Vol. 577 No. 1
5 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if a rejection of the EU Constitution by Irish voters in a future referendum will endanger Ireland's membership of the EU as stated by the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30536/03]
The proposed arrangements for the ratification of the new EU draft constitutional treaty are quite clear. They involve no change from the existing arrangements. When unanimous agreement has been achieved among Governments at the Intergovernmental Conference, the treaty must be ratified by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Nobody has seriously challenged this requirement at the conference. Ireland will not support an alternative approach. The new treaty will not enter into force if it is not ratified by all member states. A decision by a member state not to ratify the treaty can have no legal bearing on the state's membership of the Union. It is obvious that political difficulties will arise if one or more member states experiences difficulty in ratifying the treaty. In such circumstances, all member states will have to come together to see what can be done.
Although we must await the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference, I cannot envisage why the Irish people should not react positively to the new treaty in due course. Most of the positive aspects of the new treaty as proposed by the European Convention are not being contested at the conference and will stand. Many of the issues in respect of which we have raised concerns are being addressed as the negotiations progress. The Government will continue to work to defend Ireland's interests. The views expressed by the President of the Commission are his own. Although the Commission attends the Intergovernmental Conference as an observer, the Governments of the member states make decisions and sign treaties.
The Minister should remind Mr. Prodi of that.
Will the Minister agree that the comments made by Mr. Prodi were regrettable and counter-productive? Will the Minister call on him to withdraw the remarks?
Hear, hear.
Mr. Prodi also suggested in a recent interview that future treaties should require a four fifths majority to be ratified. What is the Irish view of this suggestion? How will the Minister react to the comments this weekend? Will the Minister accept that he is not wearing any clothes, so to speak, in respect of Irish neutrality? The new Article 40.7 has been designed as a fig leaf to hide the Minister's nakedness. Does the Minister agree that the new Article 40.7 constitutes a mutual defence clause? It states clearly that "member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance". That constitutes a mutual defence clause. Ireland's suggestion that it should be made clear that the Union's security and defence policy "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states" is nothing more than Jesuitical nonsense.
The Deputy should not attack the Jesuits.
It is designed to confuse and not to elucidate. Where stands Irish neutrality? Where stands the triple lock? Is neutrality a red line issue for the Government in the negotiations?
Will the Minister put on clothes before he comes to the House on the next occasion?
He should follow Seán Lemass.
I have given a full reply to questions based on the comments of Mr. Prodi, who is entitled to express his opinions in the same manner as Deputy Gormley, myself or anybody else. I am not so sensitive to have to ask him to withdraw any remark with which I disagree.
Hear, hear.
It is time for us to grow up in that regard.
Does the Minister agree it is counter-productive?
It is not counter-productive if we have established the facts, which are as I have outlined them. We have cleared up the matter. There is no point in sustaining the myth that there is a problem.
He is creating it.
An inability to listen to answers is part of Deputy Gormley's problem. The Deputy also raised certain defence issues. It is important to point out that we have provided the safeguard clause since Maastricht. We negotiated the clause at Maastricht, as it was clear that there are different defence and security policy traditions in the European Union. The Community method involves accommodating those traditions. Deputy Gormley has always failed to acknowledge that successive Governments have been involved in successful negotiations. When a defence working group, of which Deputy Gormley is a member, produced a proposal which left me with very little room to manoeuvre, I was capable of negotiating Ireland's position and ensuring that its tradition is respected. The safeguard clause ensures that there is no automaticity involved in such a mutual defence clause, as far as Ireland is concerned. The whole purpose of our negotiating strategy is to achieve that. It is far better to acknowledge that something has been achieved, rather than denying it.
One should not suggest, as Deputy Gormley sought to do, that the phraseology has been developed as a cover. It has been included in treaties since the Treaty of Maastricht, when European security and defence policy was first given a base in the EU treaties. I have said that it is there to acknowledge the fact that there are different defence and security policy traditions in the EU. We respect those with other traditions and we obtain mutual respect for our tradition. Regarding our position—
Triple lock.
—in respect of neutrality, there is no change in our legislative or constitutional arrangements. We will update the treaty references in the event of a successful outcome to this treaty process. We will put a proposal to the people. We will ensure that our constitutional protections are updated by means of an updated treaty reference. We will maintain independence of action. There will be no automaticity. Decisions on the participation by Ireland in the European security and defence policy arrangements will be taken by the sovereign Government, with the approval of Parliament. That is a fair outcome and is what we sought to achieve. It has been respected and it should be acknowledged.
