On section 1 and amendment No 1 in the name of Deputy De Rossa. Amendment No. 2 is cognate and amendment No. 3 is related. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
ALT 1.
SECTION 1.
An Bille um an Aonú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1992: An Coiste agus na Céimeanna Deiridh. Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992: Committee and Final Stages.
Tairgim leasú Uimh. a 1:
I leathanach 5, líne 15, "an téacs" a scriosadh agus "na trí fho-alt" a chur ina ionad.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 15, to delete "the text" and substitute "the three subsections".
The purpose of these amendments is to attempt to provide people with an opportunity to judge the Maastricht Treaty on its merits in regard to what they decide. I have put down amendments to both the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the Referendum (Amendment) Bill. Before I proceed further, may I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to indicate at what stage it is intended to move to the amendments put down to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill?
We will continue until we have concluded the business before us.
Perhaps I can be of assistance to the Deputy. I understand no amendments have been put down to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill. If the Deputy wishes, perhaps we could devote five or ten minutes to that Bill before we conclude the debate.
We have to proceed with the first business and if we finish that——
I accept that. I am merely trying to be of assistance to the Deputy. I am suggesting that we deal now with the amendments put down by the Deputy and deal later with the Referendum (Amendment) Bill.
I would welcome the opportunity to deal with the amendments to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill even for a few minutes before the final question is put at 5 p.m.
My experience here is that inevitably the good intentions which accompany an ad hoc arrangement do not always work out for the best. We should proceed as indicated here and deal with other matters as they arise.
We are in the hands of the Chair. We are prepared to be reasonable.
As always.
We will agree to any arrangement which is convenient to the House.
Let us proceed in the ordinary way. If we find later on that there is a need for readjustment, the House can agree to it.
I understand five amendments have been put down to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill. I said earlier there were no amendments. I did not intend to mislead the House.
We will proceed with the debate and see how it goes.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 basically propose that the electorate should address the question of the Maastricht Treaty by way of three questions. Amendment No. 3 proposes that the Bill before us should be amended to read the Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The idea behind the amendments is to separate the issues involved in the referendum. First, they seek to separate the question of ratifying the Treaty and endeavour to ensure that a clear decision is made by the people about whether they want to be part of the new European Union. Second, it seeks to separate the effect this might have on the Constitution and the way in which the laws, actions and acts taken by the Community would be interpreted by the Constitution. If the people were agreeable to those steps being taken then obviously that question would be carried. Third, they seek to separate the provision for the Patent Convention, which is also attached to the Maastricht Treaty, for the purpose of amending our Constitution. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these amendments.
I support the amendments in the name of Deputy De Rossa, Are we debating amendment No. 1 on its own or debating amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together?
As the Chair advised the House earlier, amendment No. 2 is cognate and amendment No. 3 is related. Therefore, we are discussing amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
As I said, I support these amendments. The proposal in relation to the Patents Convention is very disturbing. As I said in my Second Stage speech last night, it would appear to require further amendment of our Constitution. I commend Deputy De Rossa's amendments to the House.
The amendments put down by Deputy De Rossa, which seek to amend sections 1 and 2, would amend the Title of the Bill to read the Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I presume the intention behind this proposal is to give people the opportunity of voting separately on the key issues involved — the ratification of the Treaty, the way in which the Treaty is implemented to take on the obligations of membership and the Patents Convention.
While I understand and appreciate what the proposer of the amendments is seeking to do, I should say, with the greatest respect, that they will make for considerable confusion. The Government could not agree to separate subsections 4º and 5º as both are necessary to enable Ireland to ratify the Treaty and take on the obligations of membership. The fundamental point here is that they are inextricably interlinked and we cannot pass one subsection without the other. For example, what would happen if people said "yes" to the ratification of the Treaty and "no" to the way in which it is implemented to take on the obligations of membership? This does not bear close scrutiny.
The Government see no need to separate the questions relating to the European Union Treaty from the Patents Convention. Although the agreement is an intergovernmental one, it involves Community issues and is part of the Internal Market programme. Given its relevance to the completion of the Internal Market under the EC Treaty, it is appropriate in a referendum in which the people are asked to confirm their commitment to the European Union that this matter should also be addressed. The proposals in the amendments are confusing. It is not my intention to diminish in any way the intention behind the amendments, but if we ratified the Treaty only we would not be in a position to take on the obligations of membership; or, conversely, we would be taking on our obligations of membership without ratifying the Treaty. While I accept the Deputy's genuine intentions, if the amendments are examined inter alia instead of seriatim one would find that the whole operation would lead to a certain confusion, if not complete confusion.
