Gay Mitchell
Question:5 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the implications, if any, the Treaty of Amsterdam has on Irish neutrality. [4496/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Military Neutrality.
The Treaty of Amsterdam has no implications for Ireland's policy of military neutrality and the issue does not therefore arise.
The Government's White Paper on the Treaty of Amsterdam, which I launched on 26 January, sets out in detail the ways in which the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty on the common foreign and security policy will be further developed and enhanced.
At the launch of the White Paper I repeated the commitment of the Government to maintaining Ireland's position outside military alliances. I repeat now what I said then, namely, that if the issue of an EU common defence, which would involve a mutual defence commitment by Ireland, were to arise for a decision in the future, it would be put to the people for their decision in a referendum.
Does the Minister agree that if the Treaty of Amsterdam is passed, neutrality will be enshrined in the Constitution for the first time? This arises because of the wording of Article J.7 which states that a common defence or a full merger between the Western European Union and the EU can only come about following a unanimous decision of the EU Council, that is the Heads of State or Government, an Intergovernmental Conference under Article N and ratification by each member state in accordance with constitutional requirements, which in Ireland would involve a referendum. Does the Minister agree that having ratified the Treaty of Amsterdam Ireland could join NATO without any reference to the people but, should we wish to join a EU common defence or become full members of the Western European Union, we could only do so by following the three stages I have outlined? Does the Minister agree this is a valid reading of Article J.7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam?
I do not agree that it is a valid reading of that article or with the Deputy's comments about the principle of enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. I have already given an undertaking in the context of the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam that a EU common defence, which would involve a mutual defence commitment by Ireland, will be put to the people in a referendum should it arise. This does not presume that by passing the Treaty of Amsterdam neutrality will automatically be enshrined in the Constitution. The contrary is true. Any resolution of the EU Council, following the three stages outlined by the Deputy, would have to be put to the people by way of referendum.
Regarding the scope of the common foreign and security policy, the White Paper on the Treaty of Amsterdam, produced by officials in the Department who invested considerable time and effort in it, is very helpful in its exposition of this area. The genuine problem with ratifying the treaty is its complexity in terms of amendments, additions and deletions to previous treaties. The Government must now introduce the treaty which members of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left negotiated. The questions now arising would have been answered by the previous Government — we have not interfered one whit with the treaty as negotiated by the previous Government, except to urge the addition of discretions and options. This is relevant to Article 29.6 of the Constitution. I understand this has found general favour with Members and I urge them to accept the new draft as amended and extended.
Paragraph 3.41 of the White Paper states:
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 already says that the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) "shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence". The new text will provide that the CFSP "shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy in accordance with the second sub-paragraph, which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide.
This concerns the first part of the Deputy's three part proposition. The paragraph continues:
It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Paragraph 3.42 states:
The "second sub-paragraph" referred to deals with the role of the Western European Union (Western European Union). It provides in particular that the Western European Union "supports the Union in framing the defence aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in this Article."
Paragraph 3.43 states:
In the new formulation, the concept of a future common defence continues to be referred to in the language of possibility ("might").
The Deputy is aware of this as, with Deputy Spring, he negotiated these provisions.
We are very happy with them.
Paragraph 3.43 continues:
Any decision about it would be taken by the European Council, that is to say at Summit level where all decisions are by unanimity; and it would then be referred to as a recommendation to each of the Member States for adoption in accordance with its respective constitutional requirements. The Irish Government, like the two previous Governments, have stated that, whether or not such a decision would require an amendment of the Constitution, it would be put to the people for decision in a referendum.
If neutrality was to be enshrined by virtue of the Treaty of Amsterdam we would not have given this undertaking and neither would the two previous Governments have done so.
I compliment the Minister in his understanding of that fine document. He is well abreast of the issue.
It is a good document.
The wording is clear. Will the Minister accept that there are possibilities of an eventual framing of a common defence for Europe and that there is no change in the status of our neutrality in the present context? I would like to think that can be made clear by those of us who understand these issues because spurious arguments will be made against this issue in the coming months. I urge the Minister, and the Minister of State, with all the resources of their Department, to make that clear from the outset because I have already heard some of the arguments and they are spurious, misleading, not grounded in fact and definitely not grounded in the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty.
I strongly support the views of Deputy Spring in this matter. When people throw out a headline, that headline is followed and it is difficult to catch up with the sound bite. This is an extremely complex treaty and we are trying to convince the people that the European Union has served this country well, not only economically but culturally, linguistically and in what we seek to achieve to fulfil our potential as a people. The ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam will be part of the process of improving the well-being of the Irish people but it will be difficult to deal with those who put out these spurious arguments. I will do my very best, in conjunction with my colleagues in Government and with the authors of the treaty, the main Opposition parties, to explain in layman's language the meaning of what we seek to achieve, but it will be difficult.
I can only presume the Minister misunderstood or did not take into account what I said. Will he agree that in terms of guaranteeing that there will be no departure from Irish neutrality following Amsterdam, the new Article J7 of the Treaty of Rome, certainly in the European Union context, is a much stronger article than the original J4 which it is amending? Will the Minister agree also that if this House so decided we could become full charter members of NATO tomorrow simply by passing a resolution? Will he agree also that if we pass the Amsterdam treaty, irrespective of any general undertaking given by this or the previous Government in respect of a referendum on neutrality, and if there is to be a common defence and a merger between the EU and the Western European Union at some time in the future, it would require a unanimous decision of the EU Council, the holding of an intergovernmental conference under Article J75 and a recommendation from the EU Council for ratification in each member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements i.e. by referendum? Does the Minister agree this is a stronger provision in relation to Irish neutrality than Article J4?
I take the point made by Deputy Spring that at some time in the future the question of Irish neutrality or participation in a common defence within the European Union may have to be considered and may have to be put to the people, but as far as I am concerned that is a matter on which my children and my grandchildren can make a decision. In the context of Europe, however, if we pass the Amsterdam treaty that is a decision they will have to make because Parliament will be unable to make it for them under Article J7.
The principle outlined by the Deputy is correct. Article J7 amends Article J4, as he pointed out. I am aware of the role the Deputy and his colleagues have played in this regard, and I know he is on top of the subject. I agree with him that what happens after the Intergovernmental Conference, the European Council recommendations, the return of the recommendations to the Oireachtas and the consequent need to set off the mechanism of a referendum will not be a matter for my generation but for our children's generation. Frankly, I do not see anything sinister about that.
One way of clarifying this issue would be to seek to apply the terms of the Amsterdam treaty to an existing situation. If the Amsterdam treaty were in place, does the Minister believe that its terms would oblige us, along with the United States and others, to send troops to Iraq on behalf of the European Union? There is a fear that if the Amsterdam treaty is passed, Ireland would be obliged to send our troops into war against countries like Iraq as part of a European army.
I categorically deny that. I agree with the Deputy's assessment which is part of the misinformation that is being given about this matter and which is unhelpful. I cannot deny the right of people to misrepresent the position — we are living in a democracy — but we have an obligation to set out the facts as we know them. The argument put forward by the people who seek to confuse the issue is spurious and has no foundation in fact.
Does the Minister agree that the passing of the Amsterdam treaty will incorporate the Petersburg Tasks — humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, peacemaking, search and rescue — but that the decisions under those type of provisions will be taken on a case by case basis, and again by unanimity? In other words, there will be no compulsion on anybody to participate.
The Deputy is correct in that assessment.