Vol. 489 No. 1
The usual practice on Bills to amend the Constitution is to postpone dealing with the sections until consideration of the Schedule has been completed as the sections are mainly technical and the main object of the legislation is contained in the Schedule.
SCHEDULE.
Tairgím leasú a 1:
I gCuid I, leathanach 7, líne 6, "Ní chuirfidh an daingniú seo as do bheartas an Stáit seo maidir le neodracht mhíleata. " a chur isteach i ndiaidh "a dhaingniú. ",
agus
I gCuid II, leathanach 7, line 14, "This ratification shall not compromise this State's policy of military neutrality. " a chur isteach i ndiaidh "1997. ".
I move amendment No. 1:
In Part I, page 6, line 6, after "a dhaingniú. " to insert "Ní chuirfidh an daingniú seo as do bheartas an Stáit seo maidir le neodracht mhíleata. ",
and
In Part II, page 6, line 14, after "1997. " to insert "This ratification shall not compromise this State's policy of military neutrality. ".
It seems the Green Party is now the only party recognised by the Dáil that supports Irish neutrality. I was in mischievous mood when tabling the amendment because I was aware it would put a spanner in the works. It is up to the other parties to state where they stand on this important issue. The parties which comprised the so-called rainbow coalition were involved in the negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty. This puts them in a difficult position. Likewise, the parties which comprise the present coalition were also involved and probably now recognise that Irish neutrality is a lost cause so far as they are concerned.
Had we been on the ball and really interested in Irish neutrality we would have done what the Danes did and sought the inclusion of a protocol. Had the Labour Party been truly interested in neutrality it would have adhered to the promise made in its manifesto in 1992 to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution. This was advocated by one of its leading members, Roger Cole of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, but, like so many others in the Labour Party who advocated neutrality, he has been put to one side. It seems the Labour Party cares more about the colour of Ruairi's tie than it does about neutrality.
The position of the Fine Gael Party has always been clear. It supports a European army, which is the stated aim of the Christian Democrats — the People's Party — of which it is part.
There have been many misleading statements during the debate. The Green Party believes Irish neutrality will be weakened and the European Union further militarised following the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. The common foreign and security policy is dealt with in Article 5. Contrary to what has been said, the proposed changes will confer significant new powers. The European Union will have an enhanced role at the expense of member states when it comes to a common foreign and security policy. It is the Union, not the Union and its member states, as stated in the Maastricht Treaty, that will define and implement a common foreign and security policy. The new Article J.2 allows the Union to define the principles and general guidelines for a common foreign and security policy and to decide on common strategies and adopt joint actions and common positions.
Article J.3 states that the European Council shall define the principles and general guidelines for a common foreign and security policy, including matters with defence applications. Article J.7 provides for the progressive rather than eventual — the word used in the Maastricht Treaty — framing of a common defence policy with the involvement of the Western European Union which, as we are aware, is a military group based on nuclear weapons.
The European Council will have the power to decide whether an EU common defence policy should be established, with the proviso that the decision must be referred back to member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. This is an important issue to which I will return.
More decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting. I wish to deal with this matter in some detail because it is important that we deal with the facts. We have often been accused of scaremongering on this important issue. It will be extremely difficult for the ordinary person to come to terms with this complex treaty. I hope the Commission will deal with it in some detail as people should know what is involved.
A new high representative, the present secretary general of the Council, will be appointed and assisted by a new planning and early warning unit, the personnel of which will include individuals from the Western European Union. This can be viewed as an embryo Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Western European Union will be further integrated into the European Union. A protocol has been attached to Article 7 which provides for the drawing up of arrangements for enhanced co-operation between the Western European Union and the European Union within a year of ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. Article J.7.1 states that the progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as member states consider appropriate, by co-operation between them in the field of armaments. It can be seen, therefore, that we are being sucked into a military alliance and that the European Union is being further militarised.
It is a significant development that the so-called Petersberg Tasks have been included in Article J.7.2. These include not alone humanitarian and peacekeeping issues but also tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking, which is a euphemism for making war. It seems we spent our time in negotiations trying to come up with a formula of words to give the impression that we were protecting Irish neutrality.
It has been stated that decisions made under a common foreign and security policy will have to be unanimous. We have been informed that more decisions will be made by qualified majority voting but that unanimity will be required in respect of matters with military or defence implications. The important point is that everyone will not have to say yes. There is a new constructive abstention provision which will allow a member state to qualify an abstention with a formal declaration. This means that it will not have to apply the decision but that it will accept that the decision commits the Union and will refrain from any action likely to conflict or impede Union action based on that decision and that the other member states shall respect its position. I ask people, as we approach 22 May, to go through this in some detail and make themselves aware of what is involved.
More than one third of the weighted votes of member states will be required to block a unanimous decision. Ireland has three votes; Austria, four; Sweden, four; and Finland, three. The total number of votes is 87. We could vote no but there will be enormous pressure to allow a coalition of the willing to proceed. This is a most important point. We are witnessing the steady erosion of Irish neutrality and are gradually being sucked into a military alliance. The Government like its predecessor is allowing this to happen.
It is interesting that the Labour Party chose Adi Roche as its candidate in the presidential election. I think it was John Waters who said this was a cynical exercise because Adi Roche's views on issues such as this are diametrically opposed to what the Labour Party stands for.
On the issue of foreign policy, the European Council will be allowed to operate by qualified majority voting when adopting joint actions and common positions or taking any other decision on the basis of a common strategy and when adopting any decision, implementing a joint action or common position. These joint actions are binding on all, although a form of emergency brake exists where a member state can declare that "for important and stated reasons of national policy it opposes a decision taken by qualified majority voting". It can then be referred to summit level where unanimity applies. There will be enormous pressure to refrain from pulling any emergency brake cords. Ireland's independent foreign policy will be increasingly overwhelmed by its larger partners.
When considering any future referenda and common defence provisions, Article J.7 provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide. This will be accepted or rejected in accordance with the member states' constitutional requirements. There is controversy as to whether a referendum would be required in Ireland if the EU decided on a common defence. I refer to the opinion put forward by an eminent barrister Dr. Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, Jean Monnet lecturer in European law at Trinity College who states:
Although the position in European law is not crystal clear, it seems that as a matter of Irish constitutional law there would be no requirement for a referendum. This is because if the Constitution is amended to license ratification of the proposed treaty which encompasses the competence to frame progressively a common defence, and to take a formal decision to institute a common defence, there will not necessarily be any development which would amend the treaties or add a new treaty competence for which a referendum would be required. The new Article J arguably marks the end of the constitutional competence to remain neutral. Neutrality itself is not constitutionally mandated. However, there are constitutional provisions on sovereignty, independence, the common good and the designation of the organs of government which exercise the power delegated by the popular sovereign through the Constitution. These provisions conflict with the extension of Union competence in this area.
Dr. Rossa Phelan is also referred to in chapter 12, "The Context of Ratification", of Amsterdam: What the Treaty Means.
Those who say Ireland's neutrality is safeguarded in the Maastricht Treaty and now in the Amsterdam Treaty also like to quote Article J.7.(3), which states:
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states and shall respect the obligations of certain member states, which see their common defence realised in NATO, under the north Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the Common Security and Defence Policy established within that framework.
It is interesting to note that only the first half of the sentence was quoted in the Chamber. It is often stated that "certain member states" means the neutral states in the first instance and the 11 NATO states in the second. Taken as a whole, one can see that the second half of the sentence is contradictory. Considering what has been happening in Article J.7, progressive framing of a common defence policy with the assistance of the Western European Union, which might lead to a common defence, it is difficult to see how anyone could be complacent about our neutrality not being prejudiced. I know I am in a minority when I speak in this regard.
Deputy Gay Mitchell's party is in favour of a European army. He should look at his party's record and that of the European People's Party in the European Parliament. I know the Deputy made a song and dance about what happened in Shannon but his party favours abolishing Irish neutrality. I did not mention Fianna Fáil which advocates a policy of "whatever you are having yourself". People recognise Fianna Fáil for what it is and it is happy to see Irish neutrality going down the Swanee.
The Amsterdam Treaty will be a difficult battle and I suspect all the forces will be brought out. I tabled this amendment to give the lie to the other parties' statement that they support Irish neutrality. The only parties which support it are the Green Party and, perhaps, the Socialist Party. We will be in the minority during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty. I hope we are able to put forward our points of view in the media. However, it will be difficult particularly when the other five parties are insincere and disingenuous. The test will be if they accept my amendment.
I do not know where Deputy Gormley got the idea that my party favours the formation of a European army. He will not find it in any policy statement——
It is on the record. The European People's Party and Ms Mary Banotti said it.
I ask the Deputy not to interrupt.
——or in statements made by Fine Gael Members of the Dáil. People throughout Europe, including socialists and Christian Democrats, have strong pro-NATO views to which they are entitled. As Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and as a member of the reflection group nominated by Deputy Spring, I sat for a long time at the general affairs council beside a Minister from another country who could not understand why Ireland was neutral. Barbed comments were often made about it. We must respect the fact that people have different views on this issue. If someone in the European People's Party in Brussels or in the Socialist Party in Spain expresses a view, it is disingenuous to attribute those views to me, to Deputy Joe Higgins or to anyone else.