I wish to refer to the points made by Deputy Garland on the Patents Convention during the course of his Second Stage speech. The agreement relating to Community Patents will create a centralised litigation procedure for Community Patents. The common Patents Appeal Court to be set up under the agreement will have jurisdiction to determine certain matters concerning Community patents raised on appeal from decisions of national courts in domestic litigation concerning such patents.
Without the agreement relating to Community patents, patents would be subject to different legal regimes in the member states. That is fundamentally the reason for that. It is to bring a clarity and a cohesiveness into the whole question of patents, patent agreements and their operability as between one member state and another. I am not certain that that is helpful to the Deputy but if he has any other questions in this regard I would be glad to assist in so far as I practically can.
I have been listening to the views expressed by Deputy De Rossa and the response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see exactly where we stand on the issues. I am trying to consider dispassionately and objectively the points raised. It seems that there might conceivably be an arguable case for having the patents agreement as a separate article. I notice from the explanatory memorandum that even though this matter was negotiated outside the legal framework of the Community it is closely related to the achievement of the Single European Market.
I am not convinced that ratification of the Treaty and its implementation can be separated. I do not see how one could provide for ratification while separately providing for implementation, which might not go through, thereby leaving us in a totally anomalous position. I am trying to consider the matter objectively.
I see no case for the separation of those two provisions. On balance it is probably as well, to avoid confusion, that the patents agreement be part of the same article because of its relationship to the achievement of the Single European Market. On that basis I support the Government position.
I fully understand the Minister's position on this proposal. Clearly, it is much easier for the Government to argue the position that if we do not adopt everything in total we will be in dire circumstances, whereas if we offer separate questions to the people to decide, they can make a distinction between what they want and what they do not want to accept — obviously, I am not talking about the detail of the Treaty.
Apart from the patent issue — of which I must quite honestly tell the Minister I have very little knowledge but which should have been brought forward much earlier for debate on the issues involved — if the people were offered a choice of question as between ratifying the Treaty — being the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution — and implementing it — being the Twelfth Amendment — those like myself who are very much in favour of a political union of the European Community could very easily and quite logically vote for the Eleventh Amendment while registering our protest with regard to specific aspects of the Treaty by voting against the Twelfth Amendment. If the latter amendment was then defeated it would be a clear signal to our partners in the European Community that we are very much in favour of the development but that we have concerns about particular aspects of it. It would strengthen the hand of the Government in negotiating whatever aspects need to be negotiated arising from the debate over the next four to five weeks. It is in a sense an attempt to reduce the heat in relation to this debate by various people on one side or the other screaming that if we reject Maastricht we will be frozen out of the Community, while if we accept Maastricht we will all be conscripted into a European army. Both positions are extreme and do not enhance the capacity of the people to make a rational decision about the issues that are being placed before them.
I regret that the Minister, in his closing speech earlier today, re-echoed this doomsday approach to the debate, acknowledging as he did again on this amendment, the bone fides of those of us who have reservations about Maastricht. It is in that spirit that the separation of the issues is being offered. It is not in any way to create an anomalous position but simply to give a choice to people which does not leave them choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. They should have a real choice to make and could deliver a message to the Government and to our partners in the European Community which does not indicate that we are in any way being bloody-minded, that we want to be out of the European Community or that we do not want to make our contribution to its development.
I support the Minister's view on this issue. I am very pleased that our spokesperson has taken a similar line to that taken by the Minister. What is happening here could be damaging to what is probably the most important decision that will be taken in this country for many years to come, affecting the lives and the future of our young people. We should in no way confuse what is involved here. What concerns me is that the public will not be adequately informed of this matter. It is most important that the public be adequately informed of what is in this Treaty and what it means and that they have a total and utter commitment to Europe at the end of the debate and not be confused when they go into the polling booth on polling day. I respect people's views which are opposite to mine in relation to the whole European question. I believe that the future of this country lies in a united Europe and the sooner we bring about monetary, political and economic union the better.
It is only when you attend meetings in Europe that you relaise how important is our membership of the European Community. We should not make commitments to the public and tell them that the reason they should vote for Maastricht is that we will get an extra £6 billion. That is a terrible attitude to adopt in relation to the whole question of European Union and being committed to a united Europe. It is misleading to tell people that it is a simple question of throwing £6 billion away. There is more to this Treaty than £6 billion.
Having attended a meeting in Lisbon in the last couple of days with the EC Committee and having listened to the German representatives of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, I very much question whether the Germans are committed to raising the funds to provide the £6 billion for the Delors II package. We have a duty to inform the public of the full facts and to tell them that the future of this country and of its people is in a united Europe.
We should not adopt a begging bowl mentality and be seen only to be taking from Europe. I am delighted that the Minister is being very direct. If after a proper and informed debate people do not want to support the Maastricht Treaty, they would state so in the polling booth. When they go to the polling booth they should not be confronted with a list of questions to which they answer "yes" or "no", but the simple question of whether they are for or against the Maastricht Treaty. What is most important is the debate leading up to polling day——
They want to know what the Treaty is about.
At the end of the day they have to make up their minds on the basis of the facts.
I am sure Deputy Mac Giolla will have the opportunity to contribute in a moment and I will be delighted to sit and listen to him. I presume he will pay me the courtesy of listening while I make my point.
What chance will we have if it keeps going on like this?
I will be making only one contribution to this very important debate so I wish to say my piece and when I am finished the Deputy will have his say. I am quite sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will see to that.
This debate gives us the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that we are true committed Europeans, that we take the good with the bad and that we are prepared to defend the Community as well as take from it. We are prepared to lead opinion on being Europeans. We want to ensure that people know what they are voting for because at the end of the day we do not want to hear people say "I did not realise this is what it was all about". When the people have been fully informed they should make up their minds and vote. I sincerely hope they will vote "yes"; indeed I will be encouraging everyone to vote "yes". Let there be no confusion, just a simple question of "yes" or "no".
I will be very brief. We are in a position of genuine difficulty. I do not think there is any point in imagining that there are not difficulties at this stage of the Bill or with the use of the mechanism of the Bill as an instrument to facilitate a referendum. Let us contrast the procedure adopted in the Belgian Parliament with the procedure taken in the Irish Parliament. In the case of the Belgian Parliament's discussion of the main component of the Treaty on European Union the matter was broken down into five separate position papers, each of which was noted after discussion in the Parliament.
I have great respect for the people who put down these amendments because they are addressing a situation which is genuinely complex. What has happened in Ireland is that the process of negotiation was not open to public scrutiny in this House. Indeed, within that process — and the Second Stage debate has not given us satisfactory answers — there is the question which will arise on amendment No. 4 as to how Protocol 17 was initiated, where it came from and how it became attached to the Treaty and for what purpose. It is not simply a case that we can sit back and say that the entire complex Treaty can be voted on with a simple question of "yes" or "no". You might argue from that position if the Protocol referred to in amendment No. 4 had been debated in advance, or if we had had a debate on the separate components of economic union, monetary union and political union. What is being pushed now is the text as it stands without elaboration, because, while we had some valuable points raised, we did not get answers to some very fundamental questions on Second Stage. This is an issue for the citizens who will vote on the Treaty.
As a democrat I am not interested in putting any obstacles, real or by way of confusion, before the electorate in deciding on any matter that amends our Constitution. However, we cannot reduce the question and simply say "Do not confuse the people; just ask a question with a simple `yes' or `no' answer". The fact is that if Protocol 17 were removed, a great many people would find it easier to make up their minds. We propose to tell the public that the Protocol, which refers to Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution, will be given content later in the year and our partners in Europe have given us a solemn declaration that they will take seriously any proposals we have to give Article 40.3.3. content later in the year. As a parliamentarian I find it hard to justify this procedure to the public.
The preparations in the run up to this referendum have created all the difficulties. There is a difficulty as to what is the right of Parliament to subject a Bill to scrutiny in preparation for a referendum where there has been an appalling sleight of hand in relation to the Protocol. We will discuss this in more substance when we come to deal with amendment No. 4.
I understand it was agreed ab initio that because of the nature of the Bill there would be a generous allocation of time in respect of Second Stage. I advise the House that we are now on Committee Stage where, in accordance with Standing Orders, we must direct our contributions to the content of the amendment.
Deputies
Hear hear.
Often those who say "hear, hear" can be offending the spirit of my remarks. Let there be a general agreement to it and we will then make progress.
(Interruptions).
I am forewarned because I was going to be drawn into an entirely extraneous debate.
The Deputy should sit down.
We are democrats on this side of the House. We actually listen to people and we allow people freedom of speech, which is something which the Deputy has not always done.
I wish to address the proposition put forward by Deputy De Rossa, which strikes me as totally illogical and unworkable. If anything could heap more confusion — and I take the point that there is a degree of confusion among the public — it would be this type of bifurcated approach to a referendum. The reality is that people will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" to a package of elements on the particular day. Good, bad or indifferent, that unfortunately is the way in which referenda work. Where you seek to consult the public on a variety of options all you can do is get something akin to an opinion poll. Deputy S. Barrett make some very sensible points. Our responsibility is to try as far as possible — I take Deputy Higgins' point on the Second Stage debate — to put across to the people as far as possible in a value free way, the details of this extraordinarly complex document called the Maastricht Treaty.
I do not think that the proposition put forward by Deputy De Rossa would assist that process. The reality is that the Irish people will have to vote on a matter that is far greater, as Deputy Barrett quite rightly said, than the right to go with a begging bowl to Europe. It is part of a process that started in the immediate aftermath of a horrific war which destroyed Europe.
This process is a natural progression and it would be very unwise for us to adopt the approach suggested by Deputy De Rossa to introduce additional and extraneous confusion. It would be far better for us to allow the Irish people in as free and uncluttered a way as possible — it is important, as Deputy Mac Giolla said, that the people get as much information as possible — to go to the polls and vote yea or nay.
I wish to make a final comment on this matter. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reach the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1992, which would give rise to the debate about whether the Government are presenting the information in a value free way.
The guide which has been produced is not value free, apart from the cost; I am referring to the manner in which the issues are presented. Offering a choice to people in relation to what is an extremely complex document, a document impossible to understand, is pointless unless you read other Treaties. For most people, and even for most politicians, that is not a job we relish. It would be interesting to know how many Deputies in this House have actually read the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty. I am sure the Deputies before me have read it assiduously, but for most people it is a document which would be incomprehensible. I believe we need a means which offers the public a choice — to declare, yes, we are in favour of the European Treaty, in favour of its expansion, in favour of its democratisation; but no, we are not happy with all aspects of the Treaty. They could therefore vote as they chose against the second amendment which I proposed concerning its implementation.
The development of the European Community is seen as a response to the Second World War. That is fine, no one will argue with that approach as to how the Community developed. However, it is not the only thing that gave rise to the development of the European Community, but we do not have the time to dwell on the detail of it.
The threat of socialism was another.
I would point out that there is a whole range of ways in which the European Community could develop. A particular compromise thrashed out in a fairly rushed way at inter-governmental conferences in relation to European Monetary Union, political union and security and foreign affairs is not essentially the best way forward. The Dutch Presidency produced a draft treaty which offered a more federal approach to the development of the community and which brought all of the competencies being offered in the current Treaty under the control of the institutions. The Treaty before us does not have them all under the control of the institutions of the European Community. There are choices as to how the European Community could develop. It is too simplistic to say the Irish people must choose in a black and white, yes or no way to what is being offered at this time.
The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill seeks clarity. To those who suggest that the amendment proposed by Deputy De Rossa would in some way improve the public perception of what they are being asked to vote on, I would say, with the greatest of respect, that it would lead to great confusion. I take the points made by Deputies Barrett, De Rossa and M. Higgins that what we seek in this debate from now on is to bring an understanding, as clear as possible, to the attention and knowledge of the people. I also accept the point made by Deputy Barrett that we should not highlight the £6 billion element — very important in itself — because it has the character of the begging bowl syndrome.
In dealing with the amendment before the House the truth of the matter is that it would be pointless to ratify a Treaty which could not be implemented. What standing would we have in international affairs in those circumstances? I see no point to it. It would lead to unnecessary confusion; and as the Government have presented their proposal there is an interlinkage which is so necessary for clarity and understanding. I think our proposal would be understood more clearly by those who intend to vote on the proposal rather than the proposal produced by Deputy De Rossa.
Arising out of a comment made by Deputy De Rossa when he referred to the proposals of the Dutch Presidency, I should say I was one who very much favoured those proposals, so I agree with him on that point. I would be glad if those proposals had come through rather than those which finally emerged. It is altogether confusing at this stage to suggest that we have the option of writing or rewriting the Treaty, because it was the result of negotiation and the final negotiation ended in Maastricht. In that context it is confusing to talk about the further things we would wish to have in the Treaty. What we have to talk about is the future evolution of the Community. Certainly, the views contained in the Dutch Presidency document are those which I will be talking about again, but in the context of 18 June they are not and cannot be before the people.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh na focail a thairgtear a scriosadh", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltu don leasú.
Amendment declared lost.
Níor tairgeadh Leasú Uimh. a 2.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Alt a 2.
Ba mhaith liom na trí leasú a chur ós comhair an Tí ach nílim chun vótail a ghlaoch orthu.
If we have already agreed that the words proposed to be deleted stand, it is wasteful of time, and indeed of sense, to have another amendment on which the same question would be put. The fact is that we have already agreed to that.
Alt 1 aontaithe.
Section 1 agreed to.
ALT NUA.
NEW SECTION.
We have already discussed Amendment No. 3. Does Deputy De Rossa wish to move the amendment?
Tairgim leasú Uimh. a 3:
I leathanach 5, roimh alt 2, an t-alt nua seo a leanas a chur isteach:
"2. —(1) An tAonú, an Dóú agus an Tríú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht a bhéarfar ar na leasuithe a dhéantar ar an mBunreacht leis an Acht seo.
(2) Féadfar an tAcht um an Aonú, an Dóú agus an Tríú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht a ghairm den Acht seo.".
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—(1) The amendments of the Constitution effected by this Act shall be called the Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendments of the Constitution Act.".
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go gcuirfear isteach an tAlt nua", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don leasú.
Question: "That the new section be there inserted" put and declared lost.
AN SCEIDEAL.
SCHEDULE.
An é seo Uimir a 4?
Deputy De Rossa should have been advised — we all regret the lack of time and the difficulty in communication — that because of the fact that the amendment in his name is in conflict with the Bill and is contrary to the spirit of the Treaty it would not be in order. It is in order to discuss it but the amendment could not be formally accepted.
Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an alt. The purpose of my amendment, which I have just been informed is not in order, was to put the question in relation to Maastricht with the deletion of Protocol 17. I regret very much that my amendment has been ruled out of order because I assume this House would welcome an opportunity to give its opinion.
This Protocol, which seeks to insulate or protect Article 40.3.3º of the Irish Constitution from the European Court of Justice was entirely inappropriate in the first place. In the past, we have sought all kinds of derogations from the effects of various economic aspects of the European Community, but I am not aware that we have ever on a previous occasion sought to protect our citizens from equality of citizenship across the European Community. I know there is a debate in relation to the effect of this Protocol, as to whether or not it does, as I claim, treat Irish women as second class citizens in that it would seek to deny them the right to appeal a decision in relation to a case that might be brought against them in an Irish court; it would seek to prevent them from taking that case to the European Court.
Deputy De Rossa, I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought that you were going to make just a brief comment.
I am. It is very brief.
In circumstances where there are already listed amendments that are in order the Chair would be obliged to deal with the amendments before we would take any other matter.
I have no wish to preclude other people from speaking to their amendments because of the time within which we are obliged to operate. Unfortunately, my own party and some Independent Deputies are the only ones who opposed this guillotine Committee Stage of this debate. Let me say that it is unfortunate that the House is not enabled to let its voice be heard with regard to the deletion of this Protocol. From its inception it was a misbegotten idea and whatever means that can be found should be found to have that Protocol deleted, preferably before 18 June.
Deputy De Rossa, thank you for your understanding and co-operation. We have amendment No. 5 in the names of Deputies Garland, De Rossa and Mac Giolla.
Tairgim leasú Uimh. a 5:
I Cuid I, leathanach 7, línte 8 agus 9, "den Aontas Eorpach nó" a scriosadh,
agus
i Cuid II, leathanach 7, líne 23, "of the European Union or" a scriosadh.
I move amendment No. 5:
In Part I, page 6, lines 8 and 9, to delete "den tAontas Eorpach nó,
and
in Part II, page 6, line 23, to delete "of the European Union or".
In respect of my amendment, I would just like everyone in this House to ask what state of affairs we find ourselves in. The big sell-out is on. There are barely nine Members in the Chamber to oversee this sale, the "sale of the century" without any doubt. The issues in this debate are crucial to the whole future of this country, as significant as the Act of Union in 1800 which, as we know, was followed by a famine.
As crucial as the issues in the Treaty itself are, I believe that we are now faced with a more important issue relating to the character of this amendment to our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann.
I have entered this fundamental change to the proposed amendment to the Constitution on the basis of advice I have been receiving concerning its unnecessarily wide scope. As I indicated last night, what we have here is a subtle piece of treachery. Rather than face any more referenda on the European Union, or any more Raymond Crotty's the Government, presumably advised by those blind Europhiles in the Department of Foreign Affairs, are proposing an amendment which gives a blank cheque——
Deputy Garland, I think that the Deputy's standards of ordinary courtesy, apart from the rules of the House that we do not as parliamentarians refer to anybody outside the House who is not in a position to defend himself——
It was a complimentary reference, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I know that on reflection, Deputy Garland, you would not wish to criticise people who are outside this House and maybe the Deputy would formally withdraw that.
I was going to suggest that. In the nature of things I would be obliged to ask the Ceann Comhairle to ask Deputy Garland to withdraw the intemperate language in which Deputy Garland described as "blind Europhiles" the people in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would like to say to Deputy Garland and to the House that they are no such thing. They are people of the very highest integrity who do their work on behalf of this country in a very willing and able fashion. I strongly reject the suggestion that the Department of Foreign Affairs is populated by such people as the Deputy suggests. I have been in the Department for only a short time and I can speak with the highest respect for all of those people. In those circumstances I would appreciate, for the honour of the House and on the basis of fairness, that the Deputy might withdraw that remark.
I regret that I do not see fit to withdraw it.
I know that the Deputy has it within his competence and his wonderful vocabulary, to substitute some other word that would be more in accordance with the facts and would not be as derogatory. The Deputy is not entitled——
In the interests of saving time, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will withdraw those remarks.
Thank you, Deputy.
Anything that may reasonably be interpreted to fall within the very vague objectives of the union will be immune now to legal challenge and therefore will not need a further referendum. This makes nonsense out of the Government claim that we will have to have a referendum on defence aspects in 1996. Furthermore, the union will be able to evolve new labour laws, emigration rules, extradition treaties, cross-Border hot pursuit, European identification systems and so on without reference to the Irish people. Frankly, it alarms me that the Government would propose such a form of national harakiri. I can only assume that the State class are absolutely desperate to pass the buck in the absence of any positive answers to our undoubtedly worsening situation.
The Taoiseach was quite clearly aware of these possibilities yesterday when he said: "the form of the amendment is the same as in 1987". He went on to list some minor exceptions. It is not the same. The areas of the union which are intergovernmental and not subject to the European Court of Justice, mainly security and justice, are being removed from the ambit of the Irish courts as well by virtue of this amendment. Are we to be without legal redress in these areas? Is this an indication of the kind of European Union we are being bludgeoned into by this lily-livered Government and the sheepish Opposition? The Taoiseach's reassurances concerning the point that the Western European Union will not qualify as one of the bodies competent, referred to elsewhere in the amendment, seems rather hollow in the light of what I have already said about the scope of the amendment. In fact, his reassurances are very misleading.
I should have advised the Deputy earlier that because they are related it was proposed for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together. If Deputy Garland wishes to come back with other comments he may.
I have covered all I wanted to cover.
Sílim go bhfuil antábhacht ag baint leis an dá leasú seo de barr an bhaint atá acu leis an mBunreacht. These are rather important to discuss in the very short time we have because of the possibility of future referenda. We would like to know from the Minister the specific reason these words are put in. Táimid ag lorg sa Sceideal, Cuid I, go scriosfar na focail "den aontas Eorpach" agus go bhfágfaí é ansin mar "riachtanach na hoibleagáidú mar Chomhalta de na Comhphobail". Arís sa leagan Béarla, Cuid II, táimid ag iarraidh that we strike out the words "European Union" and that it should read; "measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities". Similarly the following line is "acts done or measures adopted by the Communities", leaving out "by the European Union". This was the procedure adopted previously and was the procedure adopted in the Single European Act. The words simply were as we are proposing. It is surprising and it has not been explained why the Government deliberately put in "necessitated by obligation of membership of the European Union" because we have been assured by the Taoiseach that there will be another referendum in 1996. He said there is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty about defence but that it will come up in 1996 and that there will then be a referendum. He said it on at least two occasions.
I said on Second Stage that this Treaty commits us to defence. We do not have to wait until 1996: it is very clearly there with the question of European unity. Putting these words in will ensure that a referendum will not be required in 1996 if a defence policy and a common defence is decided on. The same applies if a European army is established, because we are saying that no provision of the Constitution invalidates laws which would be necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union. It will be said that these are necessitated by the obligations of the European Union and that, therefore, there will not be a referendum. Why does the Minister insist on putting in these words when they should not be there? They distort matters and ensure that there will not be a further referendum, no matter what decisions are made, as long as they are decisions necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union, not the obligation of membership of the Community.
This is fundamentally important and I appeal to the Minister to explain why he feels it essential to insert these words. This will leave us in the position in which we were in regard to the Single European Act and there should be provision for further referenda if there are more changes.
One of the concerns I have in relation to the inclusion of the European Union in this section is the question it raises about the Minister's statement in the House earlier today that if the question of a European defence policy or European defence arises in 1996 or thereafter, the matter would come back to this country for a referendum. It seems to me — addressing the matter from the point of view of a layman — that this amendment to the Constitution seems to make that unnecessary, that in future we can agree anything in relation to the Maastricht Treaty and its developments without holding a referendum in this country. I presume whatever developments took place would have to be ratified by the Dáil but it seems that this provision attempts to eliminate the need for a referendum.
The other concern I have relates to common foreign policy, security and, if it develops at a later stage, defence, justice and home affairs areas which are outside the competency of the institutions which will be dealt with by intergovernmental co-operation. This was a concern which the European Parliament raised, that the Maastricht Treaty left these matters outside the jurisdiction of the institutions and that they would not be accountable to the European Court of Justice. Will the Minister address himself to those concerns?
It is a farce to draw a sinister inference from the fact that the words "European Union" appear here because we are taking the next step in the creation of European Union. The Deputies should look at the original Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Luxembourg and the Single European Act and they will find that different modes of operation were used, which were appropriate at the time. I see the point that Deputy Mac Giolla is making but he should not draw a sinister inference in regard to this matter.
With all due respect to Deputy Garland, his contribution was little more than scaremongering. He talked about cross-Border pursuits, the illustrating of green credentials which are not always appreciated in his party. He mentioned the threat to neutrality and to the right of appeal to the courts as if——
I would not mention cross-Border pursuit if I was Deputy Roche.
Deputy Roche is entitled to address himself to any point.
I forgot myself momentarily.
Deputy Spring will have an opportunity to speak presently.
Deputy Spring made his remark with such cherubic innocence that I did not mind.
If you address the Chair you will get a more sympathetic audience.
I am aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I get a sympathetic audience from you. I also get a sympathetic hearing from Deputy Spring, who is an innocent in "winding-up" speakers in this House. It is patent nonsense to allege that the insertion of the words "European Union" can in some way have a sinister interpretation.
As I said, I regard Deputy Garland's contribution as little more than high-level scaremongering. He talked about a cross-Border pursuit being openly endorsed by the House if we pass this Bill and that neutrality would go out the door. He said that the rights of appeal to courts — Irish or European courts — would also go out the door, which is patent nonsense.
More significant points were made by Deputy De Rossa and I am sure that the Minister will respond to this latter point about the court and its impact. However, I do not see the logic in the other arguments put forward.
I am not certain whether Deputy Garland is the author of the speech he made or whether somebody wrote it for him.
That is why the scripts were banned — and rightly so — under Standing Orders.
There was a time when I came into the House years ago——
The Deputy was on his own.
I was but I did not have any problems in that regard. There was a tradition that nobody referred to scripts because their authorship was not known. Deputy Garland used the words like "treachery" and "famine", which are less than helpful to the debate. He also levelled abuse at various individuals and Departments, which is also less than helpful. Indeed, I do not know whether I should respond any further to his remarks. I will respond to what I understand are amendments from Deputy Garland and Deputy De Rossa. They proposed three amendments——
I exist too.
I know.
The Workers' Party.
The Minister probably cannot see me back here.
I have always been able to see and hear Deputy Mac Giolla, although I know he is a bit lonely at the moment and I will do my best to lift up his heart.
I am not too lonely.
Could we get away from this uncharacteristic excess of concern for one another?
I am of the backbenches myself so I appreciate Deputy Mac Giolla's feeling of isolation. As I understand it, the proposals seek to amend subsection (5), the deletion of the words "European Union" in line 23, the deletion of the words "by the European Union" in line 26 and the deletion of the words "or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities". I regret that, in the circumstances, the Government cannot accept the amendment to subsection (5) proposed by Deputies De Rossa and Garland. The words "of the European Union", "by the European Union" and "by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities" are necessary to ensure that Ireland can fulfil its obligations under the new Treaty. The text is based closely on the provision in the existing Article 29.4.3º amended to take account of the establishment of a European Union. It permits first the State to adopt laws, Acts or measures necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union, in addition to those arising from membership of the Community. The use of the words "laws, acts and measures" is to ensure comprehensive cover to our obligations and follows in this respect the exact wording of the existing provision.
The subsection permits the laws, acts and measures adopted by the European Union, by the Communities or by bodies competent under the Communities such as the new Central Bank, to have the force of law in Ireland as this is required by our Treaty obligations. The bodies competent to which reference is made in the Bill are the European Central Bank and the European Monetary Institute, a transitional body which would exist during the second stage of economic and monetary union. Since these bodies will not be institutions of the Community, they will not be covered by the reference to the institutions in the amendments and hence they have to be covered by a separate reference. That is the technical position in relation to the proposed amendments by the Deputy.
In relation to the specific question of neutrality and the angst which that is causing a number of Deputies, I would refer to the speech made by Deputy Spring in this regard. Those of us who have heard the various contributions in this debate and listened to the efforts being made by people to clarify the specific issues under this very complicated and diverse Treaty, White Paper and popular version, might examine the contribution by Deputy Spring on neutrality. It is clear to the point of understanding and is very helpful in that regard.
To return to the point made by Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa, I assume that they are in some way suggesting that we are handing over our neutrality and our neutral status as we understand it. I do not have to remind them that there is a queue of neutral countries waiting to get into the EC and become full members. I specifically refer to Finland, Austria and Sweden. There is a vast queue of countries in addition to those with neutral policies anxious to become members of the Community. How dare I have any objection to anybody suggesting that a "no" vote is the right answer in the referendum on 18 June next. Nevertheless I have yet to hear those people seeking a "no" vote telling me what the advantages would be, how Ireland would be advantaged and how the people would benefit. Nobody has come forward with any answers in that regard. For those reasons and the other reasons I have stated, we cannot accept this amendment.
