Vol. 486 No. 6
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to consult with party leaders in Dáil Éireann on the timing of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty as indicated by the Tánaiste on 16 December 1997, reported in column 243 of the Official Report of the Dáil of that day. [1352/98]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the Government will publish a revised wording of the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. [3133/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. As the Deputy is aware, I held a meeting with party leaders or their representatives on Monday, 19 January. I subsequently held further bilateral meetings with party leaders during the course of last week. At these meetings a range of questions relating to the referendum was explored, including the timing of the referendum. The Government is continuing discussions with party leaders on the wording of the amendment. No final decision has been made on a revision of the published wording.
When does the Taoiseach expect to be in a position to give the Government's mature view on the wording?
Over the weekend the Attorney General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have, we hope, finalised their work. I have also received counsel's opinion which the Government discussed this morning. We are in a position to discuss it again with the party leaders.
I understand the difficulties of precedent this creates but will the Taoiseach consider making available the legal advice or extracts therefrom when it is ready?
I discussed that issue last night and the suggestion is acceptable. There are precedents and strict rules on this but I am prepared to give the principles from the legal advice. That would be useful for everyone.
Do I take from what the Taoiseach has said that, having regard to various informal communications over the weekend, there is an operational rather than an internal difficulty within the Government in coming to terms with the final wording, so that we should not expect to be communicated with by either the Taoiseach's office or the Office of the Attorney General on a proposed set of wordings for Article 6? There is no dispute as regards Article 5, the question relates to whether additional cover would be provided in any proposed referendum. If that is the case, perhaps he would confirm it. The Labour Party endorses and will support the Amsterdam Treaty but has serious reservations about the draft wording offered by the Government. Will the Taoiseach confirm it is not the Government's intention to have the referendum required to make the constitutional change to adopt the treaty —should that be the wish of the people — until after the first weekend in May?
No time has been fixed but I have listened to Deputy Quinn and others regarding the timing. There is no strict time limit on the Government or the country to ratify the treaty. Deputy Quinn may have misinterpreted my reply to Deputy Bruton. I did not say there was a difficulty, I said that following the weekend's discussions and the Attorney General's receipt of counsel's opinion, we have a wording which I would like to communicate with the party leaders.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether there are strong views among those involved in negotiating this treaty that to proceed with the second part of the proposed question to the people would cause unnecessary confusion and debate about matters not contained in the treaty?
There are strong views on these matters. The wording of the referendum Bill will provide the Government with the discretion to exercise the options in the Amsterdam Treaty. The difficulty we are trying to overcome is that without a wording which deals with the various issues one could end up having frequent referenda. We sought advice on that matter and I do not want a final position which deals conveniently with this matter but requires many referenda.
The Taoiseach has put his finger on the nub of the issue —it is likely that further referenda will be required as the Amsterdam Treaty evolves and develops, therefore the wording as proposed tends to give carte blanche to the Government of the day to implement the treaty without reference to the people on critical constitutional issues.
If the issues were critical that would be a different matter. The critical issue which has been highlighted, on which both this Administration and its predecessor have given undertakings, is that no commitments will be entered into as regards the common defence area. However, it is a very different matter if there are several very minor issues. The formulation of the Amsterdam Treaty could mean that we would be dealing with these matters on a frequent basis.
We cannot regard a change in the Constitution as a minor issue. I agree with the Taoiseach that there are guarantees in relation to common defence. However, part of the problem is that retaining the current wording gives legs to an argument which has no basis.
I think I have answered this; it is the same issue and it is a matter of substance. The Amsterdam Treaty contains an enormous number of general provisions relating to closer co-operation, flexibility, police and judicial co-operation and free movement. Member states can decide when they sign up to these obligations. We are talking here about quite minor matters. That is how the Amsterdam Treaty was put together. Other member states will take up the provisions at various times. If the Deputy is suggesting that every minor issue in every treaty which Ireland wishes to implement should be put to the people, then I do not think that is what the people want.
Only where it involves a constitutional change.
But who interprets that? I do not think the people would ask us for a constitutional referendum on every minor change.
In light of the fact that the Minister of State with responsibility for youth affairs, Deputy O'Dea, spoke in favour for weekend voting and that there was only a 29 per cent turnout for the referendum on bail, will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, the training and employment aspects of which are very important to young people, will be held on a weekend to allow young people to vote?
The date will be decided by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. However, the Deputy is correct there are many areas on training and movement in the treaty which are very important for young people. I will pass on the Deputy's remarks to the Minister.
The Taoiseach, in his reply to Deputy De Rossa, seemed to spurn the question which is at the core of the concerns on this side of the House. There is nothing wrong with a referendum taking place every time a further transfer of sovereignty is proposed between this Republic and the European Union where such a constitutional amendment is required. Will the Taoiseach agree the core of the dispute in various Departments is between those European bureaucrats who feel that reference back to the people is some kind of weakness, if not defect, and those who feel that confirmation of the people's will to an agreed Europe is necessary in order for us to make this progress?
Will he not agree that certainty is needed in regard to the Amsterdam Treaty, which most people would recognise is not a great step forward in itself? Will he agree there must be a clear and unambiguous assertion by the Government and this House that any further step which involves any transfer of sovereignty, challenged or otherwise —and I use that phrase advisedly — will, if necessary, be ultimately subject to the judgment of the people? That would deal effectively with the concerns of Deputy De Rossa, the Labour Party and many pro treaty people that an enabling provision is being written into the Constitution, which will be exercised without reference to the people at some stage in the future.
Nobody is arguing that there should be a general omnibus clause where everything could be taken in. That is not the intention.
That is the suspicion.
