Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008

Vol. 653 No. 2

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008: Committee Stage.

Before Committee Stage commences I wish to deal with a procedural matter relating to Bills to amend the Constitution. The substance of the debate on Committee Stage relates to the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment contained in the Schedule to the Bill. The sections of the Bill are merely technical. Therefore, in accordance with long-standing practice, the sections are postponed until consideration of the Schedule has been completed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

AN SCEIDEAL.

SCHEDULE.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh have been ruled out of order.

Níor tairgeadh leasú Uimh. 1 agus 2.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

Tairgim leasú a 3:

In Part 1, page 6, between lines 7 and 8 to insert the following:

"11° Amhail ar theacht i bhfeidhm agus ó theacht i bhfeidhm an Chonartha dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 10°, is feidhm de chuid Thithe an Oireachtais é na feidhmeanna a thugtar do Pharlaimintí Náisiúnta leis an gConradh sin a chomhall thar ceann an Stáit, de réir Theideal II ("Forálacha maidir leis na Prionsabail Dhaonlathacha") den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach arna chur isteach le hAirteagal 1.12 den Chonradh dá dtagraítear bhfo-alt 10°.",

I move amendment No. 3:

In Part 2, page 8, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"11° Upon and from the entry into force of the Treaty referred to in subsection 100, it shall be a function of the Houses of the Oireachtas to carry out for the State the functions conferred on National Parliaments by that Treaty, in accordance with Title II ("Provisions on Democratic Principles") of the Treaty on the European Union inserted by Article 1.12 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10°.".

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Committee and Final Stages of this Bill. This amendment reflects one of the major new innovations in the Lisbon reform treaty. I am seeking to ascertain if the Minister of State will take it on board to ensure it is reflected in the constitutional amendment. Much of the Lisbon reform treaty is about democratisation of the European Union institutions and seeking to bring the European Union closer to the citizen. That is why we have the citizens' initiative, more powers have been given to the European Parliament and there is a more egalitarian Commission in that each member state no matter how large is equal to the smallest member state and has no greater powers. That is why the Council of Ministers no longer conducts its business in camera but in public.

The extra dimension that has been added here in regard to national parliaments gives them a new role. This is extremely welcome because one of the major criticisms of the European Union was that it was too distant from the ordinary people and remote from the people who were elected to represent the ordinary people in our national Parliament in Dáil Éireann and in Seanad Éireann. A recent eurobarometer indicated that 75% of Irish people believed that their opinions were not reflected in the production of legislation because it seemed to be produced at a distance in Brussels even though the institutions operate democratically. That is the belief abroad.

At least 50% of the legislation that governs the lives of our people comes through the European legislative procedure. We have domestic legislation that goes through these Houses and European legislation in the form of directives and regulations that are transposed into our law, but this House and Parliament do not have a direct input into that legislation. Now, for the first time, the Parliament, namely the Seanad and the Dáil, will be consulted directly on every item of legislation that comes from Europe. When the Commission comes up with a legislative proposal, it must directly consult this Parliament. It must send the proposal to us, give us an opportunity to reflect upon it and report back with a considered opinion. Further, it gives us the opportunity to determine whether we are happy with it and whether we wish to combine with other national parliaments in respect of it. If a third of national parliaments are unhappy with a proposal, then a yellow card comes into play in respect of it. That means that the Commission will have to reconsider the legislation. This process proceeds to an orange card, so to speak and, with the agreement of 50% of the member states, a proposal can be set back and the Commission will have to go back to the drawing board to deal with it anew.

The powers that are being given to the national parliaments are very substantial. The question arises as to how the parliaments will execute or implement those powers. We must deal with these issues in some detail. If our Parliament is to have additional powers, the existing mechanisms, namely the committees on European Affairs and European Scrutiny, are inadequate to give the full weight of consideration that is required on a parliamentary basis. We will have to re-examine the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 and our standing orders, as well as determine where we conduct our business. Will we deal with European Union matters in committee in Leinster House 2000 — pretty much out of sight — or will we do it on the floor of both Houses of the Oireachtas? These are important issues because they will determine that this Parliament will act differently in the future, once the Lisbon treaty is ratified as I hope it will be.

My amendment seeks to register the importance of the new role for national parliaments in the 28th amendment to the Constitution. The new role is sufficiently weighty that it should be registered separately, as part of the amendment. I seek to insert my amendment after section 10, making it a new section 11.

It will, in the first instance, highlight the new role of national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty. It also has a legal justification because the national Parliament here is the Oireachtas, which technically includes the President. However, in practical terms, the powers under the Lisbon treaty would be exercised by the Houses of the Oireachtas only. It is important to insert this distinction so it is clear the new powers are not being given to the President. The Lisbon treaty deals with a direct, two-way relationship between the national Parliament and the European Commission that does not involve the President directly. At the same time, of course, the President is part and parcel of our parliamentary system.

