Debate contribution: Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 2 March 2026.

MLA: Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 2 March 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5433194

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to pick up on some themes that have been talked about today, including defence, which the previous Member to speak and the Member for South Antrim mentioned, but I will start with the comments of the Member for Foyle. If she had taken an intervention from me, I would have asked her whether she believes that a country should have a defensive capability, and that applies throughout the whole of the UK and to all European countries. I think that that is very important and has been reflected in the debate. A global study called 'The Military Balance 2025', conducted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), revealed that the Republic of Ireland is at the bottom of the European table of 38 countries for defence spending as a percentage of GDP. Today, Ireland is, unfortunately, widely recognised as "free-riding" on NATO for its aerial and maritime capabilities, as Dublin lacks the capacity to defend its own airspace as has been reflected, or the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Despite bearing responsibility for 16% of the EU's territorial waters and the fact that 75% of transatlantic undersea cables pass through or near Irish waters, Ireland is "totally defenceless". The figures behind that assertion show that the UK spends £66 billion on defence each year, and that the Republic spends £1·18 billion on defence. When you do the calculation on that, you see that that figure represents 1·79% of UK defence spending. People have argued that Ireland is neutral and asked why it should spend any more money on defence if it is, in fact, neutral. The EU might conceivably take a different view. It has been argued and well quoted in the Chamber today that Ireland is freeloading on other EU states for its defence, as measured either in per capita or gross figures. However, my view is slightly different in that the EU is quite happy because the Republic of Ireland, as has been noted, relies wholly on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for its defence at all levels, land, sea and air. It gets all that for free. That is not a bad deal, but I suspect that it will not be one that we will hear referenced from the opposite Benches today. Whilst we consider the motion and the amendment, given the world that we live in and as we talk about defence, it is worth bearing in mind, as has been referenced, that the key responsibility of a Government is to defend their own citizens.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not suspect that I will need it. I completely agree with my colleague that the way that the motion is framed will clearly be divisive in the Chamber because we all take recognisably different constitutional positions.
A country is completely within its rights to be neutral, but that is increasingly difficult to justify in the uncertain world in which we live.
I will indeed, sir.
I thank the Member for South Antrim. I do not want to see any more nuclear weapons than we already have, and I am sure that the Member does not either. The theme is correct, however: in this uncertain world, a country has to be able to defend itself. The Republic of Ireland is a neutral country, but it relies on this country for its defence. That will not be acceptable for much longer.
I will.
I will say this in my final 13 seconds: the Member opposite will not be surprised to hear that, clearly, I do not recognise that.

607 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.35 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.65).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.83).
Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.18	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.18	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.32	No
Controversy escalation	0.16	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.65	Yes
Overall judgement	0.35	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.83
Reports or questions it	0.03
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.14

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.92
No identity-related subject	0.08
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:00 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification