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.