being able to put in place
appropriate guarantees, I stated that I would be
prepared to return to the public to put a new package
and to seek their approval of it. I believe this to be a
significant outcome. I emphasise that considerable work
lies ahead on the responses to such concerns. I also
emphasise the nature of the agreement on the
Commission because there was considerable confusion
at the time of the referendum. The maintenance of one
Commissioner per member state is not possible under
the existing treaty arrangements, as the Nice treaty
requires the size of the Commission to be reduced. Only
if the Lisbon treaty enters into force will Ireland and
every other member state now keep a Commissioner.
The conclusions agreed last week are very clear on this
point. While my focus and that of my delegation was
necessarily on the Lisbon treaty issue, other important
issues also were discussed. On the economic front, there
has been extensive coverage of the European economic
recovery plan. This represents a framework for member
states' efforts and is designed to ensure consistency and
maximum impact. In Ireland's case, while we will
continue to sustain our capital spending at a level far
above the historical norm, the immediate focus of our
efforts must remain on redressing the budgetary
imbalance. The Council also agreed to take forward
work on better global regulation of financial markets,
better global governance and ensuring there is not
growth in protectionism at a time of economic stress. As
a small exporting nation dependent on favourable
international trading conditions, avoiding growth in
protectionism is important for us. The agreement by the
European Council on the climate change and energy
package is of huge importance. It is a good outcome for
the environment and for Ireland and a number of our
key concerns were taken on board at a late stage of the
negotiations. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Deputy Gormley, and his officials for their excellent
work in negotiations on this agreement. It represents a
significant step in the effort to forge a wider
international agreement to tackle one of the greatest
challenges of our age. Nearly two years ago, under the
leadership of Chancellor Merkel, Europe agreed to
unilaterally reduce our emissions by 20% compared to
1990. Friday's agreement under President Sarkozy's
watchful eye was, in effect, the setting down in detail of
how that is to be done and Ireland played its full part in
delivering on that. The agreement represents the
culmination of intensive and highly complex
negotiations. Many people hoped for a more robust deal
and Ireland supported the Presidency and the
Commission in pushing for a package that was stronger
than that which finally was agreed. However, one must
recognise that compromise was necessary. The
compromises, with which some are unhappy, were
necessary to ensure that agreement was reached.
Failure to reach agreement last week would have
represented a serious set-back to the momentum we
must bring to the climate change negotiations. The
Minister, Deputy Gormley, led the Irish delegation at the
UN negotiations in Poznan while the European Council
was under way and we remained in close contact.
Ireland sought an acceleration of the international
negotiations to agree a deal next year and the EU's
leadership in this process was reinforced by last week's
deal in Brussels. The reality for all countries is that if
progress is to be made in tackling climate change,
meaningful adjustments must be made and inevitably
this will involve some change for all. The agreement is
testament to Europe's ability to keep working, however
challenging that may be, until agreement is reached.
While this may be slow, and at times, tortuous, it is the
best and the only way. On climate change, Europe now
has shown the way forward by setting down its approach
in detail on how it will reach reductions of 20%. If the
rest of the world rises to the challenge, the Union is
committed to stepping up its target to minus 30%. The
Council also adopted conclusions in several other areas,
including agriculture, external relations and security
and defence policy. The full text of the conclusions has
been laid in the Oireachtas Library. As for the
developments in Ireland in the pigmeat sector, at our
request the Council agreed to invite the Commission to
contribute to our efforts to support farmers and
slaughterhouses. The Government is following up with
the Commission on this welcome development. I record
my appreciation to the Council and to Commission
President Barroso in particular, for their support of, and
solidarity towards, Ireland on this issue, The extent of
the challenge Ireland faces in respect of its future
relationship with Europe can hardly be over-stated.
There will be much written, accurately and regrettably
otherwise, about the agreement reached last Friday and
about what the Lisbon treaty itself does and does not do.
We must be careful not to lose sight of the wood for the
trees. My view, which I believe is shared by the vast
majority of Members, is that our future must be within
Europe. Within Europe, we must be close to the centre
and not at the margins or with some semi-detached
status. This has been the approach of Irish Governments
of various hues for more than 35 years and it has served
the country well. This shared approach over a sustained
period reflects the reality that Ireland's relationship
with Europe and its European partners is a truly
national issue that transcends party politics. I
appreciate the approach adopted by Opposition leaders,
with whom I have had discussions in recent days.
Whatever about our differences, we share a view that
our future in Europe is so important that it requires as
strongly united a position as possible within this House.
Those who suggest Ireland can remain at the heart of
Europe while refusing to work with its fellow member
states, which are convinced of the necessity for more
efficient and effective institutions and a stronger EU
voice internationally, are attempting to render a great
disservice to the public. Moreover, lest anyone consider
that another referendum would create a pressure point
around which concessions might be leveraged from the
Government in return for support, I wish it to be
understood that no good can come of such an approach.
Advancing sectoral or narrow interests in such a way
could be highly damaging for this country, especially at
this time. These are difficult times on a variety of fronts.
Just as many of the challenges Ireland faces are
international, so must be the response to them. Ireland
must face outwards, not inwards, in seeking to advance
its interests and protect its people and the hard-won
improvements in living standards over the last decades.
Serving our national interest requires us to play our full
role within Europe. Friday's conclusions on the Lisbon
treaty move us further along the path of identifying a
way forward that could gain the support of the Irish
people, while at the same time being acceptable to all
our partners. The outcome of last week's meeting
augurs well. I am confident the Irish people's concerns
can be addressed and will be addressed satisfactorily. If
a satisfactory outcome to the work I have described is
achieved in the coming months, the Government will put
the issue to another referendum. Whether our future
relationship with Europe will be based on Ireland
playing a full and constructive role in the European
Union or otherwise, ultimately will be for the Irish
people to decide.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2008-12-
17.432.0
Farage: 'Put worst deal in history in
the bin'
BBC
Copyright: BBC
Asked by BBC News whether the Leave
campaign told lies, former UKIP leader Nigel
Farage said there had been "50 years of lies"
from the EU over it being a common market,
then a political union and then having a
European army.
"We are used to lies," he said.
"What we argued for in the referendum is the
United Kingdom should become an
independent country, and independent
countries make their own laws, control their
own borders and choose their own friends in
the world, and nothing about that has
changed."
He said Brexit "must not be seen to be
tarnished by a prime minister who simply never
believed in it".
"There is only one thing to do with this, the
worst deal in history, and that is to put it in the
bin."
Brexit agreement: What does