I did not say anything about Deputy Joe Higgins.
The General Secretary of NATO was a former socialist Spanish Foreign Minister who opposed Spanish membership of NATO. We must respect his conviction.
Is the Deputy convinced?
This red herring is raised every time there is a debate on Europe. At some stage in the future our children or grandchildren may be asked to vote on this issue in the context of European integration.
What way would the Deputy vote?
I ask the Deputy to stop interrupting.
The decision will be theirs to make because Article J.7, of which one selective part was quoted by Deputy Gormley and on which I will not rely for my argument, copperfastens Ireland's neutrality in the Constitution for the first time. It does that not because of the general provision which Deputy Gormley quoted but because there are three other provisions in Article J.7 which replaces the old section J.4 in the Maastricht Treaty. The first provision is that should a decision be made in the future to have a common defence or to merge the Western European Union with the EU, it would have to be taken unanimously by the European Council.
On a point of order, if the Deputy had been here when I spoke he would have heard what I said on that issue.
Deputy Gay Mitchell was better off not hearing it.
The second requirement is that the decision would have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements in each member state. In the case of Ireland, that means there would have to be a referendum here post the Single European Act. The Deputy's suggestion that this article compromises our neutrality is not correct and does not stand up to examination. Every time there is a debate on membership of the European Union we have been told we are constantly compromising our neutrality. That was said when we joined the European Union, after the implementation of the Single European Act, during the debate on the Maastricht Treaty and it is being said again now. In terms of those who seek closer co-operation in the area of common defence, Article J.7. represents a weakening of the old Article J.4. While it states there may be common defence at some time in the future, if there is a decision on that or if a merger of the Western European Union is considered, that would require the three steps I mentioned, a unanimous decision of the European Council and the holding of a referendum in each member state after an intergovernmental process.
If the Government of the day for whatever reason wanted this country to join NATO, there would be no need for any meeting of heads of State or Government to take a unanimous decision, for an intergovernmental conference over a prolonged period or for a referendum to be held by member states. Post ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty this State will be able to join NATO much more easily than it would be able to become a full member of the Western European Union or to take part in a common defence of the European Union. That is because Article J.7. of the Amsterdam Treaty, if ratified, will enshrine Irish neutrality in our Constitution in the context of our membership of the European Union.
That is nonsense.
It is not nonsense. Deputy Gormley has obviously only spent five minutes considering this matter. I have spent a long time considering it. The Cabinet and a sub-committee of it, of which I was a member, spent a long time considering it before we agreed to its contents. The three provisions I mentioned are set out in Article J.7.
They are there to give an impression.
They include a requirement that there be a unanimous decision by the European Council, an inter-governmental conference, similar to the reflection group and the intergovernmental conference process which lasted two years, and that proposal would have to be ratified by each member state in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which post the implementation of the Single European Act would require a referendum to be held in Ireland. For the first time ever we are writing into the Constitution that a referendum must be held on a common defence or merger. That is in addition to a section of Article J.7. on which Deputy Gormley put such emphasis. We should stop adopting a bogeyman approach to this issue.
I respect that some Members have a different view from mine on security and defence. I would like to hear those different views without Members calling each other militarists or saying that those who support an alliance are holier than thou. Hearing the views of other Members on this issue would help me to form my opinion. I have ideas about what I would like to see in this area. If there were a fully integrated European Union, at some stage in the future our State might be asked to consider joining some common defence. However, if we enshrine Article J.7. in our Constitution, the State will not be able to join one unless the electorate of the day, most likely our children and grandchildren, decide to do so. Their decision would be based on whether they considered that would be good or bad for the country. If they were to vote "no", that would not happen, because the decision must be ratified by each member state if it follows an intergovernmental conference. We should not introduce a bogeyman approach to this matter.
I have a very different view from that contained in Deputy Gormley's amendment and his views on the Amsterdam Treaty. It would be worthwhile if we had a debate on the security and defence issue. Fine Gael has put forward a document in my name proposing that Ireland should join Partnership for Peace. Deputy O'Malley, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, has undertaken a process of discussion and debate on the broader issue at that committee. That is a healthy development and I look forward to hearing different points of view in that debate because I could learn something from them. We will not learn anything about this if we do not have an opportunity to exchange views. I congratulate Deputy O'Malley on bringing this about.
I will made a few brief remarks because on Committee Stage we are meant to direct our attention to a specific amendment, Deputy Gormley's in this case. I will try not to engage in a slagging match with him although I find his tone quite offensive and I agree with Deputy Mitchell that he has an ignorance of the complexity of these matters and his views introduce the bogeyman approach to this matter yet again. If Deputy Gormley were to spend a little more time considering these matters in this debate which is necessary and in the broader debate which, as Deputy Mitchell said, is also necessary, he would realise that under no circumstances will this constitutional amendment, which I am confident will be carried by the people on 22 May, pose a threat or a danger to the Government's position, and I believe the position of the majority of our people, on NATO membership or on the Western European Union. That is a fact.
What did the Deputy's presidential candidate say about that?
The Deputy should not interrupt me. I get tired of the view that everybody is out of step except the Greens and only they have a conscience and principles. That is a little hard to take. I wish to speak without interruption. It struck me from the Deputy's remarks this morning that he has not given any attention to the detail of the Amsterdam referendum.
I have gone into it in detail.
It is quite obvious that the Deputy has not, but he has come in here——
Deputy Gormley should cease interrupting.
——on his bicycle to tell the Irish people that Irish neutrality is yet again in danger. As Deputy Mitchell said and as I presume the Minister of State will say, the reality is we were very specific on our position in framing our contribution to this debate which took place over two years. There can be no change in Ireland's position on neutrality unless there is a referendum specifically to deal with that. I do not see one arising at present, but there may be one in ten or 15 years' time. That is a fact of life. If there is such a referendum and Deputy Gormley is still a Member he will be able to put forward his view and look for support for his position from the people. The reality is we need to have a rational debate on the architecture of European security. I called for that at the foreign affairs committee and there will now be a debate. This is not the context for that to be discussed, but we in this House need to address a position on behalf of Ireland in relation to NATO. The Western European Union and the OSCE and other things that are happening. The foreign affairs committee has started that process. There is no point in Deputy Gormley burying his head in the sand and pretending those organisations do not exist.
They do exist.
They do exist and we need to have a rational debate about them, about our responsibilities as members of the European Union and a considered discussion on these issues, which I do not believe we have ever had.
I would be happy to have one.
We will now have a debate thanks to an initiative taken at the foreign affairs committee. Deputy Gormley has said that peacemaking is another expression for making war, but that is far removed from the facts in relation to our responsibilities in the UN and as members of the United Nations. Our troops have participated in peacemaking missions.
There is a difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking.
I am well aware there is a difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking and anyone who was a Member of this House for the past five years would also be well aware of that. We quite rightly sent troops to Somalia under Chapter VII of the United Nations Treaty and to Bosnia.
On a point of order, will the Chair point out to Deputy Gormley that he is free to come back in as often as he wishes in a formal way to take up every point made? It is not necessary to keep interrupting.
I take that point.
I remind Deputy Gormley we are on Committee Stage and Members may speak as frequently as they wish. Will he please respect the House and the speaker in possession? He will get an opportunity to put any points he wishes later.
It might be stretching the point to ask for respect from Deputy Gormley but if he could just keep his mouth shut for a few minutes, we could continue the debate.
I will not interrupt the Deputy again.
My day is made and I thank Deputy De Rossa for his helpful intervention. It is important that we stick to the facts in terms of the implications for the Amsterdam Treaty which I expect to be ratified by large numbers of people. We are only discussing one aspect of it and there are wider issues in terms of what it will do for Ireland and its participation in the EU. The amendment tabled by Deputy Gormley is unnecessary and we will oppose it as a matter of principle, not policy.
Unfortunately the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty is being narrowed to the spurious question of neutrality. That is a pity because there are many excellent developments in the treaty which take account of the reality of the world in which we live rather than that which existed in the 1920s, 1930s or 1940s. There is increasing globalisation of economics, business and commerce and change in people's perceptions of who they are, their nationality and identity, etc.
Ireland as a member of the EU is involved in an extraordinary project. We are trying to create a federation of European states which share sovereignty with each other in the common interest and good of the people of Europe. It is an exciting project which requires people to make a great deal of change in how they perceive themselves, Europe and the world. We must share our power to govern ourselves with other states in Europe and it is in our interest that we do so because this State on its own cannot hope to control the forces at large in the world. Examples of that are to be seen every day of the week. When a multinational company decides it wants to move its operation from this State to another, nothing can be done but at some point, through our membership of the EU, standards could be applied to multinational companies that operate in Europe. That is a bigger prize than the retention of an outdated power which can no longer be used to any effect.
