Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jun 2002

Vol. 553 No. 5

European Council: Statements.

I attended the European Council in Seville on Friday and Saturday, 21 and 22 June. In the period prior to the Council I had bilateral meetings with Prime Ministers Aznar, Berlusconi, Blair, Lipponen, Persson and Schussel, all of which were of great value in preparing for the European Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also had an extensive round of bilateral contacts with his counterparts in the lead up to Seville.

The European Council was a substantial success for Ireland and the European Union. It marked major progress on enlargement, justice and home affairs issues. It took significant decisions to reform the way the European Council and the Council of Ministers do their business. Greater transparency has been incorporated into the work of the Council of Ministers and the number of Council formations has been reduced. A specific proposal by Ireland to create a competitiveness council was also agreed. In addition, the European Council adopted the Seville declarations which confirm that the Treaty of Nice poses no threat to our traditional policy of military neutrality. These declarations bring timely clarity in an area which frequently has been the subject of considerable misunderstanding and misinformation.

The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the House. As there is to be a questions and answers session following this statement, I propose to concentrate on the national and European Council declarations adopted in Seville. The national declaration and the declaration of the European Council have been laid before the House. The Government sought these declarations to make it clear, beyond any doubt, that the Treaty of Nice poses no threat to our traditional policy of military neutrality. The declarations confirm that this understanding is fully shared by all 15 member states. The national declaration reaffirms Ireland's continued attachment to its traditional policy of military neutrality and confirms that Ireland is not party to any mutual defence commitment; that we are not party to any plans to develop a European army; and that we will take our own sovereign decision on whether Irish troops should participate in humanitarian or crisis management tasks mounted by the European Union based on the triple lock of UN endorsement, Government decision and Dáil approval.

The declaration also makes clear that Ireland will not adopt any decision taken by the European Council to move to a common defence arrangement, or ratify any future treaty which would involve a departure from our traditional policy of military neutrality, unless it has first been approved by the Irish people in a referendum. The declaration of the European Council confirms that Ireland's policy of military neutrality is in full conformity with the treaties, including the Treaty of Nice, and that there is no obligation on us arising from the treaties which would oblige us to depart from that policy.

The second report of the National Forum on Europe underlined the importance of the neutrality issue and the desirability for the Government to provide the assurances now contained in the national declaration. The forum suggested that confirmation by our EU partners that Ireland's neutral status would be fully respected would also be a measure of reassurance. I am very pleased that through the Seville declarations we have been able to achieve an outcome which fully addresses the issues and concerns highlighted in the forum report. Both declarations have formal status and authority. Should the people decide in a future referendum that the State may ratify the Treaty of Nice, our national declaration will be associated with Ireland's instrument of ratification and it will also be registered at the United Nations.

The Government's priority going to Seville was to secure agreement of partners to the declarations. Our success on this issue at Seville opened the way to the Government today deciding to hold a second referendum on the Treaty of Nice in the autumn of this year. In consultation with the party Whips, we have agreed to reconvene the Dáil for the first two weeks in September to enable passage of the Referendum Bill and provide for full debate on all the issues. The decision to hold another referendum on the Treaty of Nice was not taken lightly. We recognise that there are those who strongly and genuinely believe that the outcome of last year's referendum should be accepted as representing the definitive view of the people on the Treaty of Nice. However, for many reasons, we do not believe that any responsible Government could let the matter rest there. We made this clear in our party manifestos before the general election and we made this clear in An Agreed Programme for Government. Simply put, the Government cannot take risks about Ireland's future.

On assuming office three weeks ago and in the light of the mandate given to us by the people, the Government made the European Union its number one priority. Since the Government was formed I have begun an intensive series of meetings with my colleagues on the European Council and in the accession countries. These meetings will underpin the Government's commitment to vigorously pursue Ireland's interests in the European Union. They will also form part of the preparations for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in the first half of 2004.

All our partners have shown a genuine willingness to help address our concerns and all appreciate the efforts we are making to try to ensure the enlargement process is kept on track, but to do so we must ratify the Treaty of Nice. Almost all other member states have now completed their ratification of the treaty and ratification by all by the end of the year remains our common goal. Without the Treaty of Nice the accession countries will not be able to join the European Union on schedule.

The Treaty of Nice is about the enlargement of the EU. It is important to our partners and it is clearly important to the accession states. As the debate in this country gathers pace, we should not allow ourselves to be distracted from the vital fact that ratification of the Treaty of Nice is also a matter of vital national interest to Ireland. The well-being of our people is inextricably bound up with the continuing success and development of the European Union and in Ireland remaining at the heart of the Union. For Ireland to block the treaty would be damaging to our own interests. It would also be a very serious blow to inflict on countries which have invested years of effort and sacrifice to make themselves ready to take on membership of the Union. We have helped to build the EU of today and we want to play no less a part in building the EU of the future.

We are at a defining moment in our relations with the EU. I said at Seville that the forthcoming referendum will be the most important vote the Irish people have been asked to take since they decided to become part of Europe 30 years ago. In considering how they should vote next autumn, I ask people to reflect on all the vital dimensions of our membership of the EU. There inevitably will be points of irritation with the Union, areas where we feel the Union should be doing more and areas where we feel it should be doing less, but the people need to weigh up the totality of our relations with the EU and decide where the balance lies.