I table this amendment in the hope the Minister of State will accept this is one of the key changes inherent in the Lisbon treaty. It is one that is absolutely beneficial in terms of eliminating the democratic deficit, enabling us to conduct our business closer to Europe and to conduct it in greater consultation with Europe. It is of such importance that it requires to be stated as an amendment in the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

I support the amendment tabled by Deputy Costello. It drives home the fact that national parliaments will have an enhanced role under the new treaty. One of the difficulties with the EU is that people feel there is a divide between it and them. They want to bridge this gap and in the Lisbon treaty, a very clear bridge is being built. This will increase democracy and improve the interaction between the European Union and the people of Europe. It will give this Parliament a role that heretofore it did not have.

The amendment raises the important issue of the President being excluded from exercising the new powers, on the basis that these powers apply to the Houses of the Oireachtas. We are lucky we have two parliamentary Houses — the Seanad and the Dáil. I do not know how some other countries in the European Union, which do not have a bicameral system, will implement this element of the treaty. The treaty gives the Seanad an enhanced role too. Ireland will have two votes out of 54, as each House will have a vote. Deputy Costello mentioned the yellow card concept, whereby 18 votes will be enough to send an issue back to the EU for a reasoned opinion. If the issue relates to judicial or home affairs, only 13 votes are required. If more than 27 votes are cast against a measure, it will have to be dropped. This is all very worthwhile.

The amendment also draws attention to the additional requirement for parliamentarians to scrutinise all of the material from the EU, which is something we have not considered at an administrative level. We have sought that role for a long period and it is something for which the public is crying out. If, and hopefully when, the Lisbon treaty is ratified — one never wants to pre-empt the will of the electorate or other parliaments — we will have to put new measures in place. It will not be satisfactory to simply sign off on a bundle of material on a nod. The House will have a responsibility to ensure the material is adequately examined. The structures in place at present in both Houses and at committee level must be beefed up. They will not be sufficient to deal with the amount of material that will be coming through, if we are to carry out our new functions properly.

The amendment is worthwhile because it reiterates the important point that the Lisbon treaty increases accountability through the enhancement of the role of national parliaments.

I thank Deputies Costello and Timmins for their contribution. The Deputies are correct in pointing out that one of the extraordinary aspects of the Lisbon treaty is that it enhances democracy in the European Union in a way that could not have been even envisaged five or ten years ago. For the very first time real powers are being given to national parliaments. I mentioned in a committee meeting I attended earlier that the Speaker of the Portuguese Parliament commented to the effect the real winners in the Lisbon treaty are national parliaments.

The treaty strengthens the role of parliaments by giving them a direct input into European legislation and the legislative process. The provisions whereby a sufficient number of member state parliaments can object to a particular proposal is a genuine step forward. Not only has it never existed before, it was not even contemplated a number of years ago. The idea that parliaments will have to be consulted and will receive documentation and proposals at the same time as national governments must be seen as a significant and positive step forward.

I am strongly of the view that the new powers will promote democratic accountability within the European Union. It will certainly bring the Union's legislative process closer to the citizens of the member states. Citizens in this country, for example, are closest to their own elected representatives in this House. The treaty will also strengthen co-operation between parliaments. I envisage in the period ahead, when the treaty is passed — as I hope it will be — a network of national parliaments, political parties and electorates across the Union being more engaged in the affairs of the EU than ever before.

I examined the proposed amendment but believe that to single out the provisions relating to national parliaments could give rise to uncertainty about the status of other elements of the treaty not specifically referred to in the amendment. It will be possible to deal with the enhanced role for the Parliament and the detail thereof by way of the amending legislation, that is, the Bill amending the European Communities Act which will be brought forward as soon as the referendum is carried, which will hopefully be the case.

I have consulted the Attorney General and believe it is not legally necessary to insert the words proposed into the Constitution. Indeed, as the Deputies know, I believe we have already inserted more than sufficient words into the Constitution. In my view, we have damaged what was a very well written Constitution by inserting too many legal phrases into it. The Government's view is that the mechanics of how the Houses of Oireachtas will fully engage with and implement the new powers will be better dealt with in the reform of the European Union (scrutiny) Bill.

I am grateful to Deputy Costello for tabling his amendment because it highlights the enormous increase in democracy within the EU. For practical reasons, it would be better to make the detailed changes in the legislation. By ratifying the treaty, we will accept the main thesis, which is that national parliaments will be more closely involved than ever before.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am inclined to agree with the Attorney General's advice that it is not strictly legally necessary to incorporate my amendment in the Constitution. However, at the same time, as the Minister of State acknowledged, the treaty reflects a significant increase in democracy in the context of national parliaments, legislation and the Union. Because it does that, we should strongly affirm it by inserting a reference to this in the Constitution in much the same way as the provision relating to defence was inserted to underline our absolute affirmation of the concept that Ireland should not be part of a European army or common European defence policy in order that our neutrality would not be taken away under any circumstances or we would exercise the veto in that respect.

