Fine Gael supports the passing of this legislation. However, I will table an amendment on Committee Stage for the purpose of teasing out a particular point.
The Amsterdam Treaty is about more than security or foreign policy issues. It is concerned with greater equality provisions, employment, fighting crime, improving environmental standards, public health and consumer protection. In particular I wish to address security related issues.
The Amsterdam European Council did not agree a common defence even though the Maastricht Treaty stated that the Union might in future agree to a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence. Furthermore, Amsterdam sets up blocks and barriers to a common defence and makes it clear that a common defence would require major treaty revisions, including a further intergovernmental conference and ratification by each member state in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The strange reality is that Irish neutrality will be enshrined in the Constitution for the first time if the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified. I will return to this point later.
In three quarters of a century of independence Ireland as a State has played an important role in the world in peace-keeping and, through the United Nations, in advancing the cause of non-nuclear proliferation.
Twenty five years ago, after half a century of independence, we joined the European Union. In the last quarter of a century our sovereignty has become a greater reality, not because we chose to stand aside from certain organisations, but because we joined specific organisations, most notably the UN, the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe and most, significantly, the European Union.
Our decision not to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1949 continues to enjoy wide public support, even though the reasons for not joining have never been enumerated or publicly consented to. The public is able to discern between membership of NATO and broad security arrangements, on a case by case basis, tailored to our needs and with our full agreement and consent. MRBI research shows this to be the case as the MRBI —The Irish Times survey of September 1996 — indicated. In my research the only principle on which our neutrality is based, as far as I can ascertain, was set out by Seán McBride, the then Minister for External Affairs, in 1949, when he said Ireland would become a full charter member of NATO the day after partition ends. This is a point I will return to in relation to the British-Irish Agreement later in my speech.
The Cold War is over but international strife continues. Increasingly this strife is of an internal nature — such as in the former Yugoslavia and Algeria — and requires a new response. There is now a greater emphasis on the need for security, stability and good order as a prerequisite to, for example, humanitarian aid. The EU does not have the capacity to make this response but the addition of the Petersberg Tasks to its remit will give the EU a greater capacity to help keep the peace.
The Petersberg Tasks are: humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making. They provide a framework within which the Western European Union can provide effective support — including structure and communications — for implementation of measures for conflict prevention and crisis management, including peacekeeping activities decided by the UN Security Council or by the OSCE and Ireland is a member of both.
The Treaty of Amsterdam White Paper, Articles 15.51-3 states:
The EU will avail itself of the Western European Union to elaborate and implement EU decisions on the Petersberg Tasks which have now been brought within the scope of the CFSP. When it does so, all member states will be entitled to participate fully in the tasks in question. This is an entitlement — there will be no obligation on any member state to take part.
Guiding principles on defence policy discussions were set out in the White Paper on Foreign Policy published by the last Government. These are:
4.113 Ireland has argued that the formulation of a common defence policy should take account of the level of political and economic integration achieved by the European Union, be responsive to broader developments in European security, and reflect the varying capacities and experience of the member states.
4.114 In discussion with the Western European Union of involvement in the "Petersberg Tasks" and in contributing to discussion of overall defence policy for the Union, the Government will be guided by the following underlying principles —
the commitment of successive Irish Governments that when the time came Ireland would be willing to enter into negotiations on a common defence policy for the Union. In line with this Ireland should be a constructive participant in the Intergovernmental Conference on this issue, one which wants to contribute to and influence the outcome, and one which wishes to participate in its implementation
the common defence policy should have as its primary objective the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international security in accordance with the UN Charter and OSCE principles
the Union's defence policy must be relevant to the broader role of the United Nations which has a unique legitimacy in the area of international peace and security
the common defence policy must be situated in the context of a broad approach to security that recognises the crucial contribution to security that can be made by economic progress, the removal of the causes of conflict, the fight against crime and drugs and the protection of the environment
The defence policy must be compatible with Ireland's continued pursuit of its objectives in the area of disarmament and arms control. We will continue to work for a reduction in armaments, for the strengthening of non-proliferation regimes, and for an end to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
4.115 The Government has undertaken to put the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy to the people in a referendum. This will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unchanged, unless the people themselves decide otherwise.