I believe that, looked at and weighed up carefully, there can only be one answer: that we stay with the Union that we have helped to create. We do what makes most sense and we do what ensures that our national interests are protected. In short, we manage our concerns and issues from a position of full strength and commitment at the heart of the Union. It would be bizarre if we were to decide there was a better way of managing our economic, social and political interests. When the next generation looks back 30 years from now, I hope it will say that our generation saw where the national interest lay and took the right path on Europe. There have always been negative voices in this country and in other countries about the whole concept of the European Union. Those voices were there before our people decided to join Europe in 1972 and many of the same voices can still be heard today. They have changed tack, but their underlying aversion to the EU is still there.

I have no doubt that most Irish people support the EU and I hope they will express this support in the autumn referendum. If we were complacent or presumptuous the last time out, we must not make the same mistake this time or ever again because there is too much at stake. We must bring the people with us. There continue to be those who demand that the text of the treaty be re-opened for further negotiation, but this simply is not realistic. To have sought the amendment of a treaty which was the product of long and difficult negotiations, in which all member state governments participated in good faith and in which Ireland's concerns were fully respected, would have been fruitless, counter-productive and disproportionately harmful to our wider interests. There is, in any event, no certainty that a reopening of the treaty would work to Ireland's advantage. For instance, would the bigger member states feel bound by their agreement to accept equality of representation of all member states on the Commission in any new negotiations?

At the same time, we accept that the outcome of last year's referendum revealed significant public concerns about the functioning of the European Union, about Ireland's role within it and about its future direction. I regret that we have not done a better job in communicating Europe to the people. I believe that we have not facilitated and stimulated sufficient debate on our relations with the Union. All this must now change and people on all sides of the House, who believe in the fundamental importance of Europe to Ireland, must engage on the issues at all levels.

The National Forum on Europe, which I am glad to say has been joined by the Fine Gael Party, has provided a framework for an unprecedented level of debate on European issues. The Government is listening. Both within the Forum and outside it, nationally and within the Union, we are making determined efforts to address the concerns which have been expressed – the format of the debate here today reflects those efforts. This is the first in a series of measures we are taking to ensure greater Oireachtas scrutiny of European Union issues. From 1 July an enhanced system of Oireachtas scrutiny will be put in place which will have significant implications for the way we do our European Union business.

Since Ireland joined the European Union in 1973, the positive impact of membership on our national life has been immense. I have no doubt that as we go forward the EU will remain a powerful plus for Ireland. As an active and committed member of the Union, Ireland has played its part in contributing to the consolidation of peace and the development of prosperity in Europe. Membership of the Union has been crucial to the modernisation and transformation of our economy. Hundreds of thousands of Irish jobs depend on it. As a country which depends on being able to compete internationally, our participation in the Single Market has created a level playing field for Irish companies and has been a key factor in attracting overseas investment. The euro has made it easier to trade and travel throughout Europe and has kept interest rates at historic lows. EU Structural Funds have been vital to the development of our infrastructure and the training of our workforce and the Common Agricultural Policy has helped to modernise agriculture and sustain living standards throughout rural Ireland.

Those opponents of the treaty, who make much of the power of the large states in the European Union, should cast their minds back to the period before our accession to the European Union. We were over-dependent on the UK economy; we lived and traded in a world where the rules were made by others; we had no place at the table where tariffs were set by our trading partners; and we had no voice when decisions affecting our key agricultural and industrial interests were being laid down. Participation in the European Union has been enormously empowering for us as a nation. However, it is a power we must use wisely. Using it carelessly or recklessly will lead to its dissipation.

The European Union has also raised social standards in Ireland, for example, through insisting on equality between men and women at work and through its health and safety regulations. The Union's laws, policies and programmes make it simpler and more straightforward for Irish people to live, work or study in the other 14 member states.

The European Union has also been immensely supportive of the peace process, being far and away the most generous financial contributor to programmes aimed at fostering peace, reconciliation and links between North and South.

The Union is not some remote entity unconnected to Ireland, but a unique collective enterprise in which Ireland is an engaged and valued participant. Irish Ministers and Members of the European Parliament work alongside the representatives of the other member states in deciding upon the laws, policies and programmes of the Union.

Working with our partners, we address issues which are critically important to our people, to our societies and economies, and which can most effectively be tackled together. I refer to issues such as international trade policy, climate change and cross-border pollution, terrorism and organised crime, migration and asylum. The Union is also, through its developing Common Foreign and Security Policy, working to promote peace, stability and human rights throughout the world.

While we co-operate and share our sovereignty where it makes sense to do so, each member state retains essential control over those matters which are fundamentally for decision at national level, such as taxation, education, citizenship, health, culture, policing and justice. The nation state is and will remain the key building block of Europe for the foreseeable future, a fact recognised by all shades of opinion throughout Europe.

We are now at the start of a campaign that will determine Ireland's future in Europe for a generation to come. As the Irish people come to appreciate the enormous significance of their voice in the forthcoming referendum they will wish to emphasise our credentials as a leading and positive voice in Europe and open the road to an expanded EU that offers enormous opportunities to this country.

The Seville European Council was a very successful meeting from Ireland's point of view and from the point of view of the European Union. Now that it is clear that the Treaty of Nice poses no threat to our traditional policy of military neutrality, we can begin to debate the real implications of that treaty and our need to ratify it in order to promote and protect the interests of the Irish people.