We should come out fighting on this issue and we should adopt a robust and proactive approach because it deals with democracy and bridging the democratic deficit. Citizens of all countries say they want to know more and they want to be more closely involved in the decision-making process in Europe. For the first time in a long time, the treaty gives direct power to national parliaments. The citizens' initiative is another great new role that is being granted and that is very much welcome. The National Forum on Europe was set up and legislation was introduced to establish the European scrutiny sub-committee in 2002 with the intention of getting to grips with the European issues that concern people and to bridge the democratic deficit. That is the context in which the amendment would highlight the new role of national parliaments. I accept the Minister of State's contention that it is not absolutely necessary in a constitutional context but it would highlight the change. The amendment states: "It shall be a function of the Houses of the Oireachtas to carry out for the State the functions conferred on National Parliaments by that Treaty...". The Oireachtas includes the President and the national Parliament and it is intended under the new powers that it should refer to the two Houses without the President. That clarity would also be valuable in the Constitution.

I thank the Deputy and I fully appreciate this is such a huge leap forward in the democracy of the Union that it would be nice to mark it in a special way. The Bill is not silent on the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas. They are specifically mentioned in sections 12, 13 and 14 and the Schedule to the Bill and they are also highlighted in the explanatory memorandum. More than enough words have been inserted in the Constitution and we have marred it of necessity to make amendments. This amendment will not help the Constitution in the context of its readability. The Attorney General's advice is that it could be legally risky to insert this provision and to single out the specific reference, albeit for the best of reasons, to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I regret I cannot accept the amendment and I am sure the Deputy will appreciate from our correspondence that I have given a great deal of consideration to this issue.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I will accept the Attorney General's advice and the Minister's wish that I do not press it.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú faoi chead.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Níor tairgeadh leasuithe Uimh. 4 agus 5.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

Tairgim leasú a 6:

I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, idir línte 21 agus 22, an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:

"Chuige sin, déanfaidh an Stát, go háirithe, beartas neamhchomhaltais a chothabháil maidir le comhghuaillíochtaí míleata.",

I move amendment No. 6:

In Part 2, page 8, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"To this end the State shall, in particular, maintain a policy of non-membership of military alliances.".

The amendment is similar to my other amendments and it seeks to ensure the stated aim of people in the past, which is that a constitutional amendment should enhance Ireland's role in the future. The amendment relates to non-membership of military alliances. The second Nice treaty contained the Seville declaration, in which the Minister holds a great deal of sway. It is a solemn declaration, which was an afterthought in the Nice treaty debate because of the rejection by the people of the first referendum on that treaty. If the Minister of State believes the declaration was required, I fail to understand why he did not succeed in having it included in the text of this treaty or how the negotiators, who have spent many years since the convention commenced dealing with the proposal for the constitution, which was rejected, and this treaty, failed to make any reference to Irish neutrality or that of other states whereas many references are made to the NATO military alliance.

I have in the past suggested Irish neutrality be enshrined in the Constitution and the people in a referendum should decide to amend, clarify or restrict our operation of such declared neutrality because the Union in the past number of treaties has drifted towards the increased militarisation not only of Europe but also the world and the use of EU troops in operations dictated by the Union rather than by the United Nations, the organisation set up more than 50 years ago to bring peace to areas of conflict in the world and to address the causes of conflict. Ireland has a proud tradition in theatres of operations abroad in blue hatted battalions serving under a UN mandate, which attempted to bring peace to various parts of the world. In recent times, the Government has moved away from the UN totally. In its commitment to the EU battle groups it has wished away the commitment of Irish troops to any future UN operations because the number committed to EU battle groups is the same and is the State's upper limit on the availability of Irish troops operating under the blue flag of the UN.

The Government and the "Yes" side have failed to explain that the move towards operating with the EU battle groups will be a cost to the Exchequer. This was not explained in detail to the Irish electorate or even to this House. Operating under the UN mandate allowed Ireland to receive a contribution from the UN for costs incurred whereas now the costs incurred will have to be borne by the Irish taxpayer. This year at least €40 million of Irish taxpayers' money will be expended on the EU adventure in Chad. There is a cost to the drift towards a greater militarisation of the European Union. There is a cost to the policies of the Government with regard to Irish neutrality.

Now is the time for the Irish people to call a halt to that drift and to allow a proper debate on the future of Irish neutrality which, the main Government party, Fianna Fáil, states it is committed to defending and protecting. I do not know how that stands with its moves in recent times towards the EU battle groups. In the past it moved from a position prior to an election of saying that it would not join the partnership for peace and then, within a matter of months of returning to Government, signing up to it. Neither do I know how it squares with the stated aims of the treaty where we are being dictated to that, in the future, this State must progressively improve military capability. This is not in line with neutrality in terms of military or international affairs. Somebody else will dictate to us what our military capabilities need to be and how these are to be improved.

The structure of the European Defence Agency will, in the field of defence capabilities, development, research, acquisition and armaments, identify the operational requirements. It shall promote measures to satisfy these requirements and shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector. It shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities. This is what the treaty states.

This is an organisation telling the Irish State what it needs to do to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector. I do not know how that squares up with neutrality. There has been a gradual erosion of Irish neutrality and now is the time to call a halt. Ireland has played a positive role on the international stage. We believe there is a need to tackle the causes of conflict and instability by addressing global insecurities, poverty and disease and the United Nations is the vehicle into which Ireland should be putting its resources and efforts. We are in favour of a peaceful and demilitarised world but that is not in line with what is being planned by this treaty. We are strongly in favour of the State's policy of neutrality when considering any military alliance and this is the reason I am asking that it be stated quite clearly in black and white so that there can be no doubt. We have been to the forefront in defending neutrality and we have in the past criticised the gradual erosion of that neutrality through the ratification of successive EU treaties and the Government policies regarding the use of Shannon Airport for US military personnel and aircraft en route to and from Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport to transport depleted uranium and the like. We do not know what is on board the planes that stop in Shannon; we must take the word of those who have been found to be quite dubious in the past about what has been on board planes that have passed through Irish and other European airports.

