Vol. 567 No. 7
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the fact that, under Article 30.7 of the draft EU constitution, a referendum would not be required for Ireland to become involved in closer defence co-operation which would include common defence. [14987/03]
The Government's position on security and defence issues has been clearly stated at the convention, having been reflected in the proposed amendments to the draft treaty articles brought forward by the Government's representative to the convention, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche.
There is already provision for a possible European Union common defence in the current treaty. Such a decision would be a matter for the European Council acting unanimously and member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The possibility of a common defence has been agreed by the people on three successive occasions in their decisions to approve the ratification of the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties.
The article of the draft constitutional treaty, proposed by the Presidium of the convention, and to which Deputy Gormley refers, proposes "closer co-operation", on an optional basis, in the area of mutual defence. Under this proposal, a member state which opts to participate in this arrangement and is the victim of armed aggression on its territory would be able to request aid and assistance from other participating states. Participation would be optional; member states opting not to participate in this arrangement would be under no obligation arising from it.
This proposal for "closer co-operation" as regards mutual defence, as well as some of the other proposals which the Presidium of the convention has brought forward in the security and defence area, have provoked a substantial amount of opposition within the convention. Reservations have been expressed not only by neutral and non-aligned countries, including Ireland, but also by some EU partners who see their security and defence requirements being best and satisfactorily met through their membership of NATO.
The draft treaty articles in the security and defence area remain the subject of deliberation at the convention. There will undoubtedly be further debate on these issues in the convention and, most likely, the subsequent intergovernmental conference, before any final decisions emerge.
In accordance with the amendment to the Constitution, approved by the people by referendum in October last year, Ireland cannot adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence where that common defence would include the State. Specific reference is made in the amendment to the relevant provision of the Treaty of Nice.
While a formal decision will only be taken when a new treaty has been negotiated, it is clearly highly likely that a further referendum will be required for Ireland to ratify the treaty. Should the existing provision on common defence be amended or added to in any way, the Government would obviously have to take this into account in framing the proposal it puts to the people, in line with the substance and spirit of the recent constitutional amendment.
In summary, there is no question of the Government agreeing to Ireland's participation in a mutual defence commitment, other than with the approval of the people expressed in a referendum.
I thank the Minister for his reply and wish him well when it comes to the Intergovernmental Conference. However, if the present wording stands, it would be completely unacceptable to my party. The constitutional amendment on the Nice treaty states clearly, "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the treaty referred to in subsection (7) of this section, where the common defence would include the State". The Minister has just quoted part of this.
Referring to Article 30.7, although the numbering has since been changed to 1/40, the second paragraph states clearly that the common security and defence policy should include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. As Deputy Gay Mitchell has pointed out, this would lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decided. Point seven is the crux of this, if the Minister will bear with me. It is very legalistic and technical but it is important because it refers to closer co-operation. It states—
I understand quoting is not allowed during Question Time.
All right, I will ask a question. Is it not the case that we are talking about closer co-operation, which involves mutual defence? As it stands, this does not require a referendum. If the wording stands and we do not manage to delete or reform it in any way – the Minister has said others have misgivings about this – I am afraid it does not require a referendum. Therefore, Ireland could participate in closer co-operation which involves mutual defence. My reading of it is that it does not require a referendum.
As the Deputy knows, having been a member of the defence policy working group in the convention, we are in a consultative phase prior to an Intergovernmental Conference. Unless we finalise the arrangements and the texts, it is hard to be definitive but I would make the following point, in order to be helpful to the Deputy. It is clear that we cannot enter a common defence without a referendum. Therefore, that would require a formal decision at the European Council, probably beyond foreign affairs level. As regards our negotiating strategy – I mentioned this in response to Deputy Gay Mitchell's priority question – we must retain discretion, as a matter for Government and Parliament, as to whether we engage in areas of defence co-operation. In other words, we will retain that discretion.
That being the case – I made this point when I addressed the Institute of European Affairs – if we can retain national discretion in our negotiating strategy, I suggest we will not be in a position where there are other foreign policy traditions within the European Union who wish to consider how they want to proceed with what is, I agree, beyond enhanced co-operation to closer co-operation, short of common defence. Therefore, we have an issue with the common defence position.
As we are still in a negotiating phase, I do not want to be definitive but whatever arrangements are agreed on Union policy, I would like to see a situation whereby any effort by a group within the European Union would be subject to full Union scrutiny or mandate at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Given that the situation is evolving, as the Deputy realises, that is the best answer I can give him at this stage.
We have two positions. First, we cannot adopt a common defence position at Council without a referendum, as we have made very clear. Second—
This is closer co-operation on mutual defence interests.
Let me answer the question; I am trying to answer it in an evolving situation. We cannot have a referendum in such a situation.
Yes, that is right.
We cannot proceed with affirmative without a referendum in that situation. Second, we have to make sure that we retain national discretion relating to any developments in European security and defence policy short of this. That is a realistic negotiating position that we should preserve.
As it stands, do we require a referendum on closer co-operation in mutual defence, yes or no?
It is an evolving situation, as the Deputy knows as a member of the defence policy committee. He has spoken to me about this issue. When I asked him certain "yes" or "no" questions, he was not in a position to give me the answers because he said it was an evolving situation.
I could not.
Let us apply the same rules to Government as the Deputy applies to himself. Let me remind him that he criticised me, having negotiated a position which retained unanimity.
