EU Militarisation: A Growing Debate
The European Union’s trajectory toward greater militarisation is drawing sharp attention ahead of elections, as voices inside and outside traditional party lines question where defence spending is taking priority. Independent presidential candidate Catherine Connolly used a recent television interview to frame the issue as not merely strategic, but also social. Speaking on Katie Hannon Interview Live, she argued that “the EU has gone down a route of further and further militarisation,” a concern she said has long troubled her and remains unresolved.
Connolly’s comments put a spotlight on a broader debate about national budgets, security policy, and welfare programs. She contends that increased spending on arms and defence is occurring at a time when welfare and social supports face tighter funding. “As a woman and as a mother, I’m seriously concerned at the direction that countries are going and spending more money on arms and the militarisation while we reduce the money spent on welfare,” she told viewers. The remarks echo a concern shared by many voters who see social protection and healthcare pressed to the edge in favour of defence contracts and modernisation projects.
Historical Echoes and Contemporary Realities
Connolly broadened the discussion by drawing comparisons with Germany’s rearmament of the 1930s, saying she had expressed serious concerns about “the similarities between now and the 30s.” She cited Germany’s perceived rearmament as part of a broader pattern of reinforcing economies through arms purchases. While she condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, she stated that the current level of militarisation warranted careful scrutiny. The comments come amid ongoing debates about Europe’s security architecture, the role of allies, and the balance between deterrence and diplomacy.
Policy and Public Accountability
Beyond defence spending, Connolly defended her use of parliamentary resources for a 2018 trip to Syria. She described the visit to Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus as a fact-finding mission that reinforced her horror at dictatorship, war, and destruction. She asserted that she did not fraternise with any designated terrorist groups and that the trip’s objective was to gain a clearer understanding of the humanitarian crisis.
The candidate also addressed personnel decisions, noting she had hired a woman with a background in rehabilitation who had been sentenced for gun crime. Connolly said the decision was based on reputation and rehabilitation potential, and she clarified there were no emails to release related to vetting because she wasn’t involved in that process, aside from requesting information about a delayed Dáíl pass.
Campaign Tone and Vision for Ireland
Throughout the interview, Connolly emphasised accountability and transparency, particularly regarding the funding of overseas trips, and the scrutiny of expenses by the Public Accounts Committee. She reaffirmed her stance on serving only one term as President, highlighting a commitment to political renewal and limited tenure rather than lifelong incumbency.
On the domestic front, Connolly hinted at broader reform of Freedom of Information and access to presidential information, indicating a willingness to adjust governance norms to enhance accountability. She also touched on personal aspects of the potentially transformative role, suggesting she would use her presidency to encourage physical fitness and public health awareness, even joking about bringing her two cats to Áras an Uachtaráin.
During a campaign stop in Navan, Co Meath, she framed the race as a people’s decision, underscoring her belief in Irish voters’ capacity to shape the country’s future. “I think the people of Ireland will decide and that’s what so special about this election,” she said, voicing confidence in the democratic process and in the voters’ judgement.
The exchange reflects a broader trend in European politics where security concerns, humanitarian priorities, and fiscal responsibility intersect. As Ireland and the EU navigate geopolitical tensions, statements like Connolly’s contribute to an ongoing conversation about where public money is best spent and how to balance defence with welfare in a rapidly changing world.