In our view, the case has not been made for an EU foreign security and defence policy or a diplomatic service. When it comes to international affairs, Ireland should have its own distinct and separate role on the international stage and that role will complement the role played by this State until recently. In our view, matters of co-operation would best be left to intergovernmental level and there should be no opportunity in the future, through a passerelle clause or by means of any other clause, to move towards qualified majority voting, QMV, on these matters. To transfer these powers to a federal level would be undemocratic, unaccountable and serve to deepen the cycles of conflict and instability across the globe.

The European Union will become part of a military alliance and a military bloc when it implements fully the effects of the European Defence Agency, its EU battle groups and the changes to the Petersberg Tasks. The European Union will become a military bloc as NATO and the Eastern bloc were in the past. It is hoped that it will never come to the situation which pertained for many decades in the last century of the Cold War and the arms race when more money was being spent on armaments than on attempts to address poverty. This would be the impact of what is contained within this treaty.

The Lisbon treaty does exactly what I have stated. Articles 10 to 28 detail the further consolidation of the EU's control over foreign and security policy against the intent of supposed Irish neutrality. Article 11 states: "the Union's competence in matters of common, foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence."

The treaty creates a European external action service which will provide the Union with a stand-alone diplomatic corps alongside that of member states. Articles 23 and 28 relate to provisions of common security and defence policies. I have already quoted some of Article 28. I encourage members of the public, if they have access to the text of the treaty, to read these articles. They set out the situation in black and white. Article 42 states:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets.

What is envisaged is the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the Union. This article further states that commitments and co-operation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The latter is not a body of the European Union. In other words, we are being asked to sign up to something which ties us to an external organisation.

In terms of military spending, I have mentioned the provision that obliges member states to improve progressively their military capabilities. In addition, Article 41 provides for a start-up fund made up of member states' contributions to finance preparatory activities in the creation of a common defence. Even though we have an opt-out in regard to all decisions on a common defence policy, we will suffer the consequences of all such actions. A start-up fund is already in place or will be in place to prepare for a common defence. Is the Minister of State suggesting that when actions deriving from that common defence policy are undertaken, Ireland, having opted out, will not bear some portion of the blame for the activities of other member states in the European Union? We will suffer the same consequences as any other state.

Proponents of the Lisbon treaty argue that the triple lock, whereby military intervention abroad requires a United Nations mandate, the support of the Government and the approval of the Dáil, will defend Irish neutrality. The triple lock is effectively only a double lock because there is no difference between Government approval and that of the Dáil. I recall no occasion in recent times when the Government lost a vote on such an issue. Perhaps that might happen in the future. The triple lock has already been weakened by legislation enacted by the Oireachtas in 2007 which opened the way for military interventions abroad based on a United Nations authorisation rather than a formal mandate. The purpose of this was to facilitate the EU battle groups. Accordingly, authorisation does not necessarily require a United Nations resolution but rather the weaker sanction of a United Nations assent such as compatibility with the UN Charter. The Lisbon treaty likewise dispenses with the requirement for a UN mandate for military interventions. Thus, neither Irish nor EU deployment abroad will automatically require a specific UN resolution for future military operations.

The Government failed to secure any recognition in the treaty of the specific nature of Ireland's defence policy and neutral status. This is particularly worrying when one considers the provision in the treaty for the expansion of the scope of the EU's military actions. I refer to the Petersberg Tasks to which Ireland has already signed up. Article 28 B provides for an expansion of the types of military interventions deemed acceptable under the Petersberg Tasks, as if that list were not expansive enough, to include joint disarmament operations, military advice on assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. The United States' current involvement in Iraq is effectively post-conflict stabilisation. Joint disarmament operations might mean operating abroad in circumstances where the EU must take the side of one or other party in a conflict. Given the colonial and imperialist history of many member states within the European Union, including France, and the continuing influence they exert over their former colonies, this is a dangerous road to embark upon.

The treaty also contains new obligations in Articles 42 and 222 according to which member states must assist other member states that are victims of armed aggression, including a terrorist attack, in a spirit of mutual defence and solidarity. These changes weaken the threshold of UN sanction for operations abroad while significantly expanding the scope for such actions. When taken with the sections on common defence, the frequent references to NATO and the increased military expenditure, they signal the most substantial erosion of Irish neutrality and control over foreign policy to date. The treaty moves us further down the road to a common defence while significantly advancing the capabilities and competencies of the EU to act independently of individual member states on the world stage.

In 2001, the then EU Commissioner, Mr. Romano Prodi, asked: "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power?" That is precisely the vision of the architects of this treaty. If the Government believes otherwise, it has been sold a pup. It has absolutely failed to understand the significance of the article to which I referred. Another character who is involved in the progression of an agenda is the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Barroso. Speaking about the treaty last July, he said: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimensions of empire." That says it all.

