Gerard P. Craughwell
Labour Panel · Independent · Ireland
“I omitted to formally congratulate the Leader yesterday on his elevation. I assume there will be bonfires all over Tipperary as he arrives home this weekend. I ask him to please forgive me for not officially congratulating him. I will say a few words at the start at our Presidency of the European Union.”
“It sends a confused and troubling message about hierarchy, authority, respect and the place of the Defence Forces within our nation's life. This matters.”
“The decision to have the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, a civil servant, however reputable, take the salute from newly commissioned officers before handing them their commission represents a deeply inappropriate blurring of roles. Let us be clear.”
“I say to the 64th naval cadet class in their achievement that they remain significant, their commitment remains admirable and their future responsibilities remain vital.”
“It is simply unacceptable that not one Minister or Minister of State of the 38 available was present to officiate at the commissioning of new officers into the Naval Service. I remind colleagues that this is not a minor diary clash or an administrative oversight; it is a profound signal of disregard for the State's most loyal servants.”
“It is an honour for me to extend my congratulations to the 64th naval cadet class on their commissioning into the Naval Service. Their commissioning should be a moment of unambiguous pride for them, their families and the State they have chosen to serve.”
The complete record
Every one of 631 lines we hold for Gerard P. Craughwell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“In regard to the State and the Government but, most of all, those who will be at the coalface, working day and night to show this country in its best light, I wish them well and I hope everything goes as planned.”
“I omitted to formally congratulate the Leader yesterday on his elevation. I assume there will be bonfires all over Tipperary as he arrives home this weekend. I ask him to please forgive me for not officially congratulating him. I will say a few words at the start at our Presidency of the European Union. My thoughts are with the public servants who have been seconded from Departments all over the place to facilitate the Presidency of the EU. We give the various Departments a bit of a licking now and again over various things that bother us, but it is amazing how the public service can step up to the plate at a time like this and show Ireland at its very best.”
“I say to the 64th naval cadet class in their achievement that they remain significant, their commitment remains admirable and their future responsibilities remain vital. As commissioned officers of the Irish Naval Service, each will carry forward the honour of a proud Naval Service, regardless of its shortcomings, to which I have adverted. I call on each officer to serve with integrity, lead with courage, demand the standards from others that they have already demanded of themselves and, above all, never to forget the value of the uniform they now wear, even if others have failed to show that they understand its true value. Perhaps we would have a Minister in at some stage to explain such a despicable snub.”
“It sends a confused and troubling message about hierarchy, authority, respect and the place of the Defence Forces within our nation's life. This matters. It matters because symbols shape culture and men and women standing commissioned deserve to see clearly and without ambiguity that their service is recognised at the highest levels of the State. It further matters because erosion of standards, whether ceremonial or substantive, rarely stops where it begins. Let me be absolutely clear. The failures that have occurred during the commissioning I am adverting to are not the responsibility of the newly commissioned officers. They belong entirely to those who should have known better and done better. Essentially, they rest with the Government and the responsible Minister.”
“The decision to have the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, a civil servant, however reputable, take the salute from newly commissioned officers before handing them their commission represents a deeply inappropriate blurring of roles. Let us be clear. Civilian oversight of the military is essential in any democracy but oversight is not ceremony and governance is not command. Ceremonial acts, such as the receiving of a salute, carry profound symbolic meaning. The salute is an expression of the officer's respect for the State's authority, exercised through its elected leadership and its properly constituted military chain of command. For a civil servant, however senior, to assume the role is not just irregular; it is wrong.”
“It is simply unacceptable that not one Minister or Minister of State of the 38 available was present to officiate at the commissioning of new officers into the Naval Service. I remind colleagues that this is not a minor diary clash or an administrative oversight; it is a profound signal of disregard for the State's most loyal servants. The commissioning of officers is the cornerstone moment in the life of the Defence Forces. It represents the State formally entrusting its citizens with authority, responsibility and, if necessary, the use of force in its name. To treat such an occasion as unworthy of a ministerial presence is to diminish that trust. Even more troubling is what replaced that absence.”