The proposal before the House is to delete the words "of the European Union" from the Schedule. The proposal seems to be a bit daft. If you are against the European Union it might make some sense, but since this House has agreed that we are to join the European Union, surely the proposal to change the Constitution must provide that any laws necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union must be constitutionally valid. The suggestion that we should delete the words "of the European Union" would entirely negative the fundamental principles on which we are joining that Union. I do not see any merit in the argument adduced in favour of this proposal.
We do not have time to respond to all the Minister's remarks in regard to neutrality, which I do not accept at all. I would ask the Minister to explain the meaning of this section. Why will there be any need for a referendum in 1996 or 1997 when the Union makes proposals at that stage which are necessitated by the obligations of membership? This clearly would be one of the things necessitated by the obligations of membership. Why would another referendum be required in 1996 if this is passed?
In the course of this discussion I have not referred once to the word "neutrality" and have not implied that the question of a common foreign and security policy as outlined here is in any way in opposition to my concept of how the European Community should develop. My concern relates to the control that this House and the people would have in relation to how it develops. The common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs intergovernmental co-operation are outside our control and outside the range of matters accountable to Members of this House and the people of this country. I am concerned also about adopting this section with European Union incorporated into it and altering our Constitution in such a way that any Acts passed arising from European Union will not be in contravention of our Constitution. When we adopted the Single European Act in 1987 we did not seek at that stage to ensure that any Acts done by intergovernmental co-operation would be automatically acceptable to the Constitution. We are introducing a new element which needs clarification. What is the purpose of introducing this new element which will ensure that Acts done by intergovernmental co-operation will not be in contravention of our Constitution or any section of it?
I want to add my voice to that of others who are opposing these amendments. We should face up to the reality of what we are asking the people to vote on. We are talking about the creation of European political and monetary union. We should not be afraid to debate these issues. If people hold genuine opposite views, so be it. We have to talk about our involvement in a common security and defence policy and about what neutrality really means in the next century. We are mature enough to be able to debate these issues. Why should we all have to stay quiet once these words are mentioned? Is it not time to say to the people that we are moving into the next century and this is what it means? We must bring the people with us. Anybody who holds the opposite view does not have to engage in insulting remarks. Let them put their point of view and hope they persuade people to their way of thinking. With respect to Deputy Garland, there is no need to engage in that sort of language when opposing the point of view of others. That is what is wrong with this debate. At both ends of the scale there are extremists who fail to see the huge number of people on the centre ground who wish to be properly informed before going to the polling booth.
I am giving Deputy Garland the final word but the Minister will not have any opportunity to reply.
I accept that. Deputy Roche accused me of scaremongering but I deny that I am doing any such thing. The Minister also referred to my "intemperate remarks". I accept that they were rather intemperate but the situation we are now being faced with, by the Government propaganda on this Treaty that is being issued, is desperate and does require intemperate language sometimes. The fact of the matter is that the Government are completely out of their depth. Ireland went into the Community in 1972, which I opposed; went in further in 1987, which I also opposed; and is now going in further again in 1992. We are going in further and further and the Government do not know what they are doing.
Anois caithfidh mé an cheist a chur.
I think I am entitled to——
I am sorry, Minister. There is an order of the House which requires the Chair to put the question at 5 o'clock and the question must be put at 5 o'clock. I am sorry.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
No, if the Deputy will bear with me, I did on a former occasion——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Order. The Chair carries out the duties of the Chair. There are Deputies who are not in the House who assume that the question will be put at 5 o'clock. If the question were not put at 5 o'clock, they would feel at liberty to leave the House. Apart from that consideration, the Chair has to fulfil its obligations.
Cuireadh an Cheist: "Go n-aontaítear leis seo an Sceideal, an Réamhrá agus an Teideal i gCoiste, agus go dtuairiscítear an Bille don Teach gan leasú, agus toisc nár tairgeadh aon leasuithe don Bhille ar Thuarascáil go ndéantar an Bille leis seo a rith".
Question put: "That the Schedule, the Preamble and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and that the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment and, no amendments having been offered to the Bill on Report Stage, that the Bill is hereby passed."
Votáil.
Will Deputies who are claiming a division please rise in their places.
Deputies Blaney, Gregory, Garland, Byrne, McCartan, Rabbitte, Gilmore, De Rossa and Mac Giolla rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the question carried and the names of the Deputies who claimed a Division will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings of the House.
Question put and declared carried.
I now propose to dispose of item No. 60, the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1992, Third, Fourth and Fifth Stages. The question is that sections 1, 2 and 3 and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, and no amendments having been offered to the Bill on Report, the Bill is hereby passed.
Question put and declared carried.