We in Ireland must be especially cautious given the history of imperialism here. Ireland was part of the militarised and centralised super-state that was the British Empire, or British union. Leaders such as Isaac Butt, John Redmond and others encouraged Irish troops to participate in the equivalent of battle groups on behalf of that union by taking part in imperialist wars abroad. We should always try to learn from history. One of the greatest failures of the Government, however, is that it has not listened to the lessons of history. The only difference today is that the advocates of involvement in battle groups are the advocates of the Lisbon treaty and we are dealing with EU battle groups rather than British battle groups.

We must protect our neutrality. We must achieve a renegotiation of this treaty to ensure the other EU member states understand how dearly we hold our neutrality. We must make the case for moving towards non-aligned status and militarily neutral states. Such a stance would be a signal that we are not prepared to move towards militarisation and towards a conflict and stand-off similar to that which cost Europe billions of euro in the 50 years of the Cold War. The current imperialist wars, whether those initiated by the United States or those instigated by the EU in Chad and elsewhere, will cost us dearly. I will refer to another aspect to bring home to the House the status of Irish neutrality and where Fianna Fáil Governments in particular have led us. In fairness to Fine Gael, it has always stated up-front that it was time to jettison neutrality and that there was no harm in joining NATO. This is for Fine Gael to argue but at least it has the guts to stand up and state this. It does not declare it from the tree tops. It is one of those policies it has which is buried. At least Fine Gael has the balls to admit to it whereas in recent times Fianna Fáil has slithered away and wormed its way into various military groups in the European Union.

The Government is now trying to equate us with NATO and what I quoted earlier was with regard to our commitments and obligations being in common with those of NATO, an organisation of which we are not members and, according to the Government, of which we do not intend to be members. However, we must equate ourselves to it.

In 1948, the Western European Union, WEU, a nuclear armed military alliance, was established. In the recent treaties, the assets and competencies of the WEU, apart from collective self-defence, have been transferred to the European Union. Andrew Duff, MEP, who is rapporteur of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Lisbon treaty, believes the WEU should be terminated because of the mutual defence clause contained in the treaty and which I am trying, through my amendment, to prevent. The mutual defence clause, 28 A 7 states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence.

Therefore, the policy of Irish neutrality will be destroyed. This treaty legislates its destruction.

I already mentioned the budget implications. The general public would far rather if the additional €40 million the Government has authorised to be spent on Chad were spent on tackling poverty in Africa rather than building up the capabilities of the military to fight wars abroad. They would also rather see the €40 million spent on tackling problems within the Irish health services.

Another quote on this issue for the Minister of State, in case he does not have enough of them, comes from the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. When discussing military expenditure and the obligation we would be under to progressively improve military capability, he stated there is an absolute requirement on us to spend more, spend better and spend together. It is an affront to us in this House that we cannot decide for ourselves what future military expenditure will be.

The protocol on permanent structured co-operation in the treaty states:

RECALLING that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty of those Member States which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework

CONVINCED that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements.

The Berlin Plus arrangements concern the sharing of EU and NATO assets.

The Irish people should be aware of this and should vote "No" on this basis. Irish negotiators could then return to the negotiation table because despite what those on the "Yes" side argue, if this treaty is rejected it will come back in some form or another. It might come back in a form which is more beneficial to the Irish State.

On a point of order, we have limited time until 7 p.m. for this debate. In view of the fact he has spoken for more than 30 minutes will Deputy Ó Snodaigh practice a little democracy, not abuse the rules of House and afford us an opportunity to speak on the Bill?

That is not a point of order.

What Deputy Ó Snodaigh is doing is a complete abuse of the privilege of the House.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh can continue and I wish to inform him that four Deputies wish to speak and perhaps he will take this into consideration.

I have no problem. The limited number of amendments I tabled which were accepted for debate afford me an opportunity to put across a point of view which none of the other Deputies in the House will put across. I will use this opportunity. This debate will not be guillotined so we do not have a restriction on time. I am within my rights to continue. It is better for me to do so now rather than when I return to it after the Minister responds. I can go on again ad nauseam if people wish.

On a point of order, this is Committee Stage and not Second Stage. On Committee Stage we must address the issue and one is not entitled to go on ad nauseam. One can go on ad nauseam on Second Stage but not on Committee Stage.

I wish to inform Deputy Costello and the other Members of the House that I checked with the Clerk of the Dáil and the Deputy is within his rights to do what he is doing. I again remind him that four Deputies wish to speak and I ask him to take this into consideration.

I will continue and I will try not to repeat the points I have already made. I am trying to keep this as brief as required. It is Committee Stage and I have not abused my position up to now. Other Deputies will be able to address this amendment if they so wish.

I have lost my train of thought but I will return to it. There is not much more I have to say on this and we have wasted two or three minutes in a small exchange which was not required.

