asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the reply to a question asked by Monsieur Glinne in the European Parliament on Irish neutrality; and whether he has any comment on the reply as it affects Irish neutrality in the light of current negotiations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Neutrality.
8.
I have seen the reply to which the Deputy refers. The reply in dealing with Ireland, adverts to my statements at the opening of the negotiations with the European Communities on 30th June and at the meeting with the Communities on 21st September in which I said that the Government accept the Treaties of Rome and Paris, their political objectives and the decisions taken in their implementation. This, of course, has been the position taken by the Irish Government since our application for membership of the Communities was first made in 1961 and it is the basis on which the negotiations with this country and with the other applicant countries are taking place.
Has the Minister noted the manner in which our agreement that our neutrality was not in question in the negotiations has been used to thwart Sweden's desire to maintain her neutrality? Has the Minister noted the effect which our abandonment of insistence on our neutrality has had on other applicants for entry into the EEC?
A sine quo non of negotiating was that an applicant country would accept the Treaty of Rome and the political implications and implement them. It is only because we accepted these that we are negotiating. Sweden was not able to accept the Treaty of Rome in that form.
Presumably Sweden is as well acquainted with the clauses of the Treaty of Rome as are the Minister and his officials. Sweden is seeking to maintain her neutral status. Our application never sought to maintain our neutral status. Does the Minister observe how our negotiating procedure has been used to thwart the Swedes, for example, in their legitimate desire to maintain their neutrality?
I do not understand how the Deputy owes more loyalty to Sweden than he does to Ireland. Applications were accepted on the basis that applicants accepted the Treaties of Rome and Paris. If they said they could not accept, and are not negotiating, that is not my problem.
Does the Treaty of Rome, and all negotiations since, not require us to abandon our neutral status?
It does not require us to abandon the neutral status but what we sought since 1961 was co-operation on monetary and foreign policy matters. Of the Six already existing in the EEC, there are many conflicting areas of foreign policy. Political co-operation is sought and, in an effort to bring about co-operation, we are willing to follow this is the years ahead and to participate. Already, a spokesman of one of the Six, speaking here, said he could not envisage a situation where any major political decisions would be made in the Community against the will of any one member. I do not think the Deputy need be too much afraid of what would happen. We would be members of the Community evolving towards political co-operation. We are willing to accept the Treaty of Rome and its political implications: without that acceptance, we would not be negotiating.
There was room for change between our position in 1961 and that taken in the second phase after the lapse of so many years. Our application in 1961, which we have slavishly followed in the present one, assumed what the Treaty of Rome did not ask us to assume: the Treaty of Rome did not specifically request us to abandon neutrality. This is something specifically offered by our Fianna Fáil negotiators.
I did not say anything about neutrality nor did any other spokesman of the Government. We said we accepted the Treaties of Rome and Paris and the political implications——
Did that imply abandonment of neutrality?
If the political progress sought becomes a reality, and if we participate in it, then we shall be part of established foreign policy. We have abandoned nothing. We are willing to accept the Treaty of Rome and to work in, and be part of, the decision-making process in the politics of Europe.
Sweden does not think it necessary to say in its application that it is willing to abandon neutrality.
Sweden is not negotiating. As recently as last September, at The Hague meeting, the Community recommended that, in order to negotiate, you must accept the Treaties of Rome and Paris. Four have done this——
The Treaty of Rome does not require us to abandon our neutral status. It is, therefore, completely unnecessary, and damaging to the national interest, for the Minister to offer to enter into military commitments into which no one has asked us to enter.
We have at no time offered to enter into a military commitment. What has been said on behalf of the Government is that if we are, in time, a part of Europe and if that Europe needs defence, Ireland will play her part in that defence. That has been said here in the Dáil by me. It has been said in answer to questions by newspapermen but it has never been asked to be said or required to be said and it has never been said at a negotiating table.
Why does the Minister make statements which are not required?
This is developing into a debate.
Because the Deputy keeps insisting that I say something clear. If I did not say it, the Deputy would insist that I was hiding behind it. I want to make quite clear what the Irish position is.
(Interruptions.)
Do the Labour Party want me to say it or do they want me not to say it? We have never been asked at any negotiating table to take part in any military alliance.
The Government abandoned neutrality without being asked.
I want to make the position clear. If we are part of Europe and enjoying all the benefits of being part of Europe, then we will take part in the defence of Europe, but that is far in the future.
Question No. 9.