I want to raise the ongoing dismantling of Irish neutrality and the attempt to get rid of the triple lock, which it should be noted is being supported by many in the media. The reality is that the only people who will benefit from war and the ending of our neutrality are those in the armaments industry. That industrial complex makes billions of euro. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the population, yet it makes vast amounts of money. A quote that resonated with me was "a rich man's war drenched in the poor man's blood". For me, that sums up the futility of war and what happens in war, because when you look at the front lines in the Russian army and the Ukrainian army, you realise it is not the affluent there. It is the working communities and inner city communities. It is the disadvantaged people who are going there out of economic necessity. That is the futility of war. We seem to be rushing into the belief that we can just empty our disadvantaged communities into a war and somehow it is noble. There is nothing noble about war.

Ireland's peacekeeping missions are second to none. They have given us huge credibility internationally, and the idea that would all effectively be done away with by joining a military alliance makes no sense. I have spoken to many who have been on peacekeeping duty. They do not go because they want to go. They mostly go out of economic necessity, and it makes a difference. It gives them an opportunity to pay bills or maybe to buy a house. Irish Army personnel are not paid enough. We have to defend our neutrality because we can be sure that it will not be the children of The Irish Times readers on the front line. It will not be the children of Ministers on the front line in any war. It will be ordinary working class communities who are being pushed into war out of economic necessity, and like I say, the only people who will benefit from that are those in the armaments industry.

Last week, The Ditch reported that an Irish academic had a connection to a lobbyist group for the defence industry. The lobbying group in question, The Irish Defence and Security Association, represents international arms manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Saab and KNDS. It regularly appears in the lobbying register meeting with the Department of Defence, including most recently last December. While the academic is involved in this lobbying group, that individual also appears regularly in the media advocating for ending our neutrality. However, this connection to the lobbying group is rarely mentioned as part of the person's media contributions.

As many people in this room will know, I disagree with the stance on neutrality, but it is legitimate to put forward the argument that we should end our neutrality. It is not one that I favour, but there is room for debate. What is concerning is that, when the public hears this advocacy, it may not be aware that the viewpoint coming from this individual is not entirely academic. Given the person's connections to a lobbying group that represents defence companies, the end of neutrality or any significant increase in defence spending entails a conflict of interest and I believe that needs to be declared. Transparency in the public sphere is essential for our democracy, democratic principles and ensuring that citizens are well informed about the influences shaping national politics and discourse. I firmly believe that the failure to disclose these links publicly significantly undermines, within public discourse, the idea of transparency and open discourse. How can we trust what commentators are contributing to the public debate if we do not know what their links are to various companies and lobbying groups? We live in a time of mistrust in the public and political spheres with how we see misinformation and disinformation in the online space. People do not know what is and is not true. That is why these elements of transparency and openness are so important for us to maintain. This is not just an issue for individuals but for media organisations more generally. If commentators have loyalties and links, whether to lobbying groups, industries or political parties, those should be declared. The public should not be in the dark about that.

These revelations in The Ditch have sparked a debate about transparency and governmental interactions with the arms manufacturers. The convergence of academic, governmental and industrial interests necessitates greater transparency in policy discussions affecting national neutrality. While private engagements can facilitate informed policymaking, it is the public's right to be informed about those influences and how they are shaping defence and foreign policy interests. I would welcome a debate on the issue of transparency and lobbying in public commentary. I do not believe we can build public trust in public discourse without this transparency.