I was dealing with structured co-operation. This is a dangerous area for Ireland and our neutrality. It allows a group of states within the EU to form permanent military groups within the EU to implement more demanding military adventures. It is not clear whether once established these groups can have their own defence policies. This would be interesting. Not everything was negotiated and there is room for these countries to do what they wish because it is not prevented.

Their military operations shall be "in accordance with the principle of the single set of forces" which is just another way of saying "a European army". France has already proposed that the six largest EU states establish a massive EU intervention army using this protocol. One might say, "let them at it", but we are members of the European Union and operations carried out by such an army in theatres of war or other theatres outside of the European Union will have the consequence of us being associated with them by virtue of the fact we are members of the European Union. We would suffer consequences or loss of standing in countries where such an army was involved. It is interesting that we can ringfence money to progressively improve our military capabilities, which will be the effect of Government spending in this area, but that we cannot through this document progressively improve public service capabilities or strengthen the technological base of the community or disability sectors. The treaty makes no provision for these sectors but goes out of its way to strengthen the industrial and technical base of the defence sector or to progressively improve military capabilities.

Whatever is contained in this document, the negotiators have failed us. Why did the Minister not succeed in having inserted in the treaty a specific clause which gives full effect to his beloved triple lock? There is no mention of neutral states in the document. Also, where is provision made in respect of opt-out of the EU Defence Agency or EURATOM? What protection is provided to our existing relationship with the UN? We have moved to endorsing fully the EU battle groups, the increased and expanded Petersberg Tasks and the NATO agenda.

I mentioned previously Fianna Fáil's election promises in regard to neutrality, partnership for peace and so on. They have not lived up to these promises but have done the opposite. People need to be mindful of this when considering the implications of this treaty in regard to Irish neutrality and expenditure on future military adventures in the world.

I was interested in the long and somewhat tedious contribution from Deputy Ó Snodaigh while accepting his right to make that contribution.

The treaty provides three protections in respect of neutrality. First, it includes a requirement for unanimity in CFSP and in defence. Nothing in the treaty forces any member state to take in defence or in CFSP any step it does not wish to take. Second, it includes specific recognition — Deputy Ó Snodaigh read this but appeared to misunderstand what he was reading — of the specific character of individual member states and states that the policy of the Union in accordance with this section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. This reference is intended to encompass the non-aligned and militarily neutral states. Deputy Ó Snodaigh seems to forget, overlook or simply dismiss the reality that all states not member states in NATO do not necessarily wish to describe themselves as neutral states.

The reference to the special character of our defence arrangements is a recognition of the special character of our defence arrangements. It is certainly not anything sinister. Not all non-aligned member states wish to use the word "neutrality". For example, Sweden no longer uses it. The third point is the most important in terms of Ireland's neutrality and is one which Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his party continuously refuse to recognise. Given Sinn Féin now recognises Bunreacht na hÉireann, it is a pity it does not recognise it in its totality. The constitutional prohibition which was put in place following the second referendum on the Nice treaty specifically prevents any Government from becoming involved in membership of a common defence. The protection of Ireland's neutrality or its position of military neutrality lies in the hands of Irish citizens.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned specifically the arrangements made following the first referendum on the Nice treaty and referred to the Seville declaration. First, all declarations are carried forward. Second, the language originally proposed by Ireland for the Maastricht treaty is carried in this treaty. The phrase "specific character and security of defence policy of certain member states" is one which we inserted into the Maastricht treaty and it is carried forward.

I was surprised at Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to Ireland moving away from its historic commitment to the United Nations. The primacy of the United Nations for maintenance of international peace and security is explicitly recognised in the reform treaty. Deputy Ó Snodaigh took the trouble to read into the record some parts of Article 10. It is a pity he did not read the Article in totality. In the interests of being comprehensive we should, perhaps, address the totality of that article. Article 10 A states:

The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and on which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy [does Deputy Ó Snodaigh or his party object to this?], the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity [perhaps, he finds that difficult] the principles of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

If the Deputy is going to quote from the treaty he should take it upon himself to be comprehensive in that regard. I must say, not for the first time, that I find offensive Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to Irish troops and their involvement in Chad. Most civilised people in Ireland would find deeply offensive his characterisation of Irish troops' involvement in Chad as an EU military adventure. It runs counter to the generosity of the Irish people and, in particular, to the ethos of the Irish Army. It is a scandalous misrepresentation of a mission aimed at providing humanitarian aid to a people who have suffered grievously. It is certainly an appalling misrepresentation of the attempt by the Irish Army and other brave troops to bring hope to people who have lived in despair, have been driven from their homes, subjected to rape, harassment, torture, starvation and death. To portray these highly noble objectives as a military adventure is perverse. Sinn Féin does itself damage in referring to the humanitarian effort in Chad in those terms. I wish Deputy Ó Snodaigh would think twice and, perhaps, withdraw that characterisation.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh also mentioned the passerelle. Passerelle may not be used in regard to military and defence matters. It is specifically provided that this may not be the case. Deputy Ó Snodaigh expressed concern in regard to military spending. I remind him that our military spend as a proportion of GDP was infinitely higher a few short years ago when his party and those associated with it were involved in other activities. Also, our Army was significantly bigger than it is today.