Sharing sovereignty inevitably will lead to sharing defence. This will mean common defence because as long as Ireland remains a member of the EU it will become involved in common security and defence at some point and the Irish people have accepted this time after time since taking up membership. Ireland has one of the smallest populations in Europe and when we enter negotiations we must make sure we argue for the best possible deal whatever evolves in economics, commerce, defence and security not just for the people of Ireland but for those of Europe and the world generally because the EU is about to become not only one of the most powerful trading blocs but political entities in the world. We cannot continue to narrow the debate on Europe to the issue of whether we should hang on to traditional neutrality.
I welcome the debate on the issue of European security and defence and the general question of its architecture which has already commenced at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is inevitable that there must be common European security and defence, but I disagree with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party on its nature. That is what should be debated, not whether there will be common defence but what form it will take. I have grave reservations about the way in which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is evolving and I do not want Ireland to become a member of it. That is not to say there should be no European defence mechanism or system. This is the debate we should be involved in rather than the perennial whinge about losing something we probably never had in the first place except in name. I recall a former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, saying we are neutral on the side of the West. That language is a pretence and I appeal for rational debate on this issue.
The Green Party says it is opposed to the Amsterdam Treaty because it sells the pass on Irish neutrality but that is factually incorrect. One does not have to be an expert to read the sections involved and compare them to the original section in the Maastricht Treaty. One will find the traditional position of Ireland on defence is strengthened by the new treaty. One must examine what is behind Green Party opposition to the issue of defence. It is in strange company as Sinn Féin is the only other party of which I am aware who also oppose it for the same reason. The root of it is a reversion to an ultra-nationalism. One must also examine who else in Europe is adopting this position and by and large it is the ultra-right. The Tories in Great Britain and the unreconstructed Communist parties in Europe take this position.
The Deputy knows all about that.
And I am glad I do. We must examine the reason for this. My argument is that it is an unwillingness to share with the rest of Europe and the desire to renationalise everything and bring everything back within the national boundaries. The pretence that we can exist behind national boundaries and not share any of our power or sovereignty with the rest of Europe is not possible and to believe otherwise is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. We need a real debate on the matter.
I was one of approximately 30 Deputies and Senators who recently visited Brussels to familiarise themselves with the thinking of the Commission and Parliament on the Amsterdam Treaty. There was a Green Party representative on the delegation. Deputy Higgins, who was also present, can confirm what I am about to say. During our visit we met Mr. Tindemans, a former Prime Minister of Belgium. He openly supported the idea of a European common defence and argued that it was in the blue print for Europe at the time of the establishment of the European Economic Community. However, it was not possible to do it at that time and it has not been possible to do it since in the way he would like. He wants a European common defence, a European army and the arms industry in Europe to be made more competitive and modern. A debate on the arms industry in Europe and what it will do would be more relevant.
He outlined in considerable detail the European common defence he believes is necessary for Europe. I asked him if he believed the Amsterdam Treaty brought us in the direction of a European common defence or a European army. He said that it brought us in the other direction and that the veto provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty makes it next to impossible to achieve a European common defence or army. This man has no arguments about Irish neutrality, was not involved in the debate here and has no agenda other than that he wants a European common defence and European army. Having been involved in the process from the very beginning, his view is that the Amsterdam Treaty takes us in the opposite direction.
Anyone who argues that the Amsterdam Treaty undermines the pre-existing position of Ireland in relation to neutrality either does not understand what is in the treaty or is deliberately misleading the House. If they do not understand the treaty they should read it again and if they are deliberately misleading the House and the public they are doing no service to politics. All they will do is generate apathy about Europe or create a debate about something that is not real. The real debate is the nature of the European Union we are trying to create, the security we are trying to create and the defence mechanism which will clearly have to be created at some point in the future.
I appeal for a broader debate on the Amsterdam Treaty which deals with important developments, for example, the control of policing across Europe. One of my main problems with the Maastricht Treaty was that major sections were outside the direct control of the Parliament and Commission and involved interstate arrangements. This was true in the case of policing. I am very pleased that this is dealt with in the treaty and is subject to accountability and whatever transparency currently exists.
My other main problem with the Maastricht Treaty was the lack of transparency. We still have not gone far enough in this regard, but it has been improved. The social protocol, which was stymied in the Maastricht Treaty, has been brought into the Amsterdam Treaty. The inclusion of employment as a key objective of the European Union is a major step forward. The decision to include in the Amsterdam Treaty the power to deal with social exclusion is a major step forward for the poor, of which there are approximately 50 million in Europe.
The Amsterdam Treaty has also brought in a range of principles relating to equality, freedom, etc., which were not in previous Europe treaties. These transform Europe into more than simply a trading bloc and attempt to create a new political entity which guarantees the rights of citizens. Are the Green Party and Sinn Féin seriously arguing that we should throw all that out over a spurious argument about neutrality which has been copperfastened in the Amsterdam Treaty?
(Dublin West): I strongly support Deputy Gormley's amendment. The issues must be debated honestly and clearly. We must rely not on the assurances given by Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael or anyone else but on the written word in the text of the Amsterdam Treaty. I have studied the wording carefully, particularly section J which deals with military alliances and common defence and security, and there is no doubt that it is a giant step in the direction of a European army and a European armaments industry. I am not saying that the minute the treaty is passed such an army will come into effect and start to roam the globe imposing its will. That is not what is at stake. However, the thinking behind it and the provisions implied are very clear in their intent.
I attended the high level briefing in Brussels by Commission and Parliament officials and representatives. I listened carefully to what was said and was alarmed by it. There is no doubt that the thinking of leading bureaucrats and politicians of the major states in Europe is that they want to see an EU army and an EU armaments industry and the EU acting as a major economic power with a military wing. It is clear that their thinking is influenced by the new world situation. Previously it was the old Stalinist bloc versus the capitalist West and in that sense NATO and, in particular the US, was the military wing of the capitalist bloc. Since the ignominious collapse of the corrupt dictatorships in the Stalinist world there is an entirely new world situation and the major states in the EU want to rival the United States both as an economic and military power in global terms. Some of those who spoke were beside themselves with anger about, for instance, how the Middle East is developing politically. They see EU states putting in economic and diplomatic resources while the US walks away with the diplomatic kudos because it has military muscle, and those people believe that is what makes the difference. They want to take over the role played by the US in such areas, especially those where the EU has an economic influence. The J paragraphs of the Amsterdam Treaty are designed to provide the means by which the EU can set up a military and armaments wing.
The reference in the Amsterdam Treaty to the armaments industry is sinister. It is not binding on all EU states to subscribe to this industry but we should consider the philosophy and thinking behind the treaty. Even if our State never became involved in the armaments industry we would be moving in parallel with what is happening. This country should not stand idly by while an armaments industry is built up by a significant number of EU states. The State should even object to a common army, because these developments are in the interests not of working or unemployed people but of the privileged élite and the political establishment. Our objection should be on the basis of democracy. It is reprehensible that any private company in the EU should provide arms or instruments of torture to other countries, including dictatorships. We should not be silent because that is to acquiesce to it. We should take the opportunity of the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty to condemn and work against such actions.
The amendment deals with the letter of the agreement. Members should turn to the text and explain it to the people if it does not mean what is on paper. Paragraph J.1 states that the Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy, covering all areas of foreign and security policy, and then lays out the objectives. Paragraph J.1.2 provides that member states shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. What do those words mean, if not what the public would understand by them? I urge those who will vote on this issue not to read newspaper articles only but to read the Treaty, especially section J for the purposes of this debate. It is readily understandable.
To oppose the Treaty, as the Socialist Party and I will be doing, is not to retreat into a de Valera-like State behind walls of isolationism. Virtually no one wants that. What is the alternative to what is proposed by the bureaucrats and the political and conservative establishment? European social democratic parties could have put forward an alternative but did not. The drift of the social democratic and so-called socialist parties has been to become more conservative in their economic and political policies. They are now mirror images of the conservative parties, so we cannot take guidance from them about a socialist or left view on the Amsterdam Treaty or military alliances. The real alternative is an alliance of working people, trade unionists, the unemployed and the poor, working for a totally different agenda from that set out in the Treaty, under which the swords are beaten into ploughshares and the money wasted on military matters and armaments is put into social policy, social investment and transforming the lives of the millions condemned to poverty and homelessness even in privileged countries. That is the alternative to taking a giant step towards a military alliance, which is undoubtedly what is involved in this treaty.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those opposed to the Amsterdam Treaty but I disagree fundamentally with them. My memory does not stretch to the 1972 referendum but I do remember the subsequent building blocks towards closer integration, when the Irish people were consulted about the Single European Act in 1987 and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. We hear the same argument again and again — in 1972 and 1987 we were selling our neutrality and in 1992 we were going to be conscripted into a European army which would lead to Armageddon. I have heard no acknowledgement or apology from the quarters who pursued those arguments, because if we sold our neutrality once we cannot sell it again. Those people got it wrong in 1972, 1987 and 1997 and are getting it wrong today.
The Amsterdam Treaty is about closer European integration, preparing for enlargement, taking cognisance of a changing world after the Cold War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and recognising that Europe is not just an economic trading bloc but also has political responsibilities which it has failed to live up to thus far. The most contentious issue in the treaty is the common foreign and security policy. How many times have the people of Ireland wrung their hands and hung their heads in shame when watching the genocide in Bosnia, the Tiananmen Square massacre, the reports from Algeria and other human rights abuses throughout the world? We are a member state of the largest trading bloc in the world which has not followed through, politically speaking, on its moral responsibilities to other areas.