“It is an honour for me to extend my congratulations to the 64th naval cadet class on their commissioning into the Naval Service. Their commissioning should be a moment of unambiguous pride for them, their families and the State they have chosen to serve. They have completed their demanding training, demonstrated discipline and leadership, and earned their place among the officers of Óglaigh na hÉireann. Each has joined the service with a proud and hard-earned reputation for professionalism, sacrifice and excellence in protecting Ireland's maritime interests. This occasion was overshadowed, avoidably and significantly, by a failure of leadership at the highest levels of the Government.”
“An article that broke on thejournal.ie yesterday reported that the Attorney General was forced - five days before we take over the Presidency of the EU - to come in and advise the security services that the use of foreign troops is contrary to Article 15.6 of the Constitution. I wonder how we are going to square that circle in the next couple of days? We need to be more upfront about how things are done, particularly on the peacekeeping side and the triple lock. For God's sake, let us stop making it emotive and just get rid of the thing.”
“Ireland has been involved in peace enforcement since 1999. It is very clear. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows for peace enforcement and that is what we do when we go overseas. We need to take the emotive language out of what is going on with respect to the triple lock. The triple lock is mutually exclusive from our neutrality, although everybody in this House knows that I have serious issues with us declaring ourselves a neutral state. How the hell can we be neutral when we find ourselves in the situation where we are unable to provide security for the forthcoming EU Presidency?”
“The rather confused issue of the triple lock is finding its way through the Houses as we speak. During a debate I listened to, it was claimed that the removal of the triple lock will mean that the Defence Forces can never serve in a peacekeeping role again. This is incorrect. Irish peacekeepers have been participating in peacekeeping operations, wearing the blue beret of the United Nations, the Óglaigh na hÉireann beret or the Glengarry caubeen, while serving overseas. That was in an EU mission sanctioned by the UN. If the UN sanction a mission on a regional basis, there is no blue beret. You wear the beret of your unit, regiment, army or whatever it is. The second issue is the issue of war fighting. There is no war fighting in peacekeeping. There is peacekeeping or there is peace enforcement.”
“If we cannot see what is up there or intercept what is travelling through our airspace, then we are merely providing wallpaper to cover a crack. That is not the way to do legislation.”
“It offers the appearance of decisive action but lacks the structural integrity required to deliver meaningful outcomes. For these reasons, I cannot support the Bill as currently drafted. I urge that it be reconsidered and substantially revised to ensure any legislative changes are practical and effective and that they serve the long-term interests of our aviation system and the public it supports. There are two clear issues that have to be looked at here. One is the Vienna Convention and the other is our obligations under the United Nations. I humbly suggest my colleagues go back and look at the obligations under both of those. I thank Members for their time and regret not being able to support this. There is talk of genocide, etc., taking place in the world.”
“Laws must not only be well intentioned, they must also be credible and enforceable. The issues this Bill seeks to address are legitimate in every way and I commend those who put it together. Safety, accountability and the protection of national interests are matters of importance. However, these objectives cannot be achieved through measures that prioritise visibility over viability. A more appropriate approach would involve thorough consultation with industry experts, close alignment with international regulatory frameworks and a clearly articulated resource implementation strategy. Effective legislation in this domain must be grounded in technical expertise and operational realism. In its present form, the Bill falls short of those standards.”
“To extend their obligations without equipping them adequately risks diluting rather than strengthening the effectiveness of oversight. The potential economic implications cannot be overlooked. Aviation is a vital component of national connectivity, trade and tourism. Any policy framework that introduces regulatory uncertainty or operational friction has consequences that expand far beyond the sector itself. The cumulative effect may be to weaken rather than reinforce a strategically important industry. There is also a broader institutional concern. The enactment of legislation that cannot effectively be implemented risks eroding public and stakeholder confidence in the legislative process. That is an important point. If you cannot effectively implement the legislation, what is the purpose behind it? What are we doing?”
