I wish to present to Seanad Éireann the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1987. This debate is a stage in a process which will enable the Irish people, on 26 May, to exercise their sovereign right under the Constitution to decide whether the State may ratify the Single European Act.
As the Taoiseach has already stated to the Dáil, this issue is one of the utmost gravity. In the first place, it concerns the fact that Ireland, alone of the member states of the Community, is not, as matters stand, in a position to ratify the Single European Act, an international agreement which has been approved by the Parliaments of every member state of the Community, including that of Ireland, and ratified by all but Ireland. Equally, if not more important, the issue has forced us to face a number of fundamental questions concerning Ireland's membership of the European Communities and the quality and basis of that membership. These questions concern our neutrality; the impact of membership of the European Communities on Ireland and the Irish people and the very nature and scope of the European Communities of which Ireland is a member. Other important issues which arise concern the nature and exercise of sovereignty in the complex and interdependent international order in which we must operate in the last quarter of the 20th century; the extent to which the legislative and Executive branches of Government may exercise their powers in international relations under the Constitution and even the enduring validity and scope of the Constitution itself.
Faced with this thicket of political, legal and constitutional questions, we in this House owe it to ourselves, but more importantly to the Irish people, to set out the central issue as clearly as possible, to identify and order the objectives and priorities which the national interest and the common good call for, and to ensure that the action we decide on to attain those objectives will do just that.
The Government have moved expeditiously in this sense. Our priority must be to ratify the Single European Act to enable it to come into force. This, as I shall explain later, is in the national interest. Ratification is also a mark of the seriousness with which the Government view membership of the European Communities and our responsibilities to our European partners, with whom our economic destinies are inextricably linked.
The fact that we have moved expeditiously has been invoked by some as an argument that we are trying to streamroll the issue past the Oireachtas and the people. This allegation might have had substance had the Government decided to submit a more ambitious amendment to the Constitution which would have encompassed broader issues such as the Executive's prerogatives in foreign policy matters in general, or indeed the issue of neutrality. But the fact of the matter is that the Government have proposed an amendment to the Constitution which, if carried, will permit the State to do nothing more and nothing less than ratify the Single European Act. The option of a tightly drafted amendment, in present circumstances, is the most realistic and prudent one to follow.
While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I realise that there are widespread fears about the possible implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment for the State's prerogatives in concluding treaties and international agreements, and even, it has been said, for our membership of the United Nations, to which I am sure the vast majority of Irish citizens are deeply attached. These are highly complex matters and require thoughtful consideration of all sides of the argument before any further action in relation to the Constitution is contemplated. Let me give one practical example of this complexity: it has been claimed that the UN Charter, which is a treaty to which Ireland is party, involves a ceding of sovereignty well in excess of what is involved in the foreign policy provisions of the Single European Act and is thus in conflict with the Constitution. It is indeed true that the UN Charter does indeed oblige member states to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
The Government agree that larger issues concerning the State's power to conduct its foreign policy have been thrown up by the Supreme Court ruling and I give this as only one example. Of their nature, these issues require very careful and in-depth consideration and quite clearly, our objective in relation to the Single European Act, that is to say, its speedy ratification, does not allow for the attention that should be devoted to the wider issue.
It was precisely to facilitate careful consideration of the provisions of the Constitution in general and their appropriateness to present-day conditions that the Taoiseach stated his receptiveness to a review of the Constitution in due course. But such an exercise should not be confused with the immediate priority of ratifying the Single European Act and I urge the House to keep the two issues distinct.
Another course of action suggested by some is that the Government renegotiate the Single European Act. Let me state quite clearly that renegotiation of the Act is not an option. That is not to say that a Fianna Fáil Government would not have sought — had they been in power at the time — to negotiate it differently in some respects. We must, however, recognise clearly that the Single European Act which was negotiated with difficulty, ratified by all of our partners and approved by Dáil Éireann, is not open to renegotiation. I wish to state without equivocation that the Government do not, therefore, intend to indulge in pretending or feigning to seek such renegotiation. The issue then is whether Ireland will ratify the Single European Act. The question is being put to the people — as it must be put — in the plainest and most honest terms.
