I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, together.
The White Paper on the Treaty on European Union, published last Thursday and circulated to Deputies, sets out the origins and purpose of Protocol No. 17.
It would just not make sense to have two separate questions on the ballot paper on 18 June, one dealing with the Protocol and the other with the rest of the Treaty. The Treaty was negotiated as a package. It has either to be ratified in its entirety, or not at all. Signatory states just cannot adopt an á la carte approach, picking and choosing what sections of a Treaty they will or will not ratify.
Such an approach would, indeed, amount to a renegotiation requiring the convening of another Intergovernmental Conference. As I said here on 7 April, the EC General Affairs Council, for these very reasons, was unable to agree to an Intergovernmental Conference to amend the Protocol. Deletion of the Protocol would also have involved an Intergovernmental Conference to which the same fundamental objection applies. As other member states made very clear, they did not want the Pandora's box of an Intergovernmental Conference at this stage for any purpose, with the pressures it would bring for other amendments by other states.
All this is apart from the fact that amendment or deletion of the Protocol would not solve all the problems for us arising from the Supreme Court judgments. The bar on travel in Irish law implicit in those judgments would still remain.
As indicated, a separate question on the Protocol is not feasible. It is also unnecessary because, since the Council meeting on 6 April, the Government have been successful in securing the agreement of our partners to the Solemn Declaration, the text of which is set out in the White Paper.
Under the declaration, Ireland is a party both to the legal interpretation of the Protocol given by all the High Contracting Parties to the Treaty and to the separate political declaration. This declaration sets out the favorable disposition of Ireland and all the other High Contracting Parties to amendment of the Protocol, after the entry into force of the Treaty, so as to extend its application to any amendment of Article 40.3.3º, so long as the amendment does not conflict with freedom to travel or to obtain or make available in Ireland, subject to conditions which may be laid down by Irish legislation, information relating to services lawfully available in member states.
The Declaration will be formally adopted by all member states at the informal General Affairs Council in Portugal on 1-2 May. It will be part of the documents to be sent by all member states to their legislatures as part of the ratification process of the Treaty. It will be included among the Treaty documents which will be officially publicised by the Community along with the Treaty following ratification.
On its interpretation, we must take it that member states do not lightly set their hands to Solemn Declarations to be included formally with the Treaty documentation. They mean what they say.
In addition, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Law and Treaty states that in interpreting treaties there shall be taken into account, together with any context, any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions. The Solemn Declaration is undoubtedly such a subsequent agreement.
The referendum on the Treaty on European Union is being held before that on issues raised by the Supreme Court judgments, first, because of the massive importance for Ireland of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty. We must have a full voice in the decisions affecting the future of Europe — the industry, agriculture, economy and international relationships of Ireland — and, most immediately, in the Council decisions on the Delors II proposals on future financing of the Community.
Next, there would be no advantage in holding a referendum on travel, information and perhaps other issues first, even if we were in a position to do so. This is because the Protocol relates only to Article 40.3.3º, as it stood on 7 February, when the Treaty was signed. The protection of the Protocol would not extend to any changes we might make now in Article 40.3.3º, and it is clear that our partners will agree to a change in the Protocol only when the ratification process of the Union Treaty is complete in their countries: that will be on or after 1 January, 1993. As the Solemn Declaration says, they will then be favourably disposed to extend the protection afforded by the Protocol to future amendments of Article 40.3.3º. We must deal with the situation now as we know it and not base policy on hypothesis or guesswork.
In the light of what I have just said, it should be clear that from the standpoint of the right to life of the unborn, a referendum on the abortion issues now, before that on the Maastricht Treaty, would be a futile exercise, and haste could, as we know, produce totally the wrong result.
I should emphasise that it was not the Community that brought about this situation: it arises from our Constitution, our law, and our court judgments; and ratification of the Treaty, even with an unamended Protocol, will in no way prevent or inhibit our Legislature and people from further amending our Constitution in this area, if we so wish.
I can understand the concerns of those who are apprehensive about the rights to travel and information. These doubts do not stem from the Maastricht Treaty. The Protocol, even in its present form, does not take away rights to travel and information under European law, which, of course, is applicable to Ireland. All EC member states have, in the Solemn Declaration, confirmed that this is the proper legal interpretation which the Protocol will have when the Treaty to which it is annexed comes into force. While recourse to the European Court of Justice would very probably vindicate the rights in any particular case, it is through action in Ireland in regard to our Constitution and public policy that the availability of these rights can best be generally guaranteed.
As indicated in the White Paper, a referendum will be held in November next to deal with the travel and information issues which arise and with any other questions which, on completion of the Government's consideration of the issues raised by the Supreme Court decisions, emerge as necessary and feasible to deal with by constitutional amendment.
In the meantime, as I said last Thursday, the Attorney General has informed me that once there is a positive vote in the referendum on 18 June, no further State injunctions will be sought by the law officers — in discharge of the Attorney General's independent and non-governmental duties under the Constitution or otherwise — which would interfere with the right to travel.