The Deputy referred again and again to mutual solidarity. Again, he sees this as somehow threatening or sinister. If this nation were, for example, to be engulfed in a natural disaster or the subject of an horrific event, it would be nice if our neighbours came to our assistance. This is what the Irish people would want. On the military side, no member state is forced to intervene against its will. The Deputy made several references to the United Nations. It is worthwhile to remind him that the United Nations is not just mentioned in Article 10 A but it is mentioned in no fewer than nine separate occasions in the reform treaty. I will save the House from reading all the references. There are a further six references specifically to the United Nations in the protocols and declarations.

There is not a one-size-fits-all description for the way individual member states view their special character of defence. We take a view that is different from other member states. I would object if some parliamentarian from Germany or the UK suggested we should naturally surrender to their viewpoint. I take it they would equally take that view with us. We could all speak for several hours on this issue if we so wished. There is absolutely nothing in this treaty that in any way violates, threatens, undermines or negatively affects Ireland's tradition of military neutrality. The ultimate protection of our military neutrality lies in the hands of each and every citizen of this State. Our position cannot be changed without a referendum that would have the agreement of the citizens of this State. Deputy Ó Snodaigh need have no worry because, like myself, he can be confident the Irish people will be the guardians of military neutrality in this State for a long time going forward.

For the second time in more than a week I have heard the position of John Redmond misrepresented. It is important to put on the record that but for the leadership and courage shown by him and others at the time and since, I fear to think what type of Europe we would have today. It is regrettable that we find ourselves speaking about neutrality which is an issue that is completely irrelevant to the Lisbon treaty. Due to the structure and rules of the House it appears as if we will get caught up in this issue and miss out on dealing with some other very important aspects of the Bill.

I do not wish to be discourteous to Deputy Ó Snodaigh but if "Reeling In The Years" is looking for a film clip in 20 or 30 years' time I hope it will not take that extract because we will not know whether it was 1908 or 2008, because certainly I have heard much of what he said previously. I made the point earlier today, with respect to our neutrality, for those who are campaigning against the Lisbon treaty and many of those who have campaigned against the various treaties during the past 20 or 30 years that I cannot see how we can lose our neutrality on each occasion. I would love to say to Deputy Ó Snodaigh that his fears are well-founded because we have taken that step, that we are going to take our place among the nations of the earth and made a contribution and be inside the common foreign and security policy and help to frame it. I used an analogy that I use at public meetings. If one is living in a housing estate and one's neighbour is experiencing difficulty after being bullied or attacked, surely one would go to their assistance. I see being involved in the common foreign and security policy as no greater or no less than that — helping one's neighbour, helping to protect one's values and those of one's neighbour. That is what it is about.

The Minister of State rightly outlined the various measures in the Constitution, the Seville declaration and the treaty itself on numerous occasions, dealing with the issue of neutrality. It does not impinge upon it in one aspect.

Our position in Fine Gael is quite clear, notwithstanding that we are fully supportive of the treaty. In Irish society those who are most critical of, perhaps, American foreign policy or Chinese foreign policy are quite happy to allow the flawed system in the United Nations in regard to the permanent members dictating how we should make our sovereign decisions. I find that contradictory. On the one hand we talk about our sovereignty and yet some people agree to allow countries, with whose foreign policy they totally disagree, have a veto on what we should decide to do as a foreign nation. I hope in time, if the issue of neutrality and the UN resolution is properly explained to the Irish people, they will move away from the comfort blanket of the UN and be quite happy to stand on their own two feet and make their own sovereign decision.

It is important to realise the EU battle group concept grew out of a request from the United Nations, following from the failure of the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia. Not having a proper mandate, not being capable of interoperability and not having the proper equipment allowed thousands of people to be slaughtered in an act of genocide. That is why the European Union evolved into a situation where it now provides battle groups based on a request from the UN, following the Brahimi report which recommends subcontracting out peace missions, peacekeeping and peace enforcement to regional organisations be they the African Union or the EU. It is wonderful that we can make a contribution on the national stage in Chad, to assist in dealing with refugees who are coming across the border from the Sudan. Many Irish people there have been calling for a number of years for intervention in that area. It is great that our troops can go there and have the necessary equipment to carry out its mandate in a proper manner. We have to move somewhat more in Europe because we did have a difficulty in getting the necessary logistical equipment in support of the operation to be carried out in an effective manner.

In regard to the actual increased spend on militarisation — the earlier amendments were ruled out of order — it is important to point out that the concept of the European Defence Agency is opposite. It proposes a decrease in expenditure in the EU——

——as countries pool their human, research and equipment resources. Rather than have the Irish invest X in its communications equipment and the French and the British the same, let each country choose a speciality and put the money into that in order that we do not replicate the spend. That is the purpose of the European Defence Agency. We have to evolve. It would be fantastic if we could live in a world where one did not have to have a force. It is important that we do to protect our values and to assist wherever we can.

It is important we progressively improve our military capability and that this does not necessarily result in increased expenditure. It is important we spend enough to ensure our people can go out and protect themselves and do the job they are supposed to do.