I now wish to turn to the Single European Act itself and the context from which it emerged. That context is to be found in the experience, aspirations and commitments to European union of the members of the European Community. The Single European Act represents the first broadly-based effort to modify the Treaty of Rome since it was signed in 1957. That such an effort was timely can be gauged from developments in the European Community in the 14 years since we, along with Britain and Denmark, joined.
Those 14 years have witnessed a continuous growth in the Community. It has grown in size with three further enlargements, encompassing Greece, Spain and Portugal, so that it now embraces 12 nations and 320 million people. It has grown in importance in the daily lives of its citizens as its policies have been developed for their benefit. It has grown in stature, so that now the Community's voice in the world is listened to with ever-growing attention and the interests of its peoples are inevitably better protected and promoted. However, the Community during this time, and especially in more recent years, was also faced with increasing stagnation in its decisionmaking process. This was in part brought about by the successive enlargements. It was confronted by increasing competition from its main trading rivals, such as the United States and Japan, notably in the area of advanced technology. It experienced growing disappointment at the lack of progress towards achieving some of its fundamental objectives, such as the reduction of the disparities in development between its different regions and the removal of the remaining barriers to trade within the Community.
The Single European Act was negotiated and must be understood against this background. It represents the outcome of several years of careful preparation and negotiation designed to help the Community to overcome the stagnation and difficulties which I have described. The Single European Act, while a step forward on the road to European union, is not a major step, far from it. It is far less ambitious in several respects than several of our Community partners would have wished and it has been widely criticised for not going far enough. Indeed the Government would have preferrred that it went further in certain respects. But it does represent the limit of the progress to which all of the member states at this stage could agree and it is in those terms a significant if modest achievement.
I referred to the Single European Act in the context of European union. I wish to make it quite clear that the Government are fully committed to working towards a closer European union. In 1973, we joined an evolving Community, not a static one. One of the fundamental considerations which led to the decision of the Irish people that Ireland should accede to the European Community, a consideration which was fully explained at the time and clearly set out in the then Fianna Fáil Government's 1972 White Paper on accession, was that membership would provide an opportunity for the State to participate fully with other democratic and like-minded countries of Europe in the movement towards European unity. We quite deliberately and with the overwhelming endorsement of the Irish people joined a process which was designed to bring about, as the Treaty of Rome expressly states, "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." Of course, there were then and remain today some who are opposed to that process. They are fully entitled to express their opposition; but they are not entitled to deny the existence of the commitment made to that process by the people in 1972, a commitment which has been reflected in the constructive and positive approach to Community membership of successive Irish Governments.
The referendum on 26 May will enable the people, by voting for ratification of the Single European Act, to endorse a further small step along the road towards greater European integration with the objective of some form of eventual European union. It is, of course, self-evident that, if and when a genuine European union, embracing economic and political dimensions, should become a reality as distinct from a distant aspiration, the constitutional implications of that European union will have to be examined then. A decision of such moment could not be taken by mere executive action or by a stroke of the statesman's pen.
It is clear that public debate in the coming month will rightly be concerned with the implications of the referendum for Ireland's membership of the European Community. These implications must be fully understood. The question will inevitably be asked in the course of the referendum campaign as to what action our partners would take with regard to Ireland's position in the Community if we decide to prevent the modest step forward for that Community represented by the Single European Act. If the people vote against ratification of the Single European Act, we will be signalling inevitably to our partners that we no longer wish to be a full member of the evolving Community which we joined, that we no longer wish to participate as equals in the process of European integration. The question would then arise not of whether our partners might take action against us but of what action they would inevitably take without us. In such circumstances, I am convinced that our negotiating position, which is all important within the Community and our ability to continue to draw down the extensive benefits of membership would be seriously eroded.