The common foreign and security policy is concerned with facing up to those responsibilities and it does so without compromising our military neutrality. In the past we have operated under UN auspices in peacekeeping and, in Somalia, in peacekeeping. As I understand the Amsterdam Treaty, under the general guidelines and principles of our United Nations membership we are extending those areas of activity to be carried out by the European Union. That is the least we should be obliged to do and I fail to see how that conflicts with our neutrality or goes against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people. Any recollection of the shame and powerlessness we felt as a nation in light of some of the major international crises that have arisen would clearly bring that home to us. We are virtually powerless in regard to areas like the Middle East. In addition, there is an increasing reluctance on the part of the United States to repeatedly step into the trouble spots of the world. There is a danger that if we do not face up to our responsibilities that vacuum will be filled by increased bloodshed and attacks on human rights in these trouble spots because there will not be an international police watchdog to carry out these duties.
I regret that much of the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty is getting bogged down on this specific issue because it is not the most important element of the treaty. Whole areas of it are of enormous importance to the ordinary citizens of Europe and this country yet they merit virtually no media coverage and do not generate much political debate because we have all been side-tracked by the debate on neutrality.
I regret that there is not much public engagement in this whole debate, notwithstanding the efforts made arising out of the difficulty in implementing the Maastricht Treaty and the fact that a very small proportion of the electorate turned out here. It was defeated in Denmark on its first attempt and it was only marginally passed by the French. There was a recognition that we had to be more open and transparent about how we did our business and that this was a treaty which would deal with issues that were more important to the ordinary citizens than the other major issues such as the Single European Act, creating the Internal Market, the Maastricht Treaty and paving the way for a single currency.
The provisions of this treaty are far more focused on the needs and requirements of the ordinary citizens of the European Union. It goes into great detail on matters such as proofing future policies so that the interest of the consumer is protected. It refers also to protecting the environment and ensuring that all policies put forward by the Commission or the Council are proofed from an environmental view point. It allows member states to have higher standards in environmental and consumer protection provided they do not militate against the interests of other member states.
These issues are of major importance to the member states but they are not being mentioned in this debate. There is a whole raft of provisions with regard to non-discrimination on a variety of grounds including sexual preference, membership of ethnic minorities, disability and equal pay for equal work. These matters are of tangible importance to the ordinary citizens of the European Union but they are getting very little coverage.
Notwithstanding the fact that this country has always been pro-Europe, according to any opinion polls carried out, there is a danger that the issue will be confused on polling day if there is more than one referendum. During the presidential election people were given a ballot paper on Cabinet confidentiality but they did not know that issue was being put to them. If one examines the debates on Europe currently dominating the headlines, the question of neutrality arises if the debate is on the Amsterdam Treaty. It is a red herring. Other issues dominating the European headlines include reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and that the fact that our entitlement to Structural Funds will be significantly reduced.
There is a danger that a significant proportion of the electorate will view this as being a plague on all their houses, that Articles 2 and 3 should not be watered down, that the gravy train has begun to slow down anyway and perhaps it is time to pull up the hand brake on the European movement towards closer integration. If we confuse the issue by having more than one referendum to be determined on the same day, particularly if there is a referendum on Articles 2 and 3, there is a danger that an unholy alliance will combine to defeat the Amsterdam Treaty. I urge the Government to reconsider that matter.
I fully support the Amsterdam Treaty. Neutrality is not an issue. If anything, the Amsterdam Treaty rows back somewhat from the provisions of Maastricht. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment put forward by Deputy Gormley.
I would like to address some of the points made. It was said that I am dealing with this issue in emotive terms rather than dealing with the facts. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had a prepared text and I dealt with the various articles systematically. Deputy Mitchell was not in the House when I dealt with many of the matters and therefore was not in a position to comment properly on what I had said.
I will come back to them shortly.
I hope the Deputy will, because it is important that we have a debate in this House. Deputy De Rossa said it was important that we have a broader debate. We had a broader debate here on the Amsterdam Treaty and I went into a fair amount of detail on my party's position. We are dealing with my amendment which concerns neutrality. Helmut Kohl, the great architect of European union — I do not know if he will be in power much longer — said that a European army lies at the end of the road of European union. Deputy Mitchell's party is aligned to the Christian Democrats. The people's party has made its position clear in Europe and rather than trying to distance himself from that position, Deputy Mitchell should embrace it. We could then have an open and clear debate in this House.
On a point of order, the difficulty with Deputy Gormley is that he is quoting Chancellor Kohl's view. Nobody in this House is denying that view or taking from it, but it is not my view or that of Deputy Mitchell.
Is that a point of order?
It is a point of fact.
I will tell Deputy Gormley what some of his friends used to say in the European Parliament when I was there.
Deputy Gormley has the floor and he is entitled to speak without interruption. I would remind Deputies that they are continuously repeating what has been said by other speakers. We are dealing with a specific amendment and I ask Deputies to be more precise in relation to it. I do not want to stifle debate but we have got to the stage of repetition.
It is in order for me to respond to some of the criticisms made of me during the course of the debate. Deputy De Rossa referred to his party's position and I see a real shift in that position. I wonder does the former Deputy, Kathleen Lynch, agree with Deputy De Rossa when he says that he would now like to see a common defence policy in Europe. I doubt if she would. Deputy Spring did not answer many of the points I made. When the Labour Party was in Government its manifesto stated that it would enshrine Irish neutrality in the Constitution. Why was that not done? What was the position of the presidential candidate on this question? Deputy Spring is accusing me of being emotive and not having my facts straight on this issue, but what was the position of the Labour Party presidential candidate on this matter?
That has absolutely no relevance to this debate.
She is totally opposed to this. She was a fine candidate——
This is absolute nonsense. She has no relevance whatsoever to this debate.
A member of the party's executive, Roger Cole, of the peace and neutrality alliance, is totally opposed to the Amsterdam Treaty and wants to enshrine Irish neutrality in the Constitution. The Deputy probably will not answer any of these questions.
Of course I will.
Great, he can answer them when he gets the opportunity.
There is a simple one word answer — democracy.
Democracy is a great thing — I support it and I hope every Member does. In relation to——
(Dublin West): On a point of order, does that mean the Deputy will not be expelled from the Labour Party for it?
I would be following in the footsteps of some great people.
Deputy Gormley, without interruption. I ask the Deputy to stick to his amendment.
I am trying to answer the criticisms levelled at me.
At the Deputy's amendment.
It is interesting to note that while I was called ungentlemanly and accused of every sort of thing when I was interrupting this morning, those gentlemen are now interrupting me. However, that is in the nature of democracy and the hurly burly of politics.
Deputy De Rossa referred to the rise of the Right and tried to somehow lump the Greens in with the far Right, Sinn Féin and other parties. That is fine and the sort of thing politicians do. However, as we move towards a more integrated and centralised Europe, it is very interesting to see the rise of the ultra Right. Le Pen did very well in France last week as did Joerg Haider in Austria. These groups are coming to the front because there is a vacuum and they feel power is being taken away from their countries. The Maastricht criteria have caused huge increases in unemployment in these countries which has given rise to this mass disruption. Those are the facts. The Deputy needs a deeper analysis of the problem. It is a very glib analysis to say this must be a good thing because those who oppose it are on the far Right.
Deputy Creed made a good point about the huge level of apathy. However, apathy stems from ignorance. The results of last week's surveys were quite scary in terms of the amount of people who did not understand the Amsterdam Treaty. About 70 per cent of those surveyed did not know the first thing about the Treaty. If that is the situation as we enter the last few weeks of the campaign, there will be a very low turnout for the referendum. The turnout could be higher if we had an honest and open debate on the issues.
The amendment concerns Irish neutrality. We are talking here about being sucked into a military alliance.
We were not sucked in in 1992 or 1986.
Deputy Creed had his opportunity to contribute.
Deputy Gay Mitchell has proclaimed himself an expert and has stated——
I made no such proclamation.
The Deputy said I spent about five minutes dealing with this.
The Deputy demonstrated——
Deputy Mitchell must allow Deputy Gormley to speak.
I will give a few examples. Deputy Higgins referred to Article J.7 to which I will give the background. Article J.7 brings arms co-operation into the body of the EU Treaty for the first time. I covered this extensively earlier when I quoted from the Treaty. It states "the progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as member states consider appropriate, by co-operation between them in the field of armaments".
Perhaps Deputy Mitchell is aware of the European Commission report entitled "The Challenges Facing the European Defence Industry". This seeks closer co-operation with NATO, the Western European Union and the Western European Armaments Group and for Structural Funds to be challenged into what it calls "dual use", which is civilian and military research projects.
The argument was reiterated by the EU Industry Commissioner, Martin Bangemann, a former member of the FDP in Germany. He argued last November that the EU had to get its armaments act together it if was to compete successfully for the lucrative contracts now on offer thanks to NATO expansion which means that Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic must update their weaponry.
