Tairgim leasú a 1:
I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, líne 6, i ndiaidh "a dhaingniú", an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:
", faoi réir teacht ar chomhaontú, a bheidh ina cheangal dlí agus lena mbeidh éifeacht láithreach, le cinn Stáit agus Rialtais AE, ina sonrófar mar a leanas:
‘Ní bhíonn Éire rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus cur chun feidhme cinntí agus gníomhaíochtaí de chuid an Aontais a bhfuil impleachtaí cosanta acu, ach ní choiscfidh sí forbairt ar chomhar níos dlúithe idir Ballstáit sa réimse sin. Dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh Éire rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart sin. Ní dhéanfaidh Éire rannchuidiú le maoiniú an chaiteachais oibríochtúil a thig ó na bearta sin.',
agus faoi réir Prótacal chuige sin a chur ag gabháil leis an gcéad Chonradh AE eile,",
agus
i gCuid 2, leathanach 7, líne 16, i ndiaidh "2001", an méid seo a leanas a cur isteach:
", subject to a legally binding agreement, with immediate effect, being reached with the EU heads of State and Government, stating that:
‘Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer co-operation between member states in this area. Therefore, Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.',
and a Protocol to that effect being attached to the next EU Treaty.
I move amendment No. 1:
In Part 1, page 6, line 6, after "a dhaingniú" to insert the following:
", faoi réir teacht ar chomhaontú, a bheidh ina cheangal dlí agus lena mbeidh éifeacht láithreach, le cinn Stáit agus Rialtais AE, ina sonrófar mar a leanas:
‘Ní bhíonn Éire rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus cur chun feidhme cinntí agus gníomhaíochtaí de chuid an Aontais a bhfuil impleachtaí cosanta acu, ach ní choiscfidh sí forbairt ar chomhar níos dlúithe idir Ballstáit sa réimse sin. Dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh Éire rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart sin. Ní dhéanfaidh Éire rannchuidiú le maoiniú an chaiteachais oibríochtúil a thig ó na bearta sin.',
agus faoi réir Prótacal chuige sin a chur ag gabháil leis an gcéad Chonradh AE eile,",
and
in Part 2, page 6, line 16, after "2001" to insert the following:
", subject to a legally binding agreement, with immediate effect, being reached with the EU heads of State and Government, stating that:
‘Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer co-operation between member states in this area. Therefore, Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.',
and a Protocol to that effect being attached to the next EU Treaty.
I am well aware this is a cumbersome article to insert in the Constitution. I am also aware it deals only with one issue and the Nice Treaty involves many different issues to which I alluded in my Second Stage contribution. It is a parliamentary device to encourage debate and, above all else, I am anxious that there be debate in this House. It is important that we engage the public because Nice means nothing for many of them. I would hazard a guess that if one were to ask people which they had more interest in, the Leeds United match or a debate on the Nice Treaty, many would opt for the former. I dread to think of what the turnout will be in the referendum on 7 June. A turnout of less than 30% will mean we have a serious problem.
I believe the direction in which the EU is heading is wrong and that it is alienating people. Fewer people will participate in EU referenda or take an interest in the development of the EU. In effect, the European Union is now based on the twin pillars of bureaucracy and industrialism. That leaves ordinary people far behind. Unfortunately, we will see the manifestation of this in the rise of the political right and in the alienation of certain sectors. We have already seen it in the May Day demonstrations where people give vent to their powerlessness and anger against what they see as corporate greed. They see the corporations taking over the European Union.
Some of the Minister's officials might recognise a degree of plagiarism in this amendment. They would be correct because I borrowed heavily from the Danish protocol. Members will remember that the Danes, in 1992, had the temerity to reject the Maastricht Treaty. I recall watching the ashen faced Tommy Gorman report it on RTE; he could not understand how the Danes could do such a thing. I was asked at the meeting the other day what would happen if there were a "No" vote on 7 June. I believe there would be another referendum and further referenda until the result was the right one. One must ask if that is real democracy as well. To what extent do the people have a say?
The Danes achieved a concession. There was a negotiated settlement among the Heads of State which resulted in the attachment of a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty. The Minister might argue, correctly, that the Danes are members of NATO. However, this raises another interesting debate within the EU, the tension between those who wish to take the NATO route and the traditional leftists who envisage the EU developing in a different way in that they wish it to move away from NATO and develop a strictly EU identity in terms of defence.
I sought to intervene during the Minister's reply on Second Stage earlier today. The question I wished to ask the Minister – it is a question I asked during my contribution on Second Stage which I had hoped he would answer – is why the Finns and the Swedes no longer describe themselves as neutral. Why does NATO refer to the Finns, Swedes, Irish and Austrians as the former neutrals? Why does it refer to us as simply non-aligned? The Minister and every Member of this House knows the answers to these fundamental questions.
Our neutrality has become a sham. It is something that is regularly trotted out, to the extent that it has become a mantra. It is part of the so-called neutral White Paper, which claims there will be no infringement of our neutral status. This is down to the Fianna Fáil Party, which appears to be infinitely flexible and adaptable when adopting these positions. I recall the Minister being asked, on the "Questions and Answers" programme, to describe the ideology of the Fianna Fáil Party. He said—