Ireland has consistently derived and continues to derive enormous benefits from membership of the European Community. In terms of our agriculture, membership means guaranteed prices and extensive markets for our agricultural products. In terms of our exports, which are crucial to us as an export-dependent country, membership means access to a market now of 320 million people. In terms of employment, it is our membership of the Community which has made it possible to encourage high levels of foreign investment which, in turn, has created and maintained jobs. In terms of net budgetary transfers from the Community budget, Ireland receives considerably greater transfers per head of population than any other member state of the Community. If such budgetary transfers were to cease, the effects on the Irish taxpayer and on the economy generally would be nothing short of catastrophic and disastrous.
Moreover, in terms of our ability to influence decisions which are of profound importance to this country and which would affect us even if we did not belong to the Community, membership guarantees us a full say in those decisions. Of course, there have also been disappointments for us and for the Community as a whole, but the balance of advantage, which is the important consideration, as far as this country is concerned has been clear and the benefits of membership have evidently been translated into reality on the ground.
I am sure that those benefits will be fully explained in the coming weeks, not only by the Government and by the main Opposition parties but also by the agricultural, industrial and other organisations whose members throughout the country derive enormous, palpable and essential benefits from Community membership. I would recall too that the Government have made clear that their priority is to set the economy to rights in order to bring about a more decent life for all of our people. Ireland's membership of the Community is a fundamental and inseparable element in the well-being of our economy, in its development and in its growth. Our relegation to at best second-class status in the Community would have, I believe, major and adverse implications in both the short and the long term for Ireland's economy.
Most arguments in the case brought before the Irish courts to prevent ratification of the Single European Act and most of the deliberations before the courts were devoted to the amendments to the European Community Treaties which are contained in Title II and which unlike the foreign policy provisions are to be made part of Irish domestic law by the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1986. These elements constitute the main substance of the Single European Act. Extraordinary allegations were made both before the courts and in the public debate more generally about their effect on Irish sovereignty and on various rights guaranteed under our Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous and little publicised judgment, ruled that it had not been shown that anything in these provisions — which they considered did not go beyond the scope and objectives of the original Community Treaties — was invalid having regard to the provisions of the Irish Constitution. These provisions were, of course, duly approved by the Dáil and Seanad. We recognise that the provisions pose no threats whatsoever to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, that in some respects they represent a streamlining of the Community and that certain of these provisions offer scope — if fully and properly implemented — for progress in the Community as a whole. In particular, they offer scope for a real advance in the reduction of regional imbalances in the Community which until now has been little more than an aspiration.
This will obviously be a major consideration in the Government's approach to membership and we are determined that the so-called cohesion chapter of the Single European Act will be translated into real benefits to our economy. In this connection, the Government propose to make a declaration in relation to the issue of cohesion which is designed to put very clearly on the record Ireland's special needs and requirements in this area and the direction which, in our view, implementation of these provisions of the Single European Act should take. That declaration refers also to Ireland's policy of military neutrality, a subject to which I shall return in a few moments. The text of the declaration has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
I turn now to Title III of the Single European Act — the Treaty provisions in the sphere of foreign policy. These are the provisions which the Supreme Court — by a 3-2 decision — held to require the people's assent before the Single European Act could be ratified. I have already set out in general terms the fundamental importance for this country of Community membership and the consequent need to ratify the Single European Act. I now wish to outline why I see no cause for reservations in regard to Title III of the Act.
In the first place, it should be clearly understood that the European Community is more than just an economic grouping — a fact well understood by all Irish Governments since the time Seán Lemass first sought for Irish membership. European union, the quest for which has involved an open-ended evolving process, as distinct from a sure march towards a precisely mapped out objective, has a political as well as an economic dimension.
The problem, in the first decade of the Community's existence, was how to make practical progress in the political sphere. The response to this problem was contained in the so-called Luxembourg Report, prepared by the Foreign Ministers of the Six in 1970. That report, among other things, stated that "Desirous of making progress in the field of political unification, the Governments decide to co-operate in the sphere of foreign policy." That report went on to sketch out the priorities and procedures of this fledgling process of European political co-operation. These were refined in the subsequent reports of Copenhagen, 1973, London, 1981, and the Solemn Declaration on European Union at Stuttgart in 1983. The essential features of this co-operation were, and indeed remain, the joint endeavour of the partners to inform and consult each other on the major foreign policy problems facing them all, to co-ordinate their positions and to seek common actions.