I am giving further background on this issue because I have been accused of not going into enough detail. I will go into as much detail as people want. A 1997 report to the European Parliament called on the negotiators at Amsterdam to give a decisive boost to the development of a common armaments policy by incorporating this objective into the Treaty. We know the background and what the Treaty states. Unfortunately, Deputy Mitchell was not here when I spoke about the decision making and——
There are some mercies.
——the so-called unanimous way in which these decisions will be made. That will not happen in reality. I take the chairman's point about not repeating what I said in the body of the debate, but if Deputy Mitchell wishes he can read it in the Official Report.
We have an opportunity today, if people are sincere about it, to protect Irish neutrality. It will be interesting to see who supports this amendment. I am disappointed, but not surprised, the Labour Party has decided not to support it. However, Deputy Spring got one thing right — I came to the House this morning on my bicycle and I am proud to have done so. His new Party Leader, Deputy Quinn, also now rides a bicycle so there must be something in it.
I do not think that is relevant to the Deputy's amendment.
I wish to make a number of points but I do not want to descend to personal tit for tat.
We indicated.
So did Deputy De Rossa.
We are the major Opposition party.
Deputy De Rossa indicated quite some time ago — long before Deputy Mitchell did. I will not favour anybody over anybody else. I just want to clarify——
I am not suggesting you should select anybody over anybody else. However, I have been indicating for some time that I wanted to get in on the debate.
Yes, but Deputy Mitchell indicated after Deputy De Rossa.
I indicated earlier. I am not sure whether it was before or after Deputy De Rossa but I did indicate.
I am telling the Deputy it was after Deputy De Rossa and he must take my word for it.
I do not take your word for it — I do not know whether you were here when I first indicated as you only came in after the Ceann Comhairle left.
Is the Deputy indicating——
I am indicating that I think your pomposity is unnecessary. When I indicate I wish to speak I expect to be called.
That is a dreadful slur on the Chair.
It is an urban-rural division.
Deputy Mitchell's outburst is most regrettable. I think he will regret it in time when he reads what he said.
I will be as brief as I can to enable others to speak. I have heard the Green Party's concerns about Article J of the Treaty but I have not heard its alternative. If it were successful in defeating the carrying of the Amsterdam Treaty, what would be the outcome? We are left with——
The Deputy should support this amendment.
This amendment is unnecessary; if I thought it necessary I would have tabled it. I believe in the Maastricht Treaty and that the Amsterdam Treaty has copperfastened the position of this State in regard to its freedom to opt in or out of common security or defence. That is in the Treaty. It is a matter for this House, and subsequently the people, to make that decision. We live in a democracy and it is the people's decision at the end of the day, regardless of what Deputy Gormley or anybody else thinks. The amendment is unnecessary and will not be agreed by the House.
I ask Deputy Gormley to address the question of what alternative he proposes. We have heard Deputy Higgins's alternative, which is some alliance between trade unionists and the ordinary people across Europe. However, in what way would that affect anything or create a situation in which the people of Europe, through their elected representatives, could create institutions and constitutions to govern Europe and its international relations in a rational and civilised way? Deputy Higgins has offered a non alternative — it is not anything.
What is the alternative to ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty? The alternative to carrying the Amsterdam Treaty is the Maastricht Treaty. We would lose all the advantages made in the Amsterdam Treaty, which this country played an important part in achieving, because of a wrong headed view on neutrality. I am not surprised at the position taken by the Green Party; it does not have a consistent position on anything.
Totally consistent.
I do not believe so. However, I am surprised at the view taken by Deputy Joe Higgins. He ignores everything on the social and economic front, including unemployment, social exclusion, human rights, equality and non discrimination. Everything is ignored in the interest of the pursuit of a non issue. This is not to say that the arms industry and defence are non issues. The argument that in some way the Amsterdam Treaty undermines the Irish right to choose to enter or not to enter a defence or any other kind of alliance is wrong. I have outlined the issue we should debate.
My argument that the position taken by the Green Party and the party represented by Deputy Higgins is closer to that of the extreme right and left in Europe is valid. That is not to say they are aligned to them politically but their analysis brings them into the same ground. If we do not have an EU where states co-ordinate, co-operate and share their sovereignty we have a situation where they retain their own powers, including the right to say yes or no, and each state would have the right to do or say anything it chooses on arms. For example, there would be nothing to stop France, Germany and Britain from co-operating and co-ordinating their arms industries in tandem with the US. By contrast, if the EU takes some control in this area there would be at least some power to restrain that development. If we opt out we have no control and that is true of any area outside the control of the EU Commission, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
The Amsterdam Treaty represents a significant step forward on the Maastricht Treaty. The debate for the Green Party, the socialist parties and other parties of the left should be about the next phase of the development of the EU. What form should European defence take? What controls should there be on the arms industry? Should we not argue for control of the development of nuclear weapons in Europe? We can have a say on that not as an independent country on its own but as part of the EU, arguing within the councils of the Union, the European Parliament and the EU Commission. That is where we have power. We are a small island state of approximately 3.5 million people with an Army of approximately 11,000 and a few aeroplanes. What power do we have outside the EU to argue about the arms industry or the nature of European or world defence? We have no clout outside the EU.
In ending up on the same terrain as the extreme right and the unreconstructed left the Green Party and the Socialist Party are inevitably lining up with those who want a renationalisation of Europe, the withdrawal behind state boundaries and isolationism, which this country went through, much to our sorrow, in the 1930s, 1940s and the early 1950s. I do not want this or future generations to go through that. It was a waste of a generation and a mistake. We need to argue for greater democracy and transparency and for the rights of citizens in Europe. Some progress has been made on that in the Amsterdam Treaty, but not enough.
In recent times there has been much concern about Iraq and the proposal by the US, supported by Britain, to launch a war against Iraq. I raised this in the House and opposed the idea, arguing that diplomacy was the way forward. While I did not have any influence on the matter I was delighted that Kofi Annan and the UN succeeded in averting a war through diplomacy. If a war had taken place and if the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty were in place, enabling the EU to address the issue, does Deputy Gormley or Deputy Higgins believe that this country would have been obliged to participate in a war against Iraq? If the answer is no there is no basis for their fears. I believe this to be the case because, under the terms of the treaty, for as long as this country says no we are not involved. That is the nub of the issue. Under the terms of the treaty we cannot be obliged to be involved in a war against our wishes. To argue otherwise on the basis of the intention behind something which may become manifest in ten or 20 years is the wrong approach. The practical effect of the treaty must be considered as it is applied to real situations.
I withdraw the charge of pomposity against the Chair.
Agreed.
Let me remind Deputy Gormley that I am no more responsible for what individual Christian Democrats say throughout Europe than he is for what individual Greens say. Members of the Deputy's party have opposed the transfer of funds to Ireland to build much needed infrastructure, funds which create jobs and help the economy to become productive. I do not hold the Deputy personally responsible for their comments.
The Institute of European Affairs has published a report entitled Legal and Constitutional Implications of the Amsterdam Treaty. In the section dealing with a common foreign and security policy, Mr. Eugene Regan, barrister, undertakes an assessment of the situation. On the implications for Ireland in connection with our neutrality and defence commitments he argues that no obligations arise under the treaty. In his assessment, following the intergovernmental negotiations the Amsterdam Treaty consists of a mixture of constitutional provisions, legislative commitments, policy clarifications and modifications of procedures. He says that, in a strict sense, the Intergovernmental Conference did not constitute a constitutional convention devoted purely to constitutional issues in the treaty. He goes on to say that, in the case of CFSP, it is essentially a modification of procedures with the same policy objectives. There is no great leap forward, no widening of objectives or hard and fast commitments to any policies. He points out that any individual member state has the right to say no to participation and can block other member states adopting a particular policy. He concludes that in both policy areas, Ireland has the right to say no which, according to our Supreme Court, is the ultimate measure of sovereignty. That is his assessment of flexibility and the common foreign and security policy published by the Institute of European Affairs in 1998. Mr. Regan has given a fair, balanced and impartial assessment of the situation.
Article J.7 is the article which covers all of this area. I am surprised that neither of the Deputies who have spoken in favour of this amendment has sought to quote that article in its entirety. It is a very long article which contains five separate sections. It is clear from the article that the three requirements I mentioned earlier, the requirements of an intergovernmental conference, a unanimous European Council decision and a referendum in accordance with the Single European Act, copperfasten Irish neutrality. Frankly, I am not too sure whether I favour this section of the Amsterdam Treaty. Article J.4, which has a looser interpretation, might be a more favourable section to give effect to in the Constitution. That is going to be changed now by Article J.7 and will require three specific, clear steps at some stage in the future if the question is ever to be decided upon.
The argument which is being put is something of a red herring. I am not too disappointed by that. Deputies do a service in a debate of this kind by putting an alternative point of view, but they might at least have based their point on something contained in the treaty proposals. I see nothing to support any of the arguments they have made. In Article J.7 it is clear that the position as explained by Mr. Regan in Legal and Constitutional Implications of the Amsterdam Treaty is correct.