I wish to share time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.

The second referendum on Nice is crucial for the future of this country. Any modest gains the Taoiseach won in securing a declaration – albeit a political one – on our neutrality, were immediately jettisoned by remarks that were perceived as being at best ill-judged and at worst intemperate, even downright insulting to those who hold diverging views to his own.

As leader of Fine Gael, and in the interest of informing and persuading the people and not alienating them, I believe those remarks should be clarified. If he is at all serious about securing a "yes" vote on Nice II, the Taoiseach should do so immediately and without issue.

Immediately after the "no" vote, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated that the result was a sign of our healthy democracy. Other Government Euro-sceptics may have lacked the Minister's theatrical flourish, but they gave a creditable performance all the same – Deputy Ó Cuív, in his own inimitable style – up close and personal; the then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, who was, perhaps, a little more oblique, and the Tánaiste who has repeatedly said that she feels closer to Boston than to Berlin.

I suspect the Government is in difficulty over Nice II, only this time the situation is more urgent and more pressing. There is no room for bluster and palaver. Moreover, the Taoiseach is now of the clear view that the whingers need to get it right. However, as I stated last week at the Forum on Europe, it is the Taoiseach and his Government who need to get it right on this occasion.

If we are to secure a "yes" vote, we must have a referendum where facts and not fear are sovereign. If we are to secure a "yes" vote we need to engage young people, not harass and belittle them; inform people, not insult them; persuade them, not berate them; and we need to start immediately with a retraction and clarification.

The Taoiseach should demonstrate that he is serious. He should establish the Committee on European Affairs, resource it properly and show people that it is capable of scrutinising EU policies on their behalf. He must recognise that many people voted against the Treaty of Nice because of what they saw as growing bureaucracy from Brussels and explain how he will streamline his implementation of European schemes and policies to remove that unnecessary bureaucracy.

I told the Forum on Europe last week of my fear that the Government had learned nothing from its disastrous first outing on Nice. That fear was well-founded. The comments of the Taoiseach's adviser, Dr. Martin Mansergh, in a letter to The Times last week were quite condescending. I, and my party are pro-Nice and pro-Europe, but not to the detriment of the practice of democracy in this country. Dr. Mansergh's association of the Irish “no” campaign with “paranoid and discredited Eurosceptic arguments of Mrs. Thatcher and the British right-wing Tory press” speak for themselves. Make no mistake, a second rejection of the Nice treaty will have serious implications for the European Union and Ireland's position within it. That is why the Government cannot afford to blow it again.

It is clear that enlargement cannot proceed fairly unless the treaty is ratified. The existing arrangements under the Amsterdam treaty will allow for the admission of only five new member states. The impassioned plea by the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic to Ireland not to stand in the way of the accession of "new children" to the Union, reflects the widely held concern throughout Central and Eastern Europe about the political ramifications in these new democracies if the enlargement process is further delayed. These new children have staked their political and economic futures on becoming members of the enlarged European family. If the Nice treaty is not ratified, these countries will have to compete with each other to achieve their much needed goal.

Another "no" to Nice would impact negatively on Ireland's role in and influence on the European decision-making process. Traditionally, Ireland has been recognised and respected as contributing positively to the European integration process. In return we, as a small member state, have always been respected and supported. If we refuse to ratify the Nice treaty, which has already been approved by 13 member states, and is certain to be by the 14th, it is reasonable to expect that this attitude will change. With another round of CAP reform imminent and a new intergovernmental conference just around the corner, the Taoiseach should be aware that we can ill afford to have our influence and negotiating position weakened.

When we ratify this treaty, as the only country holding a referendum on the issue, we can hold out the hand of friendship to the millions of people in the applicant countries for whom EU membership is so important.

The main political issue on the Seville agenda is the rise of illegal immigration into the European Union. In Ireland we are now very aware of this issue with the rise in the number of people seeking asylum and work here. It is a much greater problem in other European countries. The leader of the Greek Opposition indicated that there were 260,000 arrests of illegal immigrants – of which Greece has more than one million – in his country last year. Anybody who saw "Fortress Europe" on RTE last Sunday night would have been shocked at what these men, women and small children have to go through, to reach what they believe to be deliverance.

I remind the Taoiseach that we have a short time to get our house in order. The Taoiseach must inform, he must lead and he must not drag. He must persuade and not pillory. The Seville Summit saw him bring back a declaration that, while it has no legal binding, will hopefully reassure the people that our EU partners recognise Ireland's sovereignty in relation to participation in military or peacekeeping missions. Now he has his own mission, which I hope he has not made impossible by his ill-judged remarks, namely, to secure ratification of a treaty which he and his Government negotiated and signed.

There is some confusion about the Government's intention in relation to the forthcoming referendum. I will not support any proposal to include a reference to military neutrality in the Constitution. The Dáil should retain the key role in deciding on the use of Irish forces and I would be willing to consider any draft legislation to formalise this position.

I thank Deputy Kenny for sharing time and allowing me to contribute to this important debate.

The declarations the Taoiseach and the European Council have made are welcome. They are statements of fact which those of us who have supported the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties also made in the past, but in respect of which we were pilloried. However, whereas they have no judicatory nature and, indeed, are a new category of declaration, unlike previous declarations made when treaties were passed, they are still a very welcome statement of fact, to which all 15 member states have contributed alongside the separate statement by the Government. This should not be cast aside lightly.