Since accession in 1973, Ireland has participated in the foreign policy mechanisms of European political co-operation. This is a normal element of participation in co-operation among the member states and reflects the statement of intent by the then Fianna Fáil Government in the 1972 White Paper that "as a member of the enlarged Communities, we shall participate fully with the other member states in the shaping of the political evolution of the Communities and in the adoption of new procedures for greater political co-operation." We share many of the values of our European partners and it is not strange that we should seek to establish common viewpoints and positions on issues of concern to all of us such as the abolition of the apartheid system, the Middle East crisis and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE, which are only some of the aspects among a number of others where this process is ongoing.
I know of no Irish Government, including the present one, who have had difficulty in operating the mechanisms of European political co-operation, as they have evolved over the years. We have been able to approach the major issues on the agenda of EPC in a constructive and sober way, reflecting a genuine and realistic wish to work for common positions where these are possible, and bringing to bear our distinctive foreign policy traditions, for example, our support for the crucial importance of the United Nations as a forum for resolving conflict and as an instrument for containing international confrontations and tensions. Similarly, we have worked and will continue to work with our European partners to advance objectives of fundamental importance to the Irish people such as the attainment of universal respect for human rights, the completion of the decolonisation process and the consolidation of a peaceful and equitable world order.
We have approached European political co-operation, and particularly proposals to reform its procedures and restate the commitments involved in it from a broader perspective also. We view European political co-operation not only on its own merits but also in the context of our overall approach to European integration. In our view, the essential engine of European integration is co-operation in the economic and social spheres and in particular the reduction and elimination of disparities between the richer and poorer regions of the Community. We have been sceptical of the tendency to make proposals for advances in political co-operation at times when the core of the Community's activities in the economic and social spheres has been stagnating. This tendency was particularly evident in some quarters of the Community during the early years of the present decade.
Fortunately, a greater sense of realism has emerged in recent years and the Single European Act is one product of that positive trend. It is entirely acceptable to us that a modest step forward in the economic and social sphere should be matched by a modest advance in the foreign policy sphere. This is in accordance with the logical view set out in the 1972 White Paper: "In the Government's view, progress towards the achievement of an ever-closer union of the European peoples must be pursued with due deliberation. This requires that political co-operation and joint action in the political sphere must develop gradually but at the same time on a progressive basis."
The modest advances in foreign policy co-operation provided for in Title III of the Single European Act are in accordance with this logic. Essentially, the commitments in Title III of the Single European Act are codifications of the more informal commitments which have long characterised the process of European political co-operation. A constitutional distinction has of course been drawn in the Supreme Court between informal commitments and Treaty-based commitments. That is in large part why we are putting this constitutional amendment to the people. But in doing so, I wish to emphasise that there is nothing in Title III which will oblige Ireland to conform to any foreign policy position with which it is not in agreement. Our obligations under the Single European Act will remain limited essentially to working for common positions and joint action. Naturally, in working out our positions we will take full account of the attitudes of our partners. This we do already, just as I know that our partners take full account of our attitudes.
Title III of the Single European Act poses no difficulties for Ireland's ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. The extent of the commitments it contains are modest and appropriate to this stage in the Community's development; and the fact that the formalisation of the EPC procedures it embodies has been elaborated in parallel with the more important reforms to the economic framework of the Communities is a positive development from our point of view. As I have already stated, too often in the past there has been a temptation in the Community to focus creative energy on enhancing the EPC process rather than on tackling the basic economic, distributive and social problems facing the Community. The incorporation of foreign policy provisions in the Single European Act, while maintaining its legally distinct status and in particular its rules of procedure, central to which is the principle of consensus, is an important development which, in our view, should serve to emphasise that progress towards greater European integration must be deliberate, balanced and progressive.
A further and fundamental concern of the Government is to ensure that there is no confusion, either by the Irish people or by our European partners as to the scope of EPC in so far as discussions of security matters are concerned. This relates to the enduring importance which this Government attach to a policy of military neutrality.