I will be brief. This will be my last intervention because we are in danger of flogging this horse beyond existence. We are talking about perhaps 2 per cent of what is contained in the Amsterdam Treaty. It is important in the wider debate to remind the public that we are consolidating each of the three so-called pillars of the European Union based on the Maastricht Treaty.
Deputy Gormley has levelled some charges at the Labour Party this morning. I do not claim, and I never did, either as leader of the party or as a member of it, to speak for all the membership of the party. We are a democratic organisation. There are very different views within the Labour Party, as there are in other parties in this House in relation to common foreign and security policy. The Labour Party's position is that we are not committed to membership of either the Western European Union or NATO and, unless that is changed by party conference, it is the position we will be maintaining. I have expressed views in this House in relation to Partnership for Peace. It does not arise in the context of this amendment, but I have strong views about the propriety of our joining Partnership for Peace.
Deputy Gormley addressed the question of common foreign and security policy as if it were a venial sin for us to be discussing common foreign and security policy in the European Union. On the contrary, it is very important for us to discuss and develop common foreign and security policy. I welcome the provision in the treaty whereby the Secretary General of the Council will become the high representative in relation to foreign and security policy and we will have, for the first time, a planning cell in the European Union — we remember the great frustrations in the 1970s and the 1980s and the much quoted Kissinger remark "who do you call in Europe?" We had another example quite recently when the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cooke, was speaking in relation to Iraq. When asked whether he was speaking for the European Union — he is currently President of the Council — or for the UK, sadly he had to say he was speaking only for the UK. While not being in any way militaristic, we have responsibilities in relation to the Middle East, in relation to the Gulf region and in relation to Africa, and we are going to have more and more responsibilities. If we are to be serious about making a worthwhile contribution to world politics on behalf of the European Union and on behalf of the Irish people through the European Union, we need to develop as quickly as possible a sophisticated common foreign and security policy.
Deputy De Rossa mentioned the armaments industry. Sweden has a huge armaments industry and it is a neutral country. It makes its contribution at our debates the same as everybody else. I have had very difficult debates with my French counterparts in relation to the nuclear industry, but they have their points of view. They remind us that if we had been trampled on in the late 1930s and 1940s we might have a different view on the nuclear industry. That is their view, and we have ours. I am not a supporter of the nuclear industry and never have been, nor do I intend to be. However, we have to argue our point at the table in an articulate and well informed way.
I genuinely believe this amendment is not necessary because the legal position is as outlined by Deputy Mitchell. I subscribe to that legal position in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty and in relation to our neutrality. The position is enhanced rather than weakened by virtue of the amendment which will be put before the people on 22 May.
Let me refer first of all to the document Deputy Mitchell spoke about from the Institute of European Affairs. It confirms my suspicions in that quite clearly this is a document that is very much pro-European integration.
Is the Deputy not?
The Deputy quoted Mr. Eugene Regan. We can all quote scripture for our own purposes. I would like to quote again from the article by Mr. Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, barrister, Jean Monnet Lecturer in European Law at Trinity College Dublin. This quotation is from the document Amsterdam, What The Treaty Means, Chapter 12, p. 167 entitled "The Context of Ratification". Mr. Rossa Phelan states:
.although the position is not crystal clear, it seems that as a matter of Irish constitutional law there would be no requirement for a referendum. This is because if the Constitution is amended to licence ratification of the proposed treaty which encompasses the competence to frame progressively a common defence, and to take a formal decision to institute a common defence, there will not necessarily be any development which would amend the treaties or add a new treaty competence for which a referendum would be required.. The new Article J. arguably marks the end of the constitutional competence to remain neutral. Neutrality itself. is not constitutionally mandated. However, there are constitutional provisions on sovereignty, independence, the common good, and the designation of the organs of government which exercise the power delegated by the popular sovereign through the Constitution. These provisions conflict with the extension of Union competence in this area.
Who does one believe? Deputies Spring and Mitchell have decided to go with Mr. Regan. I am going with Mr. Rossa Phelan. I believe that Mr. Rossa Phelan is impartial — and this is the important point. He has no agenda. Those people in the institute do have an agenda, and it is a very clear agenda. If we are to have a proper debate we must have objective opinion, not people who are signed up to the whole European architecture, people who believe we must have a centralised Europe, that we have to have a European Union and a European Army. I have no doubt that that is where it is heading.
I remind the Deputy about decision making on CFSP. Deputy Mitchell said Ireland can opt out and that decisions can be made unanimously. However, unanimity does not mean that every country must say "yes". There is a new constructive abstention provision which allows a member state to qualify an abstention with a formal declaration. This means it does not have to apply the decision but shall accept that it commits the Union. The treaty states that the country shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other member states shall respect its position.
I ask Deputy Mitchell to read the treaty and then justify his view that it will not have any effect on Ireland's neutral position. Obviously, it will have an effect and this is why I tabled the amendment. I believe passionately that we must protect our neutrality. It is interesting to observe the co-operation between the various parties and Deputies Mitchell, De Rossa and Spring today. I do not know if they have guilty consciences or they know they are pulling the wool over the people's eyes, but it is obvious they argued for this measure and feel they must defend it. It is interesting that we are only now dealing with the details of the matter. Generalities were discussed previously but now we are dealing with the nitty gritty of the treaty and we can see for the first time what will be put before the people. It will mean that neutrality will be severely watered down. This is regrettable and I hope the people will be properly informed about the Amsterdam Treaty. It is most important but, unfortunately, I fear there will be a low turnout as in previous referenda and that apathy will reign once more.
For the information of the House, will Deputy Gormley indicate whether he is in favour of European integration? What exactly is his position?
I am happy to facilitate the Deputy. The Green Party position has always been clear. It favours integration and more competencies for the European Parliament on important issues, such as the environment and human rights. However, areas which can be dealt with properly at national level should remain there.
They can choose. There is no policy.
I am glad Deputy De Rossa mentioned this point. The position of his party is clear from the debate. It favours further integration and a centralised Europe. It favours more decisions being taken in Brussels but I do not agree.
(Dublin West): Anxiety was expressed by a number of speakers that the issue of neutrality and the military alliance could confuse the electorate in the debate and the vote on the Amsterdam Treaty. However, that is the fault of all the major conservative parties in the House which agree with the way the matter will be put before the people. They will be asked in one question based on a few lines to agree to the massively complex treaty which covers a huge number of different aspects of life in the EU.
It would have been easy for the Government and the parties which support it to divide the issues and put a number of different questions to the people in the referendum. For example, the sections dealing with common foreign and security policy could have been the subject of a separate question. This would have allowed the issue to be dealt with more clearly. It is an impossible task for the people to deal with this massive tome on the basis of one question to which they must answer "yes" or "no". It is totally unfair and undemocratic. Undoubtedly, people who feel obliged to support the Amsterdam Treaty on the basis of economic concerns will cover their doubts on the military and neutrality issue. Their vote will be based primarily on the economic issues.
I raised the date of the referendum with the Taoiseach yesterday and asked if the referendum relating to the Northern Ireland talks should be held on the same day. This matter should be considered in more depth in the coming days. It would be disastrous to hold the referenda on the Amsterdam Treaty and issues arising from the Northern Ireland talks on the same day. I hope the Government will not take that course. Both referenda involve massively complex issues. It would be extremely unsatisfactory to expect that comprehensive debates would be possible in the few months before the referenda are held on the same day. It would not allow for a thorough and democratic debate on either issue. If 22 May has been set for the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty. I advise the Government to opt for a later date for a referendum on matters relating to the Northern talks. There is nothing to be gained from pushing that matter to ensure that a referendum can be held on 22 May in conjunction with the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty.
It is an old smear tactic to put the Green Party and the Socialist Workers' Party in one camp with the Fascist right in Europe and Deputy De Rossa should refrain from using it. It is rich of him to adopt that tactic when he was put in certain company by a particular newspaper and was forced to take legal action as a result. The Deputy should not go down the road of using a cheap debating tactic because it does not address the arguments. If one considers any political party and its policies, one will find points of agreement with the most rabid, right wing and Fascist parties in Europe. However, this does not mean the substantial policy or issue is wrong. It is a totally invalid argument and should be withdrawn.
What is the alternative to the current proposals in relation to military alliances? The alternative is that Ireland should state categorically that a military alliance, an EU army and an EU armaments industry are not in the interests of the millions of citizens of Europe. We should take a stand on this matter and take all actions possible to oppose it. This is the alternative to agreeing to the relevant Articles.
Deputy Mitchell relied on Article J.7. He should reread it because his view was obviously already coloured before he read it the first time and put across his thoughts to his electorate. He said the Articles were not in any sense a challenge to non-participation in a military alliance. However, J.7.2 states that questions referred to in the Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management. What are combat forces in crisis management if not an army involving European states——
Peacemaking.
(Dublin West):——interfering in issues outside the borders of the EU? Such forces will always act under the guise that it is in the interests of the people on whose side they are interfering. That has always been the case. The Americans went into Vietnam to support democracy and to save the people, but that type of cover does not deal with the real problem.