I accept it is a suspicion but it is not the intention. The intention is to ensure the Amsterdam Treaty can be brought into being and dealt with in a proper legal way and not that any aspect of it which must be dealt with will require a constitutional referendum. The Deputy may be sure we are not engaged in an argument and nobody is trying to hide anything. It is a question of how it is monitored and operates in the future.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is a matter of concern to our 14 partners in the EU? If one member state does not ratify the Amsterdam Treaty in accordance with its constitutional requirements, the treaty cannot go ahead. Does the Taoiseach agree, therefore, that the uncertainty which has been created concerning the wording of the referendum is causing concern in Europe? Will he indicate if it is his intention to hold the referendum sooner rather than later? Does he intend to hold the referendum before the April recess?
The EMU option, the single biggest option that has ever been exercised under any treaty concerning the European Union and which we will exercise this year, has been exercised under the Maastricht Treaty without any "section 6" type commission. This puts in serious doubt the need for a section 6 type section in the referendum Bill. Will the Taoiseach confirm that it has been possible to exercise options, including the option of joining EMU, under the Maastricht Treaty, without an all embracing section such as that proposed in the Amsterdam Treaty Bill?
I note the Deputy's point on the date but no decision has been made on it. The option of EMU was specifically provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. We have sought much legal opinion in this regard. If it is unnecessary to include a provision to deal with the options, I will be quite happy because it will be more simple. If the situation is not so simple, as at this stage, we will look closely at it.
Beware of lawyers giving false advice.
I will be very careful of false advice. The public would not appreciate our going back to them every time options had to be taken on clear-cut issues. Issues of fundamental importance are an entirely different matter and the position on at least one of those issues has been stated categorically.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the principal option to be exercised by Ireland under the Amsterdam Treaty is the decision to opt into the Schengen agreement which provides for close co-operation in the battle against crime? We cannot opt into it because Britain has opted out and we do not want checks on the Border. Is it the Taoiseach's view that if we were in a position to opt into Schengen, because Britain changed its policy, we would have to hold another referendum to allow us to do so unless special provision for options was made in this referendum?
When the Taoiseach refers to "any change" is he referring to a change in policy under the existing treaties or a change in the treaties? There cannot be a change in the treaties without another intergovernmental conference and the only change which can occur in policy under the treaties is either a development of policy or the exercise of options on matters not currently obligatory on everybody. If the Taoiseach is referring to a change in policy, then the advice he has received suggests that all changes in policy under the Treaty of Rome and all subsequent treaties will be open to legal challenge because the options provision has not existed in previous referenda. Is there not a risk that the line of advice he is receiving will be retro-spectively subversive?
I am talking about changes in policy and options. We must find a way of dealing with this matter. In reply to Deputy Mitchell, there is no concern in Europe at this stage. No other country has held a referendum and we will still be early in this regard. We need to tie down this matter. I believe there would be more concern if we finalised a position which required us to return to the people every time there was a change in policy or we wanted to take up an option. It is necessary to finalise the wording as soon as possible but we cannot ignore the substantial advice we have received.
While I welcome the referendum and support a number of provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty, concerns about employment, the lack of rights for asylum seekers and refugees and neutrality must be addressed. In this context, does the Taoiseach intend discussing some of the issues raised today only with parties calling for a "yes" vote or is he prepared to meet parties such as the Green Party which is calling for a "no" vote and, if so, when does he propose to do this? The Green Party believes that even if the date of the referendum is not agreed weekend voting should be agreed to as this would give an assurance that it is intended to give as many people as possible the right to exercise their franchise.
If the Green Party requests a meeting so that I can give it a general briefing on the Amsterdam Treaty I will certainly meet it. I stated in the House many months ago that I would meet people to discuss the issue but the Green Party did not take up this option as it is against the treaty.
Will the Taoiseach clarify how a special provision in the treaty allowing for the exercise of options is necessary to cater for simple changes of policy by the European institutions given that these institutions change policy all the time under the existing treaties without any special provision?
I outlined the advice I received from a number of people. This advice is based on how these people interpret the treaty and the implementation of its sections over time.
It is not very clear.
Will the Taoiseach agree there is countervailing legal opinion that in ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty the public must do so in the full knowledge that the options available in the treaty may be taken on board at some time by future Governments, that they are, therefore, agreeing to those options and that it is not necessary on this basis to include in the Constitution a provision which will inevitably give the State broad permission at any time to take on board these options and others. As we are aware from other attempts at restricting the definition of sections of the Constitution such as that dealing with abortion, it is not humanly possible to say precisely how something will be defined in the future by the Supreme Court in terms of writing in these options. There is a countervailing legal view that in ratifying the treaty, matters arising under the treaty can be opted into by the Government of the day.
That is my view, but it is not the legal advice I have received.
Will the Taoiseach agree the reason this is taking place relates to the court ruling on the Single European Act, that it was such a major amendment to the original Treaty of Rome, permission was required from the people? Following on that it was considered best to put the Maastricht Treaty to the people so that questions could not arise and, likewise, it is considered best to put the Amsterdam Treaty to the people. It does not follow, however, that a section 5 must be inserted to approve what was done in Amsterdam and a section 6 which refers to options that are already catered for in the Amsterdam Treaty. Will the Taoiseach agree all we have to do is ratify the Treaty to ensure we meet the concerns arising from the court ruling on the Single European Act?
That may be the simple lay version of the matter, but I would not lightly take issue with a number of legal people who have examined it in great detail. People with international experience, who are familiar with international agreements do not hold that view.
They do not have to stand for election.
I accept that. Deputies have heard my views in debates on the matter in recent weeks, but they will accept I cannot ignore legal advice. I will exchange with party leaders the advice given.