We are constantly appeasing one side of the argument and going out of our way to emphasise how neutral we are. I would prefer to have a proper and adequate debate in the House and the country on the broader issue of security and defence in Europe and what our role in it should be. We should not be afraid of the changing European security and defence architecture and anybody who thinks anything will remain the same after 11 September is burying his or her head in the sand. The whole question of European defence and security will continue to be discussed.

There is nothing in the Nice treaty which challenges our neutrality. If things continue to evolve, proposals may well be put forward at some time in the future which would bring about, not only a closer European security and defence policy, but also a closer European security and defence. We should be asking ourselves what we want from these structures, not how we can keep our heads down and get exceptions, exemptions and declarations. We should be one of the architects. Post-Nice we should ask what it is we want of and for Europe and Ireland as this issue evolves because if Europe is secure and stable, then Ireland will also be secure and stable. These are the prerequisites for the prosperity we have come to enjoy.

In many ways, this whole question is very central to the raison d'être of the European Union. If one goes back to the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community shortly after the end of the Second World War, one finds that it was established because a small number of very farsighted people came together to ensure there was no repeat of what happened on this continent during two world wars, when 60 million Europeans, some of them Irish, were killed in the prime of their lives. From the outset, therefore, security and stability were central to the purpose of the institutions which evolved into the European Union.

If we want to continue to enjoy our current prosperity and that of the rest of Europe, a huge market of some 350 million people to which we export, it must be secure, stable and defended. Asking ourselves what we want from Europe and Ireland in those circumstances will require more than outdoing each other to see which of us can attract the section of the community that can be scared most or told the biggest lie or trying to lead simply by finding out which way the crowd is moving and getting in front of it.

We need a clearer, more professional and more open approach to the whole question of security and defence. This task has not been helped by the Government departing from promises made in opposition, including the promise to hold a referendum on the Partnership for Peace. If we are to carry this referendum – incidentally, I am one of those Members who believes we will – it will only be done by being open, up-front and honest, calling a spade a spade and telling people exactly what has happened and what is happening, not by claiming the declaration is anything it is not.

We should also be informing people that, at some stage in the future, we will put before them options on the future security and defence of Europe. If there is to be a progressive merger of the Western European Union and the European Union, these options could, for example, include a commitment to include Article 5 of the treaty establishing Western European Union in a future EU treaty not as a full measure, but as a protocol one could opt in or out of. This would be the best of all worlds for us.

I was very much involved in the reflection group which prepared the Amsterdam treaty and right through until the end of the treaty process. I believe now, as I did then, that our interests and those of Europe would be best served by recruiting support within the European Union for adding a protocol to a future treaty which would allow us to opt in and out on a case by case basis. We would not be telling Europe we do not want it to defend itself or trying to stop those members which want to have some kind of formal defence, as distinct from defence policy, from pursuing it, but that we want to choose the circumstances in which we would opt in and out.

I fully share Deputy Kenny's concerns about the idea of writing into the Constitution a commitment on neutrality. To do so would be to do what so many Members have been telling us for years not to do on the pro-life issue. Such amendments would mean only what the Supreme Court says they mean. Deputy Noonan has said both here and outside the House that, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he once asked the Secretary General of the Department what inserting a text into the Constitution would mean. The advice he received was that it would mean what the Supreme Court decides. Therefore, we will not have a triple lock consisting of the Government, the Dáil and NATO, but a cripple lock in which it will not be sufficient for a Government, regardless of party, which genuinely believes it is in the interests of the State to sanction acts of war, whether that means refuelling or overflying, to seek the approval of Dáil Éireann because it will require a further sanction from the United Nations. In any event, the Defence Acts require that the Defence Forces only become involved in UN sanctioned activities. However, what would happen if, God forbid, at some future date somebody crashed an aeroplane into the UN building in New York rendering the organisation unable to take decisions in circumstances where we have inserted a text into the Constitution making it impossible for Dáil Éireann to act? I urge the Taoiseach to be very cautious about accepting proposals to insert definitions into the Constitution which would have the effect of creating a quadruple rather than triple lock.

Anybody could go to the Supreme Court, which would mean that three of the five judges sitting on the day, who would not be as well informed as the Government on these matters and not properly attuned to them because of their political nature as issues of public policy, would take these kinds of decisions. I urge caution on this matter.

From the domestic perspective, concentration has focused on the publication of the two declarations canvassed by the Taoiseach, which emanated from the Seville Summit. I welcome the assertion by our European partners that the Nice treaty does not mark a significant advancement in the development of foreign and security policy and does not involve us in any mutual defence obligations. As such, our policy of military neutrality is intact.

That such a declaration is not a legal instrument, as some have declared, is not the point. It represents a statement of where we are at present. However, I fear that it is not sufficient to deal with the issues it was designed to deal with, namely, the concerns of the Irish people about neutrality which were raised during the last Nice referendum. I share the view of Senator Maurice Hayes that much of the concern of the people is as much to do with the intentions of the Government as with the intentions of other European leaders.

The national declaration published by the Government at the weekend is not sufficient to address these concerns. It is, in effect, a request from the Government to "trust us" on this issue. For anyone genuinely interested in seeing the Nice referendum passed, this is a risky card to play. Whether the Taoiseach likes it or not, the people do not trust the Government and they have good cause for doing so. Broken promises on Partnership for Peace may well come home to roost.

