Tairgim leasú a 3:
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 20, i ndiaidh "2001", an méid seo a leanas a chur 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. 3:
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 20, 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.".
This is, in effect, a Danish protocol. In the debate in this House on the last Nice treaty referendum I sought such an amendment but at that stage, with only two Green Party Members in the House, we did not have the numbers to get a vote. It will be quite different this afternoon and we will have a vote on this issue. In this regard, we are trying to give the lie to the Government's assertion that the Seville declarations deal with the thorny issue of Irish neutrality. I wish to state the position of my party clearly, as I have already stated it quite a number of times. Irish neutrality no longer exists. The fact is that we have sold out and that it has been progressively eroded over a number of treaties.
Undoubtedly, the Amsterdam treaty was the most significant treaty in terms of the erosion of Irish neutrality. The Government does not even call it "neutrality" but refers to it as "military neutrality". The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, treated us to one of the finest scaremongering speeches I have heard in this House for quite some time. He must rate as the greatest scaremongering hypocrite in this House, given his stance after the treaty, all of the record here and his current statement that we are playing with fire. I shall return to that later and we shall see how he will react.
Having attended the Convention on the Future of Europe and, I must concede, having a long-standing interest in European affairs, the Minister of State knows that the so-called neutrals, Sweden and Finland, no longer refer to themselves as neutral but as non-aligned. My question to the Minister of State is this: is Ireland a neutral state now or are we simply non-aligned? Let us be accurate and truthful about this. The Minister of State has spoken of truth. Let us have the truth and let us discuss it as openly as we can. This House is accountable to the Irish people and we should be honest with them.
There has been blatant dishonesty on the question of neutrality. Last week, two members of my party tried to highlight the hypocrisy of the Irish Government by protesting at Shannon Airport against the fact that military planes are landing at Shannon. Are these planes part of an attack on Iraq? We have repeatedly tried to get a debate in this House. It is quite amazing that no journalist has asked the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the Irish stance on a possible attack in Iraq. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, has been outlining his Government's position on this issue, as have Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder. However, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs say absolutely nothing on the matter.
In this amendment, we are trying to secure a Danish-type protocol. The Minister of State will immediately point out that Denmark is a member of NATO. This may be, but as a UN member state we should look to it as a way of dealing with military issues rather than to the EU. There is no escaping that the Treaty of Nice advances militarisation within the EU by creating the new Military and Security Committee. The Seville Declaration simply says we will have a referendum if we choose to join the military alliance. It states the obvious – that we are non-aligned – but it does not get us out of our commitments as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force – a force consisting of 60,000 military personnel which can operate 4,000 kilometres from EU borders.
This will not come cheap because, as the Minister may know, they are trying to create a force to rival that of the US. In my speech last night I quoted a phrase which is often heard in the European Parliament, namely, that Europe is an economic giant but a political dwarf. They are trying to create an economy to which the euro is central in terms of integration, but they are also trying to create a political giant with further integration and centralisation, a fundamental part of which is to create a military force.
The Green Party believes our defence should be realised as part of the UN. We have a proud and honourable tradition in the UN. Unfortunately, because of our commitments as part of the Partnership for Peace, the Petersberg Tasks and the J Articles we have had to slim down our UN commitments completely, including the cessation of our long involvement in the Lebanon which is regrettable.
This amendment reflects the belief the Green Party holds that Irish troops should only serve with the UN and that the EU should not develop a military wing. The EU's greatest achievement has been to bridge gaps between old war enemies through co-operation in peaceful endeavours. There is another way forward and we should not go down the military route. If the Government had been sincere, it would have inserted this type of protocol and insisted on it. At the very least it should have secured a promissory declaration which is how the Danish Government proceeded. The Maastricht treaty was rejected and the Danish Government secured the promissory declaration before it went back to get the treaty ratified and this declaration was attached as a protocol to the Amsterdam treaty. We do not have anything of the sort because the Seville Declaration means nothing in these terms. A protocol would be legally binding whereas the Seville Declaration is not – it does nothing. Throughout this campaign we will try to expose the hypocrisy and empty words of the Government.
Deputy Roche referred to the economic implications of this vote and there are many. This military might it is proposed to build will not come cheap, a fact that at least the Belgian Finance Minister, Mr. Didier Reynders, has recognised. At the moment the European Rapid Reaction Force is totally dependent on NATO hardware – it cannot go it alone. Mr. Reynders has proposed levying a new EU tax on all citizens in the EU. That is honest and upfront and something one will not get from this Government. The Government says it will not cost us but it will if we are to have the same military hardware as the US. Few Irish citizens will wish to pay such a tax at any time in the future.
The protocol says that we will not pay for operational expenditure. We see this as including any costs in the military or defence area including what the EU is terming "common costs". In mid-June 2002, European foreign ministers agreed at the General Affairs Council that non-military costs of EU military operations are to be financed from a common budget, while the military costs will be considered as individual costs and will be financed on a "costs lie where they fall" basis. Common costs for an EU-led operation include transport, administration, locally-hired personnel, communications, transport within the operational area of headquarters, barracks, public information, representation, hospitality and so on. We already know that inter-operability – bringing our Army up to scratch so it becomes inter-operable with NATO as part of the PfP so we can carry out the Petersberg Tasks – will cost a lot too. The Green Party does not want the Irish people to fund this. It is a reasonable request and a matter of morality because we have a proud tradition of neutrality.
We do not want to become involved in the European arms agency – another body that has been discussed in the convention on the future of Europe. This protocol is necessary. The Government should have included a protocol when negotiating the treaty. Not doing so exposes them as hypocrites on the question of neutrality which is why I move this amendment.