Member's statement: Republic of Ireland: Defence and Security Concerns
Member's statement by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Republic of Ireland: Defence and Security Concerns
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5448326
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last week, along with our party leader, I was involved in talks with our Prime Minister and, separately, with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister for Defence, Helen McEntee TD. We raised with both of them the very real concerns about the lack of defence and security provisions of our Southern neighbour. Those concerns have recently been further exemplified by the Iranian cyberattacks on the US medtech company Stryker; the Russian drone incursions when President Zelenskyy's aircraft was trying to land at Dublin Airport; the movement of Russia's grey and dark fleet ships travelling unmonitored through Ireland's extensive but unpatrolled exclusive economic zone; the highly suspicious movements of the Yantar, the Russian navy's main underwater research ship, near and above sensitive data, power and gas cables and pipes; and the cyberattack that brought down the Irish health system, which, again, was attributed to criminal gangs controlled by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB). Irish sea, subsea, airspace and cyberspace are wide open for exploitation or worse. That is a very real concern for us because, for instance, our integrated single electricity market (ISEM) — our electricity market and system — is controlled from Dublin. Our agribusiness relies a lot on just-enough, just-in-time access to Irish business and data sharing. We have to be aware that any loss of gas to the Irish Republic will result in rapid and catastrophic failure of its electricity grid. There simply is not enough interconnection to stabilise the Irish grid, especially with the very high preponderance that they have of supplying power-hungry data centres. It was good to see that, on Friday, the Irish recognised their vulnerabilities and reached out to the United Kingdom to formally ask it to take responsibility for the security of Irish seas and airspace. It could be surmised, although I have no knowledge of it, that the cyberdefensive power of GCHQ in Cheltenham has also been requested. Keeping the Irish secure is of interest to us. A strand 2/3 issue of the Belfast Agreement is something that we should keep an eye on. However, we also believe that the United Kingdom should be properly compensated for that. Anyone who has been following recent news stories will know that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been hard stretched. It is right and proper that, if our forces are deployed to defend Ireland, which has, indeed, freeloaded on its commitment for decades, we should be paid. After all, Ireland keeps telling us that it is in robust fiscal health — no doubt because it has not previously paid for any defence. At the very least, Ireland should drop its court case on legacy against the United Kingdom. Why would it sue the UK over its use of the military whilst, at the exact same time, beg the UK to save its industry and the EU presidency later this year from Putin and his acolytes' interference? Hypocrisy should not be a basis for cooperation in these dangerous times.
506 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.21 (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 (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.21 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.48 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.29 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.23 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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.