“The Bill purports to expand oversight and enforcement responsibilities, yet it is notably silent on practical means by which these responsibilities are to be discharged. I will make an analogy. We could introduce a traffic law and provide no gardaí to enforce it. What do you do? It means absolutely nothing. There are no clear provisions for the resources, staffing or institutional capacity required to give effect to these measures. Legislative ambition without corresponding operational support inevitably results in provisions that are ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. The imbalance places an undue burden on regulatory authorities which are already tasked with maintaining the highest standards of safety in a demanding and complex environment.”
“Any attempt to impose sweeping unilateral changes without full alignment with these structures risks significant operational and legal consequences. The Bill places considerable emphasis on decisive national action. However, decisiveness alone does not equate to effectiveness. By prioritising immediate political appeal over careful policy design, the legislation introduces provisions that may conflict with established international obligations and practices. This creates uncertainty for airlines, regulators and international partners – uncertainty that could disrupt operations, increase costs and undermine confidence in our aviation sector. Serious concerns arise in relation to feasibility and implementation.”
“The Minister of State is welcome to the House. This Bill purports to offer clarity, control and enhanced protection within our aviation system. Such aims are both necessary and commendable. However, it is incumbent on us as legislators to look beyond the language and intent and to scrutinise the substance of what is proposed. On that basis, I contend that the Bill is, in its current form, populist in concept and unworkable in practice. At its core, the Bill reduces highly complex international integrated systems into a series of overlaid, simplified measures. Aviation is not a policy domain that operates in isolation; it is governed by rigorous international standards, co-operative regulatory frameworks and technical precision.”
“People are telling me today that there were fewer than 12 people involved, so the Government did not have to withdraw them. I ask them to check the law. The Government had no choice. It had to withdraw them. I would like to see the legislation on the triple lock come into the House before the break and let us put an end to this nonsense.”
“Let us watch over the coming months as we withdraw more and more of our Defence Forces people back home because of an infantile process known as the triple lock. Who in this House would go to their next-door neighbour and ask if they could let their husband or wife out for a drink tonight? Who would ask some stranger if we could let the children out? Yet we are quite happy to allow the English King, the President of the United States, the President of France and the President of Russia to decide where we will send our troops. Is it not time that we grew up as a sovereign nation? Can we imagine the position of General Seán Clancy, the current chairman of the European Union Military Committee? He is an Irish general who cannot see his own countrymen serve overseas. This nonsense has to stop. It really does.”
“I want to be associated with the congratulations to Seán Kyne. Saturday and Sunday were nail-biting and showed the value of the single transferable vote. I am delighted for Seán and his family. A more decent man you could not meet. We will be holding interviews for the position of Leader over the coming days - CVs to me before the close of business this evening. To my colleagues who have spent their time in both Houses crying about the triple lock, Ireland's neutrality and all of that nonsense, yesterday was the start of the collapse of Ireland's peacekeeping missions overseas. Operation Irini is still continuing, but Irish service personnel cannot serve any more. They have been withdrawn with effect from 24 May.”
“Yesterday, Colin Weir, formerly the colonel of the Royal Irish Regiment, spoke about how, as history moved on from the First World War through the Second World War, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, Irish men and Irish women had served in every one of those wars. I was extremely proud to be in Westminster yesterday not just as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, but as a former member of both the Royal Irish Rangers and the Irish Defence Forces. I encourage Members to go and see what is in the museum. It is incredible. Andy Hart will pick up an artefact, look at it and tell you the story behind it. Yesterday, he caused a bit of consternation in the Palace of Westminster when he brought a whistle in. He just wanted to tell the story behind the whistle but whistles are one of the items banned from the Houses of Parliament.”
“The museum has the history of every military regiment that was ever raised in Ireland. Andy Hart is one of the people you meet in the Untold Museum. I hope, given his interest in cross-Border issues, that the Cathaoirleach will visit the museum. One of the key things that Mr. Hart talks about is that the soldiers who joined the forces from the Republic and Northern Ireland were held in high esteem, whereas soldiers who joined from England, Scotland and Wales were regarded as vagabonds. The Irish had better teeth, were taller and were healthier people. We have fought in every major battle.”
“I had the honour of attending an event at the House of Westminster organised by Liam Conlon MP. It was to do with the Untold Museum of Belfast. The museum is an incredible place. I know there are many misgivings about Irish people who served in the British forces, and served with pride, as I did. The Untold Museum hosts 350 years of Irish military history. It is an incredible place to visit because you hear the stories not only of the people of the Northern Irish community and the unionist community, but also of the Sixth Battalion, the Connaught Rangers, which was raised in west Belfast. Why was it raised in west Belfast? The Catholics would not serve under Sir Edward Carson. There was the Royal Ulster Rifles, from the unionist side, as well as the Royal Enniskillen Fusiliers and the Munster Fusiliers.”
“If they are only being used for training why do we need missile systems on them? Government policy is to have no Israeli equipment of any sort, but I understand these helicopters may well have Israeli equipment. There are questions for the Departments of Defence and justice to answer with respect to the purchase of these helicopters.”
“Another issue we should discuss is that we are now piling all of our eggs into one basket and we have selected one country for the supply of nearly all defence equipment. Professor Davis, who spoke to the committee two weeks ago, advised that this was folly. Politics change and countries change their attitudes. We need to explore this with the Minister to see exactly who is driving the agenda in this country and what the agenda is. Are we going to follow to the letter of the law the recommendations of the commission on the future of the Defence Forces? This is very important. Buying four helicopters is great but if they cannot do the job we want of them what good are they? They certainly cannot carry a section of special forces people. Whether they would be able to fight fires I am not sure. It was said they were being used for training.”
“Last week, the Department of Defence came before the defence committee and I raised questions concerning the purchase of four H145 helicopters for the Defence Forces. In my view, they do not meet the requirements of the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. They are not medium-lift helicopters. The commission looked for the purchase of two medium-lift helicopters, which would be the AgustaWestland 139s, and between now and 2030 for a move to having eight super-medium-lift helicopters. Apparently, there is now no money left to buy the super-medium-lift helicopters. I have asked on a number of occasions for the Minister for Defence to come to the House for an open debate on adherence to Government policy and the commission on the future of the Defence Forces.”
“As the Cathaoirleach pointed out, there will be a presentation in the audiovisual room at 12.30 p.m. by some of the leading cardiologists in the country and members of related professions. The topic under discussion will be hypertension and its dangers. People tend to think that stroke is something that afflicts people in the latter part of their lives and people in the departure lounge, like myself, who are over a certain age. In actual fact, one of my school friends had a stroke at 37 and spent the rest of his natural life in a nursing home. Stroke can affect anybody, hypertension can affect anybody and cardiac-related events can affect any person. I ask Members of the Seanad and the Dáil to attend today, if they can, to get to meet some of the professionals who are there and take a few moments to listen to what they have to say.”
“The national security strategy would lay out how we would deal with such issues as water, the transmission of electricity, gas, transport, etc. It would prioritise which things have to be saved in the event of a crisis and which things can be set aside or dealt with at a later date. Nothing has ever been said. We have a national crisis team that meets every now and then when there is a national crisis but it has no blueprint to work on. There is no strategy. I ask that we bring the Minister for Defence to the House and have an open conversation about a national security strategy. It is not always about people in uniform. It is not always about people in the Defence Forces or An Garda Síochána. It is about people working in electricity or gas transmission systems. It is about anything that makes this country work.”
“The primary function of any State is to provide for the security of its citizens. In this State, we are woefully neglecting our citizens. Dan O'Brien has a piece concerning the spend on defence in this country. We are lowest-spending country in Europe on national defence. There is no national security strategy. It was promised in 2019 but it is now becoming a bit like Trump and Obamacare, where every week it is a case of "the last paragraph is currently being drafted and it'll be out any day soon". We were already hit with the HSE cyberattack. Cyberattacks are happening in their thousands every day. Every minute and every nanosecond, there is an attack on somebody in this country. There is no national security strategy.”