That particular quotation and what the White Paper states later relates to the foreign policy issues relevant at the time. The passing of the British-Irish Agreement by the people of Ireland has opened a new window in the whole area of security and defence relations, and one of which Members may not be aware. I have no hesitation in welcoming and supporting them. The White Paper at 4.49 states:
The overall objectives of Partnership for Peace are consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security, and participation in the partnership could have several important advantages —
we would be working together with OSCE partners on programmes of practical co-operation designed to reduce tension and promote overall security in Europe. We have consistently called for and encouraged the development of such inclusive co-operative security arrangements
it would enhance the capacity and readiness of our Defence Forces to participate in UN or OSCE peace-keeping operations through training and exercises with countries with which we share a peace-keeping tradition, and thus help us to ensure that Ireland is in a position to continue to make an important contribution in the field of peace-keeping
it would enable our Defence Forces to make available to European countries which wish to develop their peace-keeping capacities, the benefits and lessons of Ireland's long experience in international peace-keeping operations
it would enhance Ireland's capacity to carry out search and rescue operations off our coasts and to conduct humanitarian missions in response to national or other disasters
it would provide a framework for practical co-operation and planning to deal with threats to the environment and drug trafficking.
Participation in the Western European Union Petersberg Tasks would do the same. Fine Gael advocates joining Partnership For Peace as well as taking on Petersberg Task type commitments on a case by case basis. In the past many issues have been beyond reasoned or respectful discussion in this State, something I have repeatedly said in the House and in committees. Our role in the future security and defence architecture of an evolving Europe remains in this category. This is unhealthy and wrong.
Regarding the evolving EU security architecture, every Taoiseach from Seán Lemass to Deputy John Bruton has indicated that, should continued membership of the EU require Ireland to take on security and even defence commitments, they would favour doing so. It is time the Taoiseach made his position clear. The Amsterdam Treaty does not entail defence commitments, but an enlarged Union of 26 to 30 countries may revisit the question at a future date. The purpose of an integrated Union is to ensure peace and stability so that Europe can prosper and there can be no return to the tensions which gave rise to two World Wars in the first half of this century. As the Union becomes more federal in nature it will take on more of a peacemaking as distinct from a peacekeeping role. The Petersberg Task commitments of the Western European Union, to be transferred to the EU under the Amsterdam Treaty proposals, is a step in this direction.
Instability anywhere on the continent of Europe has implications for the stability of the continent as a whole. However, in the case of Bosnia, it was NATO which was the driving force behind the international peace effort and not the EU, which is the single biggest political and economic bloc in the world. The EU was confined to issuing démarches while countless numbers of Europeans died in horrific genocide. However, public opinion in the United States is becoming less supportive of leading such missions abroad. To ensure stability in the long-term, it is inevitable that the EU will develop its peacemaking role.
Effective peace enforcement without NATO assets is not a realistic concept at the moment. The Western European Union and EU do not have the independent capacity to enforce peace. We must acknowledge that 11 of the 15 EU states are NATO members. We must learn to respect the fact that individual sovereign states have come together in NATO and, furthermore, all central and eastern European countries wish to join in this alliance. Nor is it a question of right and left. Many of those states are led by socialist prime ministers. The Secretary General of NATO is a socialist. As part of our preparation to have a credible role in influencing the evolving security architecture in Europe, we must ensure that we are not isolated and irrelevant. Otherwise the agenda will be completely set by others. Simply put, if we are not in the game, we cannot make the rules.
Regarding neutrality, the Maastricht Treaty left open the question of a future possible agreement on a defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence. The Amsterdam Treaty does not pursue this possibility but sets out the substance of co-operation in the Petersberg Tasks and the method of achieving this. Those who advocated support for the referendum on the British-Irish Agreement while arguing against the Amsterdam Treaty on security, defence or defence policy grounds, may be surprised in time to find that new security arrangements may arise from the totality of relationships in these islands rather than from the EU in the near future.