the 585-page document say?
Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European
Atomic Energy Community, as agreed at negotiators' level on 14
November 2018.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

UK BREXIT PLANS and AGREEMENT of EU Defence The Realisation of Permanent Structured Cooperation PESCO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK BREXIT PLANS and AGREEMENT of EU Defence The Realisation of Permanent Structured Cooperation PESCO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK BREXIT PLANS AND AGREEMENT OF EU

Defence the realisation of Permanent

Jump to full report >>

A Decision formally establishing PESCO was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 11

 Participation in PESCO will be voluntary and decision-making within the PESCO

NOTIFICATION ON PERMANENT STRUCTURED COOPERATION (PESCO) TO THE

National University of Ireland THE ROLE OF IRISH MILITARY 2014

U.S. Military Edge Has Eroded to ‘A Dangerous

PESCO LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS Subject-

council decision establishing PESCO sets out a list of commitments by

Declaration on PESCO projects On the occasion of the adoption of the

IN THE CHAIR: MR COX

The Council of the European Union established the Permanent

PESCO was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and allows states

European Defence Agency: Motion: 3 Nov 2016: Oireachtas

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)Link to this: Oireachtas source

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas source

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this: |

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)Link to this:

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)Link to this: Oireachtas source

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this:

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas source

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this: |

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas source

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Oireachtas

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this: |

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this | Oireachtas

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)Link to this:

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)Link to this | Oireachtas

Commons Briefing papers CBP-8149

A European Defence Fund: €5.5 billion per year to boost

Brussels, 7 June 2017

Communication Launching the European Defence Fund

Draft General Budget of the European Union for the

They dont even try to hide the push for an EU army

Brexit agreement: What does

You might also like