“We should accept the fact that there are colleagues, friends and relations who appear on the outside to have perfectly normal, happy lives and, very often, there is horrendous violence taking place in the background. Coercion is probably the most difficult thing to deal with in a situation like that. We should have a debate in this House on domestic violence and look for some clearer indications as to exactly what is involved. I congratulate the shelters that provide refuge for these women.”
“I am aware of one case where a property was remortgaged on the understanding that the money was needed to save a business and, when the mortgage cheque was drawn down, the man in question walked away with the money in his pocket, leaving the woman to face all sorts of financial crises, etc. That went on for 19 years in that woman's life; 19 years of torture, trying to figure out how she was going to survive with her children. Maybe the comment that was made to me this morning was just a passing comment, but maybe the time has come for men to take a more proactive approach when it comes to domestic violence. We should talk about it among ourselves.”
“I do not believe any of us men can understand what it must be like for a woman to pack up her two or three children in the middle of the night, leave the house and go to one of the wonderful refuges that exist. I am grateful that there are refuges where these women can go, but just think of the consequences the following morning when they wake up. First and foremost, the children probably love their father as much as their mother, so there is trauma there. There is the situation where the woman is penniless, more often than not. Bank accounts, even if they are joint bank accounts, become difficult to access. The man stays in the home. I am aware of a few instances not of domestic violence, but the coercion of one member of a couple.”
“The Acting Leader will be aware of the fact that this morning there was a meeting regarding violence against women. One of the comments made to me as I was passing the audiovisual room was that not enough men speak out about violence, particularly domestic violence. When I look at the statistics for 2025, there were 21,000 calls to An Garda Síochána due to domestic violence incidents. When I look at the statistics, 277 women have died as a result of domestic violence since 1996. Of those 277 women, 63% died in their own homes. These are shocking statistics. As we delve deeper into this, however, we find that convicted murderers go through such things as seeking custody of children and seeking the value of the property and other assets to be ring-fenced and minded or taken care of for them until they are released into society again.”
“A diversified and strategically governed procurement system that supports Irish industry, protects Irish jobs and strengthens Irish autonomy is not just good policy; it is an expression of our sovereignty and our responsibility to future generations. Having said all of that, the Minister of State's Department has played a crucial role in Ireland since the financial crash. I know he was elected soon after that crash. The Department plays an important role but the oversight sometimes involves too much micromanagement. It should be more like macromanagement, particularly in the areas where we are about to spend massive amounts of funds. I thank the Minister of State for his time. This is my first time to address him since he got promoted. I am delighted to see him here as a former Member of this House.”
“Fourth, we must maintain strong governance and oversight. Defence investments last decades. They must be evaluated rigorously with explicit consideration of geopolitical risk, including the risk of political change in supplier states. Finally, we must adopt a full life cycle approach. The real vulnerabilities often emerge not at the moment of purchase, but years later when systems need upgrades, parts or technical support. Domestic industrial capacity is one of the best tools we have to ensure continuity throughout that life cycle. International partnerships will always be essential to Ireland's defence, but over-reliance on any single supplier introduces avoidable risks that are magnified in a world where political change can alter the terms of engagement overnight.”
“How do we respond to these challenges? First, we must make diversification a core strategic objective. We do not abandon key partners, but we avoid excessive concentration. Working with multiple suppliers reduces risk and increases flexibility. Second, we must structure procurement contracts to protect national autonomy. This means securing access to maintenance, ensuring we have the rights to adapt and upgrade systems, and embedding domestic industrial participation wherever feasible. Local manufacturing and long-term maintenance capacity are not luxuries; they are safeguards. Third, we must align our procurement strategy with broader European frameworks. EU collaboration offers opportunities to diversify supply, strengthen partnerships and operate within a stable political and regulatory environment.”