What is the alternative to the EU? Deputy De Rossa knows it is a big business dominated institution. Much of what is written about social policy and the issues to which Deputy De Rossa referred is flannel. It is like the flannel of talking about partnership between so-called social partners here. What does that mean to the 18 million plus unemployed or the millions of poor people in the European Union? What does it mean to the low-paid and exploited sections of the population in every country of the EU? They are fine sounding sentiments that will not be implemented by the big business conglomerates that dominate the EU and small business. In what way do those social policy documents relate to the three workers of Ryanair who are grievously discriminated against and victimised? Who does EU policy benefit most in that case, the three workers or Ryanair management?
It is obvious who has benefited most from the EU. At one time Deputy De Rossa knew the answers to those questions, but he no longer does. From a socialist and left point of view, we are talking about international socialism and the ideas of Karl Marx and James Connolly that were the foundation of all the parties which claim to be on the left. One should stand out and fight for a different society and not capitulate to the big business domination as in the case of the EU. That is what I meant when I said we stand for a Europe where the big business conglomerates are taken into the hands of ordinary people and where production and security matters are controlled by and in the interests of the ordinary people, not military industrial complexes and the big business dominated conglomerates. We know what a baleful influence the military industrial complex had in the United States. Do Members agree the vision of some of the bigger states in the EU and the powerful conglomerates is to create a military industrial complex that will rival the United States? The Amsterdam Treaty will put in place the structures to enable them to do so.
International socialism does not mean retreating behind barriers or walls such as de Valera's islands, whitewashed cottages, dancing colleens and so on. It means positive engagement, but not on the basis of exploitation. In referring to the 1930s and the 1940s Deputy de Rossa should clarify whether he agrees with the policy on neutrality adopted by this country during the Second World War.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Before calling Deputy Durkan, I remind Members that this debate has gone on since the Order of Business and all Members in the Chamber have indicated they want to contribute again. Brevity is important at this stage.
Important legislation is pending.
There are personal arguments taking place.
As a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I have an obvious interest in the debate. We appear to be rehashing some of the scare tactics that surrounded the Maastricht debate. Without being disrespectful to new Members, we had this debate on a previous occasion and the roof did not fall down as a result of passing the referendum on Maastricht. We are discussing an amendment to protect our neutrality. There is nothing in the Amsterdam Treaty that attacks our neutrality. When Leo Tindemans was asked if Amsterdam was committing us to militarism or military engagement, he said "unfortunately not".
I agree with Deputy Higgins that we do not wish to go back to the good old days of dancing colleens, comely maidens and so on. We live in a time of change and with change comes responsibility. All parties have taken their responsibilities on European integration seriously. What is wrong with European integration? It is essential. It has opened up many opportunities for us. The alternative is easy to talk about, but difficult to handle. Should we revert to renationalisation of the various economies or cherrypick from the agenda? Should we accept the measures from which we will benefit and cast aside all others even though they may benefit other member states?
We are in the European Union for better or for worse. However, if in the future we are not getting what we want from it we can opt out. We are not compelled to stay in the Union, but those who decide to opt out would have to give it serious consideration. We must give careful consideration to the options.
My colleague, Deputy Mitchell, said a number of times that the question of neutrality and what it means in an Irish context may have to be examined again in the future. Does it mean we can expect the protection of the European Union in all circumstances? Does it mean that if at some time in the future a force made a military attack on this island, the European Union would stand idly by on the basis that we are neutral? Does it mean we can have the protection of the European Union without recognising that at some stage in the future we might be expected to make a constructive commitment? I do not believe that is what the question of neutrality means. I am not suggesting we should go down the road of emotionalism and body bags, the quick reaction that covers all eventualities.
I can recall distinctly the circumstances leading up to the Vietnam War. President Diem was allegedly controlled by his sister-in-law, Lady Nhua, who was supposed to be a hard hitting lady who did not give any rights, human, civil or otherwise, to anybody. The Americans and the rest of the free world thought it was a good idea to get involved and Henry Cabot Lodge was sent by the late President Kennedy to intervene on behalf of the rest of the free world. As everyone knows, it was a useless intervention and 60,000 Americans lost their lives there. The French had intervened prior to that and were criticised for their failure in Dien Bien Phu. That is not a useful comparison in this debate.
We must decide whether we are committed to the European concept and whether European integration is in our interest. I believe it is. It has been proven to be in our interest. Our economy, our people, our quality of life and our standard of living have improved immensely. There is no point in harping back to the good old days when we did not have such involvement. At that time we were totally committed to and reliant on the British economy. We should spread our net, look at the wider market and the opportunities, and influence it from within, if necessary. As Deputies De Rossa, Spring and Mitchell said, it is better to influence from within than to cry and wring our hands from the outside and complain about what should be done and what other people should do. From the inside we can influence — just as other small nations can influence — in a positive and constructive manner.
The reference to the rise of the right in Germany is unhelpful. I do not wish to see the rise of the right in Germany or elsewhere. This is something that has happened with the rise and fall of the tide over the centuries as we will read in history. We can also influence that from within. It is important that we as committed Europeans are within that arena doing just that. In the 1930s many people opted out in Europe and throughout the world and even in the United States. The warning by a number of people of the constant rise was ignored by people who were equally influential and in a position to do something about it. When looking at history and the conflict we need to look at what could have been done. The way to influence is from within.
I hope the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty will be passed as a result of major participation by the people on the basis that there is no threat to our neutrality. We have to look at that in the future and ask ourselves whether, given that we have been involved in peacekeeping and may be involved in the future in peacemaking throughout Europe, we have a responsibility.
When the atrocities took place in central Europe we all saw on our television screens what was happening and condemned it and said somebody should do something about it. Who was supposed to do something about it in those circumstances? If everybody adopted the same attitude as us, then everybody would opt out and nobody would do anything. Hence the Americans have to resolve the internal wars in Europe. There is something wrong with that concept and we complain that the Americans become involved. There is another side to the argument that needs to be looked at which is not being dealt with in the context of the Amsterdam Treaty. It will have to be looked at if we are to take our responsibilities, in relation to all matters pertaining to Europe, seriously.
I intend to be brief. A number of points need to be clarified. Deputy Gormley expressed surprise at the position I expressed this morning. The position I expressed is that of Democratic Left since its foundation, as incorporated in our constitution and founding documents. I am proud that as a party we have the greatest foresight on this issue on the left in Ireland and in some sectors of the left in Europe.
Deputy Gormley said Democratic Left favour more decisions being taken in Brussels. That is a distortion of what is true in one sense and untrue in another. We very much favour the principle of subsidiarity: decisions that can be made at local level should be made at local level and decisions that cannot be made there have to be made at a higher level but it is even more than that. There are circumstances in which the State can no longer exercise power. To an extent the frustration of people who support right wing parties is because they sense this loss of power: it is not that the power has been lost to Brussels, although some has been transferred there, but the failure of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, to exercise some power.
This country has no control over currency speculation. It cannot have in the world today. The greatest benefit of EMU, which I understand the Green Party opposes, is that it will eliminate speculation between the various European Union currencies. As I understand it, the Green Party supports the idea of a tax on currency speculation. Certainly that is the view of the European Parliament of which the Greens are a member and I am not aware they have opposed it. The Greens in Germany, Holland, France and elsewhere support the idea of a tax on currency speculation. We cannot apply that tax in Ireland nor can Britain apply it in Britain, it has to be applied at European level. Applying a tax is a fundamental duty which the State has always retained to itself as a sovereign power. In order to have a tax on currency speculation it is necessary to have a central power. That means the State and all the other European states must cede control over an element of taxation. That is not an environmental obligation. It is fundamental if we are to have order in relation to how economies are run. The point I made earlier — and it was not made in a smart-alecky way — is that there is a fundamental lack of consistency in many of the positions adopted by the Green Party. We do not have the time or the opportunity to debate that today. There is a lack of consistency in the Green Party's position, even on the environment. What does it mean to say Brussels should have power in relation to the environment? It means it should have power in relation to controlling what industry does. That is a fundamental issue. It is not only a question of emissions from industry because that is only one aspect of protecting the environment. What does industry manufacture? How and from where does it extract its raw materials? Does industry also include the arms industry? Clearly the arms industry has a major environmental impact on the world. One has only to look at Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq and so on to recognise that the impact of the arms industry is enormous. Yet we are being told the European Union should not aspire to any control over the arms industry. There is a fundamental lack of consistency in the argument today.
I am not attempting to be a smart alec or to smear any party, but the stance taken by the Socialist Party and the Green Party although not based on the same analysis, has positioned them on the same terrain, as the extreme right. The extreme right argues strongly that the State should retain total control within national boundaries. However, today's world does not allow a State to do that. Taking the road advocated by these parties will lead to wholesale alienation from politics because politics at national level will not have sufficient control over what is happening in the world without some centralised powers. I am not referring to all powers but to recovering the powers which have been lost by the nation state at central, European or even United Nations level so that the citizens of the world can exercise control over the forces operating in the world, for example, the exercise of capital and the choices being made by capital with regard to how it exploits the resources and people of this earth.