It is completely off the wall that the issue of neutrality is being raised in the Lisbon treaty, or the erosion of our neutrality or joining the EU battle groups. It is completely irrelevant to it and has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In time, I would like a debate in this country on the issue in order that we could flesh it out. I am sure there are Members from all sides who have varying views on the issue.

In my experience few subjects or policies have been more comprehensively discussed, debated and analysed than neutrality, certainly since 1981. It is quite difficult to listen to lectures on militarisation from a party that still has a military wing albeit, thankfully, no longer active. It tries to present itself as the champion of Irish neutrality. If any movement has been more guilty of violating Irish neutrality in the last war, the IRA only declared its war to have ceased two years ago. In some ways I welcome Sinn Féin's conversion at last to the policy of neutrality but I think it has to internalise it quite a bit because I do not see many signs of neutrality in relation to Colombia, the Basque country or the Middle East. There are more than adequate safeguards in declarations and protocols which have already been passed and incorporated without needing to add more. All the main parties in the House have given guarantees that they would submit to the people any proposals to join a military alliance.

It is not the practice of European treaties, except in the preamble which sets out the signatory states, to single out individual states. The treaty refers to categories, of which there are two in this context, namely, countries that belong to NATO and countries that do not belong to that organisation. Members of the latter group are variously described as non-aligned and neutral. I can well remember the origin of the phraseology about protecting the specific character and policies of particular member states and to be fair to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, he read out the relevant passage. This phraseology, one of the considerable achievements of former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, with the then Presidency led by Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, has been used repeatedly ever since the conclusion of the Rome II European Council in 1990. It has been found a satisfactory formula from that time to this. There is no mutual defence commitment, except for those countries which already have such a commitment through NATO.

We must also remember, when asking other countries to recognise Irish neutrality, that our neutrality is a policy rather than a status. Since the 1930s and 1940s, we have never sought to have the type of neutrality which, for instance, Belgium had before 1914, for the very good reason that it proved not to be worth the paper on which it was written. The content of the policy of neutrality has been what the Government, with the approval of the Oireachtas, has decided from time to time. Its main content has been that Ireland has not joined military alliances, including NATO.

Regional delegation by the United Nations to groups such as the European Union is not in any way a derogation from UN commitment but simply a practical way of handling matters. I am pleased that Ireland is part of a battle group — a term neither I nor the Minister for Defence likes — alongside Nordic countries which, in large part, share similar values to us.

It is a complete myth that military expenditure or militarisation has increased. All over Europe military expenditure has declined rapidly in the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the number of missiles has been reduced. Deputies will find that the military budget and strength of military forces of all countries are much less than they were 20 years ago. A reply to a question I tabled to the Minister for Defence a few weeks ago indicated that this is equally as true of Ireland as of any other country. In 1989, we had approximately 14,000 troops, mainly I suspect because of activities that were taking place across the Border. The figure has been reduced to approximately 10,000 and expenditure on defence as a percentage of GDP has declined. Ireland is not in any way peculiar in this respect. For example, conscription has been phased out in most countries.

Deputy Timmins is correct that one of the purposes of the European Defence Agency is to save rather than step up military expenditure. It will try to rationalise and phase out industries that are surplus to requirements. Nevertheless, our forces must be properly equipped for the responsibilities we assume. We should not be afraid to take on international responsibilities. President Éamon de Valera made a very fine speech just after the Second World War about the contribution and commitments Ireland and other countries should make to collective security and the rule of law.

Partnership for peace is often raised. I remind Deputy Ó Snodaigh that we did not join PfP without further consultation with the people. In the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament, Fianna Fáil deliberately put this proposal in its manifesto in order that there would be an electoral mandate for entering PfP. In those elections, a majority of MEPs were elected from different parties which supported this proposal.

The European Union is not some imperialist power but the greatest peace process the world has seen. It is dreadful that critics paint it as some kind of imperialist or potentially imperialist power. To be fair to our partners, in recent years they have not given any cause for such a belief. We have a responsibility to make an international contribution and we should not be shy or apologetic about having to do so.

In some ways I am sorry some of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's earlier amendments were ruled out of order because they are not about renegotiating the treaty. Effectively, they add up to withdrawing Ireland from the European Union and would certainly put us on that path. The lessons of history, going back to 1966, show that different countries at different times rejected treaties or adopted an "empty chair" policy. All the evidence is that nothing of substance has been obtained by that type of manoeuvre. The idea that we could somehow secure a renegotiation of the treaty is completely unrealistic.

I congratulate the Irish negotiating team, which was drawn from all the parties in the House and included the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, on the fine work it did in the European Convention and this fine treaty. One of the Taoiseach's finest achievements was the negotiation of the treaty, which has been only slightly modified. The critics of the treaty in the House are from Sinn Féin. A united Ireland will only happen in a united Europe, just as a united Germany would only happen in a united Europe. An Ireland which cut itself off from the European Union and decided to reverse or overturn 35 years of full participation at the centre of the Union would be of no interest to northern Unionists or the majority of the northern population. One of the great attractions of this part of the country is the success we have made of European Union membership. I cannot help but see the contrast between having the First Minister and Deputy First Minister going to Brussels seeking additional aid with the attitude being shown to the treaty by Sinn Féin.

Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Coiste do shuí arís.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share