“Suppliers should be required to maintain some level of manufacturing, assembly or high-value industrial activity within the State. This is not protectionism; it is prudent policy that ensures public spending contributes to our own economic resilience, anchors key capabilities at home and builds a sustainable industrial ecosystem that can support our defence needs over the long term. Europe is moving in the same direction. Under the ReArm Europe and Readiness 2030 initiatives, more than €800 billion is being mobilised to rebuild Europe’s defence industrial base and reduce reliance on external suppliers. Countries across the Continent are onshoring production, especially the production of ammunition and critical components, because they have learned the hard way that relying entirely on foreign production is no longer viable.”
“These investments demand secure and reliable supply chains. We must be honest with ourselves. Ireland has seen the consequences of weak procurement governance in other sectors. The national children's hospital, which was originally costed at under €1 billion, has become the most expensive healthcare project in the world, with costs escalating far beyond initial estimates. The search and rescue aviation contract has also faced significant scrutiny, with legal challenges, delays and questions over process and oversight. These examples are not about defence, but they demonstrate the simple truth that when procurement goes wrong, it goes wrong for years and the State pays the price. Defence procurement cannot afford those mistakes. That is why it is essential that defence procurement supports Irish industry and Irish jobs.”
“In Shannon, Irish companies are developing advanced drone technologies with global applications, which is proof that we have the talent and the industrial capability to contribute meaningfully to national security. The Irish Defence and Security Association, representing firms across cybersecurity, aerospace, engineering and advanced manufacturing, has repeatedly highlighted the potential for Irish industry to play a larger role in supporting national capability. These are assets we should be leveraging, not overlooking. This is especially important now, as Ireland moves to double its defence budget to €3 billion, with plans for a 12-ship Naval Service fleet, new armoured vehicles, a military intelligence school, a 300-person cyber corps and even a future fighter aircraft capability.”
“The surge in orders linked to the war in Ukraine has stretched French industrial capacity, so any supply chain shock becomes even more problematic. For an island nation with unique maritime and airspace responsibilities, these are not theoretical concerns; they are practical ones. Fourth, there is the question of our own industrial and technological base. Ireland may not be a major defence manufacturer, but we have real strengths in engineering, technology and advanced services. If procurement is focused entirely abroad, we underuse those strengths, we miss opportunities for innovation and we fail to build the domestic capacity that strengthens national resilience. We already see examples of what Ireland can do.”
“A well-known case in France involves shortages of strategic raw materials, especially titanium, aluminium and nickel, some of which historically came from Russia. After the invasion of Ukraine, sanctions and countersanctions disrupted these supplies. French manufacturers including Dassault Aviation and Safran reported that several SMEs in their supply chains were in serious difficulty because of these disruptions, threatening production rates for military equipment such as aircraft engines and airframe components. Two factors make the problem worse. The first is a heavy dependence on subcontractors. For example, Safran receives 65% of the parts for its LEAP engines from external suppliers, making any disruption critical. The second factor is longer lead times and industrial saturation.”
“Defence systems rely on continuous access to parts, software and technical expertise. Any interruption, whether caused by politics, industrial action or global events, can have immediate consequences for our ability to operate. The evidence is clear. Deloitte has warned that after decades of optimisation, global defence supply chains have become fragile, opaque and vulnerable to shocks ranging from pandemics to global political pressure. PwC describes global defence supply chains as “in turmoil”, with nations now competing for limited industrial capacity. In Sweden, major manufacturers like Saab and BAE Systems report severe production bottlenecks and long lead times because supply chains cannot keep up with demand.”
“Across Europe, governments have had to rethink their reliance on single suppliers because political change, even in friendly countries, has already altered export policies and delivery priorities. This is why so many European states are diversifying procurement and rebuilding sovereign production capacity. The second vulnerability is the risk of political change within the supplier state. Governments change, policies shift and export controls tighten. A country that is a reliable partner today may, after an election or a geopolitical realignment, impose restrictions, delay deliveries or prioritise its own domestic needs. Even without hostility, such changes can disrupt supply chains that we expected to remain stable for decades. Third, concentrated sourcing exposes us to supply chain disruption.”