There is nothing in Title III which obliges Ireland to act in a way incompatible with its policy of military neutrality. This policy is respected by our European partners and there has never been any attempt by our partners to force us away from that policy. I emphasise that aspect. The scope of the provisions on security, contained in Title III, poses no difficulties for Ireland, in that the Act provides that the scope of European political co-operation will be limited to the political and economic aspects of security. As the Taoiseach has already noted in his statement to the Dáil, this reflects the existing position within European political co-operation. Clearly, the Twelve have a legitimate interest in discussing questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in general such as the crisis in the Middle East and the Gulf War, or disarmament issues arising at the United Nations. Similarly, the political and economic aspects of European security, arising, for example, at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, are of lasting importance to the Twelve. In contrast, the military aspects of security will remain excluded from the scope of European political co-operation.
On the other hand, the provisions of Title III pose no difficulties to our partners since these provisions indicate that, to the extent that some of our partners wish to co-operate more closely on security matters, beyond the scope of what is appropriate to European political co-operation they may do so in the appropriate fora for such co-operation, that is the Western European Union or NATO, of which Ireland is, of course, not a member and does not propose to be.
I realise that there have been widespread fears and a perception of some ambiguity in these provisions. Accordingly, the Government have decided to state very clearly, in the declaration to which I referred earlier, their understanding of these provisions — essentially a statement of position — upon ratification of the Single European Act. This will note the Government's understanding that the provisions of Title III of the Single European Act do not affect Ireland's militarily neutral position. Such a declaration will cause no difficulties whatever to our European partners since they understand and respect our consistent position in these matters. It will also serve to indicate clearly to the Irish people the Government's approach to the implementation of the provisions in question. It will, I hope, serve to conclude the debate on the relationship between our neutrality and our membership of the Community and nail the myth that there is some conflict between the two. In 1972 it was emphasised that no military or defence commitments were involved in Ireland's acceptance of the Rome and Paris Treaties. It is equally appropriate for us to do so now, at this staging point in the process of European integration, in relation to the foreign policy provisions of the Single European Act.
The view has been put forward that Ireland's ratification of the foreign policy provisions of the Single European Act, even after an enabling amendment to the Constitution, would be incompatible with Article 5 of the Constitution, which states that Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic State. I have even heard it said that in order to ratify the Single European Act, Article 5 should be amended to include the word "not" after "Ireland is". This view represents a manifest misunderstanding of the realities of sovereignty in international affairs in the last quarter of the 20th century. Absolute sovereignty in the sense of unfettered freedom of action does not exist for any State, even the most powerful in the world, today. The tentative creation of a world order, based on the United Nations, and the emergence of economic and political interdependence are realities which are brought into stark relief by the imperatives of dealing with global economic scarcities, resolving international conflicts and managing tensions, a whole panoply of areas in which nations interact with each other. No country today can achieve its foreign policy aims by acting unilaterally. This is particularly true of a small country such as ours. Our foreign policy, of necessity and of volition, has been conducted largely through our participation in multilateral organisations and undertakings such as the League of Nations, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the OECD, the European Community and the process of European political co-operation. It is through multilateral organisations of this kind that a small nation such as ours can achieve a new dimension of strength. Therefore, it is quite the reverse of any notion of diminution of sovereignty. In fact it introduces a new strength and aspect, deriving from our membership and our voice being heard in organisations such as those I have mentioned.
The constraints on our sovereignty represented by the Single European Act are of a piece with the constraints we accepted and in incorporated in the Constitution when we joined the Community in 1973. They involve commitments with like-minded States, our partners in the European Community. I see no problems and every advantage in accepting a commitment in relation to our sovereignty in return for making the exercise of that sovereignty, in co-operation with our European partners, as effective as possible in the promotion of our essential interests.
I also present to the Seanad and Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1987 which will be taken simultaneously with this one and which prescribes a statement for the information of voters at the referendum. I ask the Seanad to pass these two important Bills, to enable the people to give constructive consideration to the question before them so as to ensure that this State can ratify the Single European Act which is manifestly in our national interest.