Perhaps the strangest thing about the Amsterdam Treaty is that it enshrines neutrality in the Constitution for the first time, at least as far as the EU and the Western European Union is concerned. Ironically, should the State wish to join NATO or, perhaps, some new security arrangement on this island, there would be no constitutional ban after the Amsterdam Treaty. The enshrining of the British-Irish Agreement in Article 29 of the Constitution provides the necessary constitutional authority for future security or defence arrangements on the island and even between it and Britain. When the Amsterdam Treaty becomes law, Ireland could not become part of a future common EU defence or full members of the Western European Union without an intergovernmental conference, the unanimous agreement of the European Council, which is the Heads of State or Government, ratification in accordance with our constitutional requirements, since the Single European Act court ruling, and without holding a referendum on the issue.
This arises because Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty states:
1. The common foreign and security policy 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 subparagraph, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The Western Europe Union (WEU) is an integral part of the development of the Union providing the Union with access to an operational capability notably in the context of paragraph 2. It supports the Union in framing the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy as set out in this Article. The Union shall accordingly foster closer institutional relations with the Western European Union with a view to the possibility of the integration of the Western European Union into the Union, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
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 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
The progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as Member States consider appropriate, by cooperation between them in the field of armaments.
2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.
3. The Union will avail itself of the Western European Union to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications.
The competence of the European Council to establish guidelines in accordance with Article J.3 shall also obtain in respect of the Western European Union for those matters for which the Union avails itself of the Western European Union.
When the Union avails itself of the Western European Union to elaborate and implement decisions of the Union on the tasks referred to in paragraph 2 all Member States of the Union shall be entitled to participate fully in the tasks in question. The Council, in agreement with the institutions of the Western European Union, shall adopt the necessary practical arrangements to allow all Member States contributing to the tasks in question to participate fully and on an equal footing in planning and decision taking in the Western European Union.
Decisions having defence implications dealt with under this paragraph shall be taken without prejudice to the policies and obligations referred to in paragraph 1, third subparagraph.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of close cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union and the Atlantic Alliance, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title.
5. With a view to furthering the objective of this Article, the provisions of this Article will be reviewed in accordance with Article N.
Article N is the Article which provides for an Intergovernmental Conference. As stated in section 1, actions "which might lead to a common defence" and "the integration of the Western European Union into the Union" would require a unanimous decision of the European Council and "it shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision [the same wording is used in both cases] in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" which means a referendum in the case of Ireland.
Furthermore, a new Article J.13 of the Treaty on European Union, the Maastricht Treaty, is being introduced regarding procedures. This provision introduces a new Article J.13 which governs the procedure to be followed when adopting measures under this title. The general rule is that the Council must act unanimously. However, it may act by qualified majority vote when adopting joint actions or 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. Two exceptions to this procedure are important. First, if a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision, a vote shall not be taken. Second, the procedure shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications. A simple majority suffices for procedural matters.
I am sick and tired of Deputies making outrageous allegations and I want the record to state the facts. When people read the record I want them to be able to say "Yes, that point is supported by the evidence." Before this debate is over, some Deputies will make headline grabbing, outrageous statements. I am calling on those Deputies to participate in this debate on security, defence and related issues in a civilised and proper way which relates to the facts. I do not expect everyone to share my view but I object when Deputies make allegations against other Deputies on the basis that we did what we believed to be our duty when supporting the Amsterdam Treaty.
Article J.14 of the Treaty on European Union covers agreements with States or international organisations. This provision introduces a new Article J.14 of the Treaty on European Union, covering the procedure to be followed for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements with states or international organisations in the context of this Title. The procedure applies similarly to Article K.10 of the Treaty on European Union. Article J.14 states:
When it is necessary to conclude an agreement with one or more States or international organisations in implementation of this Title, the Council, acting unanimously, may authorise the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that effect. Such agreements shall be concluded by the Council acting unanimously on a recommendation from the Presidency. No agreement shall be binding on a Member State whose representative in the Council states that it has to comply with the requirements of its own constitutional procedure; the other members of the Council may agree that the agreement shall apply provisionally to them. The provisions of this Article shall also apply to matters falling under Title VI.
Declaration No. 3, relating to Article J.14 states:
The provisions of Article J.14 and K.10 of the Treaty of the European Union (Maastricht) and any agreement resulting from them shall not imply any transfer of competence from the Member States to the Union.