“One of the greatest risks we face is over-reliance on a single supplier country. Such reliance can arise for understandable reasons, specifically efficiencies in training, maintenance and interoperability, long-standing diplomatic relationships and the convenience of dealing with a familiar partner. However, when too much of our capability comes from one external source, we expose ourselves to vulnerabilities that are strategic, political and economic. The first vulnerability, the strategic dependency, is such that if our crucial capability depends on one country, our operational readiness becomes tied, whether we like it or not, to that country's political decisions and priorities. That is not just a technical risk; it is a political one.”
“The Minister of State is welcome to the House. Public procurement is one of the most powerful instruments of public policy in Ireland. Nowhere is it more evident than in the field of defence. The choices we make about where we source our equipment, technology and support systems shape not only our economic landscape but also our national security and our ability to act with confidence in an increasingly uncertain world. It will be no surprise to the Minister of State that I will focus mainly on defence today. For a country like Ireland, militarily non-aligned yet carrying growing responsibility in maritime security, cybersecurity and EU mission defence procurement, it is not simply a matter of buying equipment but also about ensuring that what we buy remains reliable, sustainable and under Irish control throughout its entire life cycle.”
“I ask the Deputy Leader not just to use her offices here today to call for a debate, but to use her influence within her own parliamentary party to raise the matter and put more focus on it.”
“How can we credibly take on the European Presidency and guarantee the safety of the senior government leaders who will be coming to this country? I ask the Deputy Leader to use her own influence to have the Minister for Defence come in here to discuss the security of the State over the period of the EU Presidency. The public has the right to know how we will behave as a sovereign nation to defend not just ourselves, but our colleagues and friends from Europe who will come to this country. At this point in time, I see nothing to reassure me. It is almost certain that we will suffer massive cyberattacks and that we will have other issues to contend with. Sadly, as a result of the Zelenskyy visit, we cannot run around the place clapping ourselves on the back and saying how prepared we are. We are ill prepared.”
“Yesterday, we read in the Irish Examiner that defence spending is still at 0.2% of our GDP, the lowest in the entire European Union. The tiny island of Malta spends 3% on defence. We also note that the Garda has been awarded an additional €165 million for the Presidency of the EU. There is no word whatsoever as to what will be provided to the Defence Forces for the Presidency of the EU. In light of the constituency she lives in, the Deputy Leader will have some understanding of where I am coming from. She is probably one of the few in the Oireachtas who fully understands what goes on within defence. Given that the current central focus of the EU is defence and security, how can we take on the Presidency when we are spending 0.2% of GDP or 0.3% of GNP, which is more or less the same as GNI?”
“I am not sure whether Trump is making money out of this, but there are certainly people who are. The circumstantial evidence is there for everybody to see. They need to stop, look and see what is going on. It is absolutely criminal. Innocent people are dying. I visited Tehran in 2017 with a delegation from the State. The ordinary people of Iran are no different to you and I. They drink coffee, play with their kids, shop and do all of the things normal people do. The mullahs, on the other hand, need to be taken out. By God, Trump's method of taking them out will not work. You cannot change a regime from 35,000 ft. Threats of putting boots on the ground will do great for the arms industry and anybody who has a few bob on the stock exchange, but we need to call it out as politicians.”
“He started a war in the Middle East. Every time a statement is made, the stock market jumps up or down. Trades are being made on futures or the rising stock market. Billions of dollars are being made and circumstantial evidence suggests that people close to the President of the United States are making massive amounts of money. Where are the regulators, the people who look after the little people of this world? Are we now playing with the lives of thousands of people? The war in Iran does not just affect Iran and the United States; it is causing a massive recession throughout the world. This war will take ten years to get over, but Mr.Trump is not yet finished. He obviously has not made enough out of it at this stage. It behoves all of us in political office to call out this corruption because that is what it is.”