The Green Party and the Socialist Party should examine the impulses behind their statements. They are appealing to chauvinism in Ireland in the same way as elements in France and Britain appeal to chauvinism. There is an idea that Ireland and the Irish people are unique and that no decision should be made about them unless it is made by themselves. In today's world we must be able to share decision making about what should happen in the world.
My statement about those parties sharing the same terrain as the extreme right is not an attempt to smear. I ask the two parties to examine why they are on that terrain. What is wrong with their analysis that it has brought them to the terrain of the extreme right in Europe? That is a valid and legitimate question, not an attack or smear. If they examine logically and carefully why they find themselves on that terrain they will discover their analysis is wrong.
Deputy Higgins said European social policy is just flannel. That is not true although it is not as good as it ought to be and much more must be done. I have argued as much for a long period. I do not claim that what has been achieved in the Amsterdam Treaty is the end of the road. It is a tiny step forward. However, in terms of what was in the Maastricht Treaty and in terms of the direction Europe is taking, it is a major step forward. Deputy Higgins and Deputy Gormley should line up with members of the Labour Party and Democratic Left who are seeking even more from social policy instead of trying to force us back into a nationalistic pose.
The equality directive is an example of the value of social policy in Europe. As a result of that directive married women in Ireland were paid £260 million when the last Government was in office because the European Court had found that they had been unfairly treated. There are many other such examples. The equality issue is a concrete example of the power of the European Union and the European Court to defend the rights of Irish citizens against the actions of their Government. That is real power over social policy, not simply flannel.
Some people tend to ignore the fact that whether we agree or disagree with the choices of the people of this country or others — I do not like the choice the Irish people made in electing the current Government last June — we must accept them. In the same way I accept the right of the German and French people to elect their governments and the right of those governments to make decisions and to negotiate in the European Union on behalf of their people. There is a need for a deepening of democracy in Europe and for greater involvement by the citizens of Europe. I have argued and will continue to argue for that.
Deputy Higgins and I are socialists. Deputy Gormley does not describe himself as a socialist and claims to be neither right nor left——
I am straight ahead.
One tends to fall between two stools when one is neither left nor right. However, Deputy Higgins and I, as declared socialists, should co-operate in arguing not for less European power but for greater democracy in Europe. We should argue for more power for the European Parliament and for more openness and transparency in how the European Council and the Commission do their business. We should argue for a greater role for this Parliament in the European Union. Except at times such as now, this Parliament has virtually no control over what happens in Europe. There are many issues on which we should become engaged.
This debate about neutrality is a diversion from the real issues of Europe. The Green Party has a great deal to contribute if it would just get off its hobbyhorse of being against everything. It should look at what is and could be positive in Europe and work to improve Europe rather than seek to dismantle it, which would be the outcome if the Amsterdam Treaty was defeated. If we do not continue to develop Europe and the European Union, it will start to disintegrate and that would not be in the interests of the environment, which is the main concern of the Green Party. It certainly would not be in the interests of the ordinary citizens of Europe. That is my final word on this matter today.
Deputies Gormley, Gay Mitchell and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin wish to contribute. I call Deputy Gormley.
(Dublin West): Members should refrain from making provocative statements. I am tempted to speak again but I will not because I have made my points. However, Deputy De Rossa made some provocative statements which will only encourage people to intervene again.
I am glad the Deputy resisted temptation. I hope other speakers will do the same.
If the Deputy considered them to be provocative, he would not wish to hear me when I am trying to be provocative.
I will attempt to be brief. I hope Deputy Ó Caoláin will support my amendment.
He will. He is the most nationalistic person in the country.
I was tempted to respond to Deputy De Rossa's comments but I will follow Deputy Higgins's example and refrain. No party has been more consistent than the Green Party. We do not put our fingers in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing, which appears to be the case with other political parties as they move towards the centre. Deputy De Rossa described himself as a socialist. However, I wonder what Mr. Jim Larkin's opinion would be. Socialist parties today are unrecognisable and bear no resemblance to what they and socialism were supposed to be. The exception is, perhaps, Deputy Higgins's party.
It is clear from this debate that Democratic Left and the Labour Party do not support Irish neutrality. I hope the Irish people are aware of that when they discuss this matter. This amendment is the crunch issue. If a Member does not support it we can tell the Irish people, during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty, that they refused to support our amendment on Irish neutrality.
They will all believe you.
Not all of them. Many people will not vote but a substantial number will believe us. We might not win but at least we are on the right side.
Deputy De Rossa was disingenuous in his comments about the right. He claimed he did not wish to smear our parties and then proceeded to do so by associating us with elements of the extreme right. Why are we seeing the rise of the extreme right? Deputy Durkan claims it is a cyclical phenomenon and simply happens at certain times. Whenever there is a political vacuum and people feel powerless the right emerges. People feel powerless because there is a centralisation of power. That is what is happening progressively within the European Union. People should realise what is happening. We will witness the rise of individuals like Le Pen as well as the right in Germany, particularly at a time of rising unemployment. I would welcome a debate on these issues.
Deputy De Rossa referred to my party's stance on EMU. Mr. Tietmeyer of the German Central Bank described what was likely to happen if there was an asymmetric shock. Deputy Noonan referred to this when we debated the issue. The fact is we are on our own. We cannot devalue. The only option — this is being discussed by economists here who believe EMU is a bad idea — is wage cuts. Does Deputy De Rossa support wage cuts? There are many issues on which he is confusing people——
What is the alternative to EMU?
I will respond to all the points made by the Deputy. He has tried to portray the Green Party as nationalist whereas it is, probably, the most international and European party. I lived, worked and studied in Germany for three years. I am, therefore, familiar with German and European politics. I am not inward looking or isolationist. I am interested in democracy and passionately interested in preserving Irish neutrality.
They are in direct conflict.
They are consistent.
The problem is the Deputy cannot see the inconsistencies.
The treaty promotes co-operation in the field of armaments. A report produced by an Irish NGO, AfrI, demonstrates that there are many Irish companies involved in the international arms trade. A total of 35 licences were approved by the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1996 for the production of purely military items. Arms were exported to countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, countries which do not have a good human rights record. As we ratify the Amsterdam Treaty, we are entering a new phase in European development where there will be co-operation in the field of armaments.
Deputy De Rossa asked what is the alternative. The Green Party believes European security issues should be addressed through the United Nations and its regional grouping, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, rather than the militarised, nuclear based Western European Union. I do not know where Democratic Left stands on this issue. It seems to be slightly confused. From what I can garner from the debate, it supports the Western European Union which is based on nuclear weapons. Deputy Spring said he does not support the use of nuclear weapons. Yet, he supports the Western European Union. That is a contradiction. It is clear the five parties which reject the amendment do not support Irish neutrality.
We do not need a constitutional amendment for Ireland to be involved in crisis management. The House is quite capable of approving this as in the case of Somalia to which troops were sent to enforce the peace. None of us should have any doubts about our responsibilities in that regard. This was not the position in the case of Bosnia where large numbers of people had their eyes gouged out and limbs severed while still alive and thousands upon thousands were murdered while we stood back and did nothing. If provision had been made for crisis management, humanitarian aid could have been supplied.
On the decision-making process, the White Paper on the Amsterdam Treaty — it is not a political document, rather it is a fair and balanced assessment by the civil servants who put it together — states at paragraph 15.18, 15.19, 15.20, 15.21 and 15.22:
The procedure for taking decisions under the CFSP will, however, be revised. The principle that decisions under the CFSP should be taken by unanimity, as is appropriate to inter-governmental cooperation, is still retained but it will be modified in a number of ways.
In the first place it is made explicit that abstentions shall not prevent unanimity.
Secondly, a new provision for what could be called "constructive abstention” has been added (This term is not used in the Treaty). This will allow a Member State when a proposal is being adopted to make a formal declaration. The effect will be that the Member State concerned permits the proposal to be adopted and accepts it as a decision committing the Union but that it will not itself be bound to apply it. If, however, the number of Member States seeking to avail of this “opt-out” provision for constructive abstention amounts to more than one third of the weighted votes, the proposal is not adopted.
Thirdly, and by way of exception to the general rule of unanimity, the Council will, normally, act by qualified majority in two cases:
(a) when taking a decision on the basis of a common strategy already adopted by the European Council;
(b) when adopting any decision implementing a joint action or a common position.
This provision for the use of qualified majority voting in certain circumstances will itself, however, be subject to two qualifications:
(a) qualified majority voting will not apply to decisions having military or defence implications. Such decisions will continue to be taken by unanimity. "Constructive abstention" as explained in paragraph 15.20 above may be availed of.
(b) voting by qualified majority will be subject to what has been described loosely as "an emergency break" procedure.
The Deputy has been hoisted on his own petard.
No sensible and coherent argument can be made in favour of the amendment. I do not know how anybody who strongly supports the entrenchment of Irish neutrality in the Constitution could possibly vote against Article J.7. I would be much happier with Article J.4. All the arguments made in favour of the amendment are red herrings. I appreciate the Deputies concerned are availing of the opportunity presented by the debate to express their concerns which are sincerely held but they are doing a disservice to the debate by suggesting Article J.7 and the Amsterdam Treaty do the opposite to what is stated.
As the Deputy said, constructive abstention may be availed of.