The ideal way to deal with this issue and address these concerns is to accept that it must be left in the hands of the people. Labour's proposed constitutional amendment does that and I do not share the arguments put forward by Deputy Mitchell or Deputy John Bruton. Our proposal is a positive one. The Irish people know that some of our European partners would like to see the evolution of a European army and that Ireland may have to face these issues down the road. They know this debate is going on and they want absolute ownership of it. If anyone believes they have a better wording for a constitutional amendment than we have I will have no difficulty in listening to it.

Let us not pretend that to empower the people on this issue hands the issue over to the courts. Foreign policy is and has always been judicial. Appeals to this kind of elitism are what undermined confidence in the European process in the first place. There is no point in seeking to address the concerns about neutrality in a fashion which raises more questions than it answers and that is what the Government declaration does.

With regard to accountability and transparency, I put the Government on notice that dealing with this issue by way of changes to Dáil Standing Orders will not address concerns. It is time for new laws to determine responsibilities and obligations in this area. If my party's European Union Bill is not acceptable the Government had better come up with a speedy alternative. It is no longer acceptable that laws made in this House can be changed by Ministers taking decisions in Europe and then signing regulations without reference to this House.

My fear is that the Government is sleep-walking into this Nice campaign. The Taoiseach's remarks at the weekend portray a Government that refused to listen to the lessons of last year. On that occasion, had we waited and allowed time for a debate perhaps – and I only say perhaps – the result might have been different. For that reason the tone of this campaign is more important than ever before. The Government's duty is to indicate that it has to listen to the people, present a package of reforms that go beyond the issue of neutrality and ask the people to consider the issue again in a changed context.

Defeat of the Nice treaty will not prevent the enlargement process from taking place but it will determine the pace of change and it impacts considerably on the aspirations of those countries currently awaiting membership. Their preparations and their aspirations are uniquely in our hands now and they must be taken seriously. It is not for us to best guess what their interests are and I fully support the Taoiseach's analysis of this issue. We know from the procession of party leaders, Government representatives and other politicians to the forum in Dublin Castle what the aspirations and the intentions of people in Central and Eastern Europe are, notwithstanding the difficult domestic decisions they have to make by way of adjustment. Therefore, I accept the conclusions of the Taoiseach with regard to that aspect of the enlargement process. It is precisely for that reason that the obligation on the Government to do better than it is doing is so great. Perhaps, flush with election success there is a feeling of invincibility on the Government side of the House. If so, it could well prove to be the biggest impediment to passing this treaty.

I wish to share my time with Deputies John Gormley and Joe Higgins.

When the referendum is held in the autumn the people will not vote on the declarations of Seville but on the treaty of Nice. The declarations produced at the Seville summit offer nothing new and they have no legal or constitutional standing. They did not alter one syllable of the treaty of Nice. The electorate rejected the treaty last year and the Government is now asking them to reverse that decision.

We recently had a general election. I thought my party had a good result and we increased our representation by four seats. I thought Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats got too many seats. I would like to have seen them get fewer. I am sure the Taoiseach would have liked to have had more seats and I know many of his party colleagues would have wished that the Progressive Democrats had got less, because they regularly say so. So, perhaps the Taoiseach will call another general election to coincide with the referendum in the autumn. If the people can be asked to get it right the second time around on Nice why not ask them to get it right on the general election the second time out?

Does the Deputy need a seconder for that?

I thank Deputy Enda Kenny for his support.

Why can the Taoiseach not do a deal with FIFA and ask for a replay of the Ireland Spain game? That would be very popular and we could even get consensus in the House on that.

Or the Dublin-Meath match.

Maybe he could speak to the meteorologists and ask them to rewind the summer back to May to see if we can get more sun the second time around.

I offer these analogies because the primary issue in the replay of the Nice referendum is not neutrality, enlargement or the future integration of the EU. The primary issue is democracy. Last year the electorate was asked to alter the Constitution in order to accept the treaty of Nice. They declined to do so. The ultimate sovereignty of this State is not the Dáil, the Government or the Taoiseach but the people, and the people voted "no". The people are the State and the State declined to ratify the Treaty of Nice.

The law of the European Union is based on a series of treaties which were agreed unanimously by member states. We have voted on a number of them, including the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. On each of these occasions Sinn Féin, with others, called for a "no" vote because we were and are opposed to the creation of an EU super-state and those treaties are the building blocks of such a state. The Government makes much of our record and that of other parties and independents on these treaties, as though we had something to be ashamed of. However, we stand over our record. We fought our campaigns and accepted the results. Imagine the ridicule we would have been subjected to if we and others who campaigned against those treaties had, on each occasion, called for a replay because, in our opinion, the people had got it wrong. That is exactly what the Government is doing now.

Changes to existing EU treaties and new treaties must be agreed unanimously by all member states. The Nice treaty was not so agreed because this State, by vote of the people, rejected it. Immediately after the referendum the Government was legally obliged to go to the EU Commission and the governments of the member states and formally request that they not proceed with ratification. Not only did the Government not implement the referendum result, it openly defied it. The Government encouraged the governments of the other member states to proceed with ratification and did so with the avowed purpose of pressurising the electorate and presenting them with the scenario we now face. We are being told that all other member states have ratified, that the whole of the EU and all the applicant states await us and that if we do not vote "yes" a few thousand ungrateful Irish whingers will destroy the whole European project. Such rubbish. I do not think the people will buy it. I do not think they are so gullible.