From the point of view of pro-military neutrality campaigners these articles are much stronger provisions than Article J.4 of the Maastricht Treaty which reads:
(1) The common foreign and security policy 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.
(2) The Union requests the Western European Union (WEU), which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. The Council shall, in agreement with the institutions of the Western European Union, adopt the necessary practical arrangements.
(3) Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J.3.
(4) 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 under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
(5) The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance, provided such co-operation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title.
(6) With a view to furthering the objective of this Treaty, and having in view the date of 1998 in the context of Article XII of the Brussels Treaty, the provisions of this Article may be revised as provided for in Article N(2) on the basis of a report to be presented in 1996 by the Council to the European Council, which shall include an evaluation of the progress made and the experience gained until then.
It is clear from comparing Article J.4 of the Maastricht Treaty with Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty that not only does the latter not bring us further into any military alliance, it creates blocks, checks and balances. If anything it weakens what the Maastricht Treaty hoped to build on. However, people still claimed that we would be in some defence alliance. If we are in any security or defence alliance in the near future it is more likely to result from the British-Irish Agreement than anything agreed in Amsterdam.
The essence of the new Article J.7 is that actions of the European Council which might lead to a common defence, only if recommended by them unanimously, would have to be adopted by member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Furthermore, should the possibility of the integration of the Western European Union into the Union be agreed by the European Council, which would again have to be by unanimity, it would have to be ratified by each member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. With a view to furthering the objective of this Article, the provisions of the Article will be reviewed in accordance with Article N at some time in the future. This means a further intergovernmental conference before any changes can be recommended unanimously by the European Council to the member states.
Any claim that the Amsterdam Treaty in any way weakens our traditional military neutrality is untrue. For the first time it copperfastens neutrality in the Constitution in terms of European Union membership until the people decide otherwise. This is my interpretation of what is included in the Articles. I am putting forward this view after the referendum campaign because I am not trying to persuade anyone. If anyone does not believe this to be the case let them indicate where I am wrong. If we are to debate these issues then let us do so rationally and reasonably. Fine Gael welcomes these provisions. If there is to be a departure from our traditional policy at any stage in the future then this should be by decision of the people, following the agreement of the Government and the Oireachtas.
A full consideration of the extent of current moves towards further European integration must include an examination of EMU, agreed in the Maastricht Treaty, as well as the Amsterdam Treaty. EMU is aimed at creating a single currency — the euro — for those member states wishing and able to take part in the project. The main economic benefits of EMU are considered to be removal of exchange rate uncertainty and costs in trade, investments and tourism, the estimated transaction and hedging costs to business in the EU is over $16 billion US dollars per annum; convergence of interest rates among member states which participate; a deepening and enhancement of the single market; an affirmation of the European identity in international relations — in time the EU should be able to punch its weight and a strengthening of collective discipline, especially in the fight to control inflation.
A single currency will mean that participating member states will cease to have their own currency and will not be able to devalue in the event of an economic shock. However, the alternatives to EMU are not cost free. For example, a disintegrating Europe, which would almost certainly follow the abandonment of the EMU project, would have serious implications for employment. In any event, devaluation is only a short-term solution to underlying problems of competitiveness which must be addressed in the long-term. This is the real lesson we must learn: prepare now by becoming more productive and more competitive in use of manpower, materials, energy and general cost control.
The Maastricht Treaty sets out criteria which each member state wishing to qualify for membership of EMU must meet. In this further stage of integration and adoption of a single currency, we must also consider the other supports that exist for member states. A ceiling of 1.27 per cent of a European Union budget would not meet the requirements which could arise from, for example, an asymmetric economic shock to a member of EMU. This matter needs to be given greater priority.
Notwithstanding that, the ERSI indicated clearly that, on balance, it is in our interest to join EMU and we should be committed to it. The Amsterdam Treaty is a further step on the road to ensuring that what happened in the first half of this century, when 60 million Europeans killed each other, will not happen again. The integration process is not about assimilation, it is about learning to live together — British, Irish, French, Germans, Catholics, Protestants and non-believers — and ensuring peace and stability for continued prosperity.
While I will raise a question on Committee Stage about section 2, I support the Bill and hope it has an easy passage through both Houses.