I do not doubt the diligence of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in securing the declarations in Seville but that diligence was misdirected. The declarations are a smokescreen. They do not change Nice which, like previous EU treaties, commits us to greater co-operation in foreign policy and so-called security policy and to the progressive framing of a common defence policy. It commits us to the EU rapid reaction force.

This State is still a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace in violation of the promise the Taoiseach made at a previous general election. The reality of what is happening to Irish neutrality was shown at the beginning of this month when the Government granted permission to the United States air force, operating from Shannon Airport, to carry out military exercises in our air space. Two Hercules C-130 military planes were allowed by the Department of Foreign Affairs to engage in training flights low in the skies over the south west of Ireland. This took place over a four-day period. It followed the opening of Shannon to the US military last year. The US air force presence there has now become almost routine. We are seeing the transformation of Shannon into an important European base for the US air force in total violation the Government's supposed commitment to neutrality as expressed in the Seville declarations and elsewhere.

The Government has so far refused to put neutrality in the Constitution. I urge it to do so and I published such a Bill, then called the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution Bill. I call on the Taoiseach to adopt it and on his Government to implement it. I pledge the opposition of Sinn Féin to the ratification of the Treaty of Nice and I look forward once again to seeing democracy triumph as the people reject this undemocratic treaty. We look forward to the engagement with the Government with full gusto.

In the five minutes I have to speak I will concentrate on the so-called Seville declaration on neutrality. I say "so-called" because the declaration is worthless. Much media coverage has been given to the declaration in recent days and it has been stated as a fact that it safeguards Irish neutrality. It does no such thing. Irish neutrality has been progressively and systematically eroded by successive EU treaties and, under this Minister for Foreign Affairs, it has been given the kiss of death. Neutrality, or military neutrality as the Government prefers to call it, is defined in the narrowest terms. It simply means non-membership of a military alliance. In other words there is no mutual defence clause, no Article 5 commitment. It is rightly argued that Nice does not have a mutual defence implication ergo our neutrality is safeguarded, or so the Government claims. Is it any wonder that Tony Blair admitted the decision on the declaration did not take long to discuss? There was not much to discuss. It simply restates the obvious.

Under the current arrangements, military activity of all sorts is permitted and this is compatible with Irish neutrality. Deputy Ó Caoláin has referred to the manoeuvres off the Kerry coast. We have seen military personnel in Shannon and refuelling at Shannon. It could be stretched to such an extent that we could even station nuclear weapons in this country and that would be compatible under the Government's definition of Irish military neutrality, which is absurd. The concept of mutual defence belongs to the Cold War era. The European rapid reaction force, under the Petersberg tasks, is not about defensive operations, but rather to quote the former Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs: "It is especially directed at action outside the EU and at international crisis management, the latter in co-operation with NATO." That comes from a Dutch newspaper on 19 June. I accept that the Labour Party amendment has been proposed in the best interest, but it misses the point and perhaps is entirely counter-productive. The only real way to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution is by way of protocol, about which I have spoken repeatedly. This would exempt us from the European rapid reaction force, which is why the Government and other parties have steadfastly refused to contemplate such a move.

The Seville declaration is as brazen a piece of political chicanery as I have witnessed from Fianna Fáil. It is fundamentally dishonest, contemptuous of ordinary people and a gross insult to the intelligence of the electorate. We require clarity and honesty, but the Minister has sought to deliberately confuse people. The declaration is fraudulent and worthless. If it were a cheque it would bounce. I have often discussed the issue of neutrality with my constituents, some of whom have disagreed with me and suggested we should ditch neutrality and join a European army. That is a valid and honourable position that I can respect, although one with which I disagree.

However, I cannot respect the Government which seeks to slither its way out of this one. Why has no independent organisation or NGO concerned with peace and neutrality welcomed this declaration? They have no political axe to grind and are only interested in peace and neutrality, but yet the Government has resorted to insulting these people. We may be whingers, but we are honest whingers and we will continue to make the case for peace and neutrality here.

Unfortunately, over the years, the people opposite have been involved in so many nods and winks, so many wheelings and dealings and so much spin and subterfuge, that they no longer know what the truth is. We will tell the Irish people the truth come the autumn.

The supporters of the Nice treaty say there are no implications in the treaty regarding militarisation in the future of the European Union, but I strongly disagree. It is true that the Amsterdam treaty made detailed provision for the rapid reaction force and so-called crisis management – in other words military intervention. However, there is clearly a reiteration of proposals on common foreign and security policy and on military matters included in the text of the Nice treaty. Just as the Government wants the Irish people to revisit the Nice treaty, not being content with the first debate, it is absolutely justifiable for me to also call on the Irish people to revisit the implied militarisation provisions being reiterated within the Nice treaty and being consolidated within it from Amsterdam. Concretely Amsterdam provides for a force of 60,000 soldiers in the field along with 400 aircraft and 100 ships. Troops, fighter aircraft and a naval fleet clearly form the genesis of an EU army.

Nice reiterates support for the EU armaments industry. It says that the progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as member states consider appropriate, by co-operation in the field of armaments. What does this mean? It means support for the production of €50 billion worth of armaments – weapons of fearsome destruction – within the states of the EU each year. This includes support for the allegedly great democracies of Germany, France and Britain manufacturing these weapons and selling them all over the world. For example, Britain sells fighter aircraft which can carry tactical nuclear weapons to India and Pakistan. Only a few weeks ago the world held its breath in case these powers engaged in a tactical nuclear war with British and other EU weapons. The common foreign and security policy and the rapid reaction force consolidate and justify this criminal wastage of arms. It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to return from Seville waving a declaration about his head saying Ireland will step aside from all this manoeuvring because implied in that is that the Government is content to give carte blanche to the other powerful EU states to proceed with the militarisation of the EU. A huge majority of Irish youth, and people in general, are not content to step aside. They want to see an end to the production of weapons of mass destruction and armaments in Europe and worldwide and an end to the horrific, criminal and cynical trade in this weaponry. They want to see the swords beaten into ploughshares so that we no longer have to see the criminal wastage and destruction they impose and the spiral of arms to which it gives rise across the world. The Nice treaty consolidates the drive by the powerful states within the EU towards the creation of a military wing. It also consolidates the drive to the creation of the political and security committee which, under the responsibility of the Council, is to exercise political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations. For the first time there will be a permanent command structure, based in Brussels, in charge of military affairs.

The powerful states within the EU want a massive economic bloc to rival the United States and other powerful economies like that of Japan. They also want a powerful military bloc to rival the United States in jockeying for diplomatic advantage with strategic countries around the globe. When the Irish people voted "no" they voted against increased militarisation, increased power for elite states and the multi-national controls – and the armaments merchants within them – who are increasingly dictating the affairs of the EU.

I thank the Taoiseach for his contribution. It is very obvious that those who voted against the Treaty of Nice, or who felt they would do so if they were to vote, did so because of the way legislation giving effect to European directives and regulations has been implemented here. A person living on Inis Meán sees the land being literally washed away, yet he cannot protect it because of the Dúchas regulations which give effect to the European regulations. That has nothing to do with the Nice treaty but that person sees it as a version of Europe and votes against it. Has the Government considered this base in the qualitative research that it carried out last year? Is there to be an attempt to explain that to people? In areas where common sense should apply, will the legislation giving effect to the European directive and regulations be loosened, relaxed or more clearly implemented in order to assuage those fears and concerns?

I accept what the Deputy says that the people who voted "no" or did not vote at all did so for many reasons. Over the past 12 months we have endeavoured to look at all of these issues and deal with them as best we can. We discussed some of those issues during Question Time today while others relate to agriculture, industry and legislation.

As I said, people are irritated when they feel that Europe has too much or too little say in matters. They are also irritated when forms are too complicated. I know these are genuinely held views and I respect them. That was discussed in Nice and is one of the reasons for the decision for the Convention to examine those issues and to determine who is responsible for what. It will deal with the issue of subsidiarity, will decide on who is best to do certain jobs and re-order the treaties and their lay-out. The Convention will go on for some years. We supported that at Nice as a task that needs to be undertaken. Valérie Giscard d'Estaing, in giving his first report from the Convention to the European Council early last Saturday morning, emphasised that is the challenge. He emphasised that we must look and listen. He has indicated that the early months of the Convention have been a listening process. It is time for the Union to reflect on these issues. That is part of the Convention's work and I support it.

Does the Taoiseach accept that the matter of neutrality and the Government's intentions is now as much a matter of trust between the people on the one hand and the broken promises that Fianna Fáil made regarding the Partnership for Peace? Does he accept there is a necessity to give the people a sense of ownership and control in how they wish to determine their relationship with any future defence alignment that may emerge in Europe? It is not for this generation to determine what subsequent generations may or may not wish to do. It is for this generation of politicians to recognise the strength of the people's sentiment and to formally and explicitly vest control of neutrality in the Constitution, so that it can be owned by the people and be left to them to decide on retaining it or changing it.

We set out to get a strong political declaration. All the legal guarantees we needed are in the treaties. It was not a question of opting out or looking for a reason to do so. We wanted to get a clear position on what our understanding was and to be able to put that clearly before the people. We also wanted to ensure that the legal secretariat, the Commission and the other member states agreed with that. We did that so people could trust what the position is. I can accept what Deputy Quinn has said. When people see what is in the declaration they will know that if there is a change it will be because it is a UN mission accompanied by a decision of both the Government and the Dáil. It is now clear what the position is. The declaration has set that out.

Deputy Gormley has used almost every available adjective. It seems to me that in this debate I can say nothing but everyone else can throw what they want—

The Taoiseach can say anything he wants.

—I have even been misquoted. We have tried to put forward a clear position of where things are. Deputy Quinn can see, even from his proposal, that those who are against it say it is no good and it is on to the next matter. It is always moving on to the next matter.

The political declaration was signed by everybody and the applicant countries would have signed it had we asked them. They share this understanding. I agree with what Deputy Gay Mitchell said about the value of putting out the declaration. If is tied into the Constitution people will raise further questions and clarification will be sought by the courts. That is the danger of that position. Some people say a political declaration can be changed but this is as solemn a position as the treaties. I do not think there is any doubt in any quarter that there is anything in the treaties which pulls away from Irish military neutrality. That fear is not there.

I will call Deputies Gay Mitchell, Gormley, Ó Caoláin, Durkan, Finian McGrath, Boyle, Jim O'Keeffe, Joe Higgins and Timmins in that order.

That is a mighty line-up.

I read the names to remind Members not to waste time. This mat ter must adjourn at 7 p.m. and resume at 8.30 p.m. for 12 minutes.

Why can we not continue until 7.10 p.m?

That is the order of the Dáil today.

The Dáil could agree now to continue until 7.10 p.m.

We cannot do that as the order has been made.

The Taoiseach could reform the order without notice.

This is a democratic assembly. It is not yet Stalinist.

I understand the issue of immigration was high on the agenda in Seville and that the Spanish Presidency, in particular, had proposals to make in that regard. However, it appears from press reports that not as much progress was made as had been hoped by the Presidency. Will the Taoiseach tell the House if a review was done of the investment by the European Union in countries which are the source of traditional immigration in terms of trying to give people the opportunity to make an economic living at home and ensure the places from which immigrants are coming are secure and stable? Were those issues at the top of the agenda in the discussion on immigration?

They were on the agenda. The President of France made a long and supportive statement. We said we recognised the need for a co-ordinated and coherent approach to assist the countries of origin of asylum seekers and legal immigrants. We said we supported all the efforts to adopt an integrated approach between migration policy and environment policy. We will make progress on this issue if we co-operate within Europe. If everyone does their own thing, there will be migration and asylum seekers and we will not make any progress. I quoted the submission by the UNHCR to the Council which stated primary solutions must be found in the region of origin and that they must be financially supported. Without such assistance, refugees will not move to a better future. The submission also stated it was urgent to make development aid and migration work for rather than against each other. We and many other countries said the emphasis should be on supporting the development of countries experiencing large-scale economic migration, which is ODA. We have given vast resources to ODA. We must also remember the opportunities which are necessary for the Union to work with these countries. It was emphasised that as long as people were poor, deprived and had difficulties in life, they would travel. The Union must vote through ODA resources and aid programmes to help to solve the problems in the countries of origin.

Does the Taoiseach agree he has a credibility problem when it comes to military neutrality, as he prefers to call it, given that during the Gulf War the refuelling issue was brought before the House, while refuelling took place during the conflict in Afghanistan without reference to the House? Is that compatible with the Taoiseach's version of neutrality? Does he agree that because of his broken promises people do not trust him and will not trust him in the autumn on this issue?

Fourteen other countries and I do not agree with the Deputy's contention.

What about the people?

And the people. My party has long supported military neutrality. We have done so for generations, as have other parties in the House. If the Deputy reads the records of 40 years ago, he will see that the same issues were raised both inside and outside the House. I do not accept that position.

As regards the Deputy's second question, we stated UN resolutions would be honoured, including those dealing with co-operation. That is what we have done during the years.

There is a change.

The Deputy has a problem with the United Nations as well as with everything else.

I have a problem with the Taoiseach's argument.

The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

We have a problem with the Deputy's argument.

We have followed the decisions of UN resolutions which have served us well and for which we are respected in the United Nations. The people respect also it.

Why was there a change after the Gulf War for the conflict in Afghanistan?

I listened to the Taoiseach's repeated assertion that the Fianna Fáil position on neutrality, as enunciated by the founding fathers of the party, had not changed. He was at pains in his text this evening to make such an impression. He stated the Seville declarations confirmed that the Treaty of Nice did not pose any threat to our traditional policy of military neutrality. If that is the case – I remember asking him the same question last year – will he confirm that a referendum will be held to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution? If he does not do so, will he explain the reason? If the Treaty of Nice does not pose a threat and Fianna Fáil policy has not changed, why will he not accommodate a proposal which other Deputies and I have repeatedly presented to him in recent years? Will he give us a clear answer? He stated the national declaration reaffirmed Ireland's continued attachment to this traditional policy and that Ireland was not party to any mutual defence commitment. Will he explain our function and role within the European Rapid Reaction Force?

Eamon de Valera was the architect of the Constitution and Irish military neutrality. It has not changed.

Seán Lemass had a different view.

It is a pity we did not have the Deputy's support at the time.

It is still the same today. The triple lock applies in answer to the Deputy's second question. A UN mandate and a decision of an Irish Government and the elected representatives of the House are required before we can participate in any force. Let us remember the pressures in recent years. I remember the outcry in the House on two occasions in relation to Kosovo and Bosnia when people wanted to see fast action. Members on all sides of the House and people in all sectors of the community wanted to know what was wrong with the European Union that it could not get its act together. They wanted to know the reason we had Petersberg tasks and peace-keeping and humanitarian issues.

Will the Taoiseach enshrine neutrality in the Constitution?

The principles of Irish neutrality, which grew from what Eamon de Valera stated, have not changed.

That is absolute nonsense. Lemass had a different view.

That is not correct.

That is true.

That is not correct. I recently read the debate on the issue. Seán Lemass equally defended Irish military neutrality.

When it was convenient to do so. On other occasions he had—

He said as time moved on that it would take different positions and he was right.

The Petersberg Tasks and our involvement in them evolved and that position stands.

We now move on to Private Members' Business—

The Government's position is full of contradictions—

The Deputy's party has its own particular contradictions.

Deputy Cowen is easily upset.

I have listened to enough sanctimonious nonsense from the Deputy this evening.

(Interruptions.)Debate adjourned.

Top
Share