I am grateful for being allowed to raise the issue of the proposed constitution for Europe and the concerns of many citizens. This is an important debate as it is important we discuss ideas which involve a large percentage of our people. It is important that the Minister of State and the Government listen to an alternative view of Europe and world politics in general. I am an internationalist and I believe in treating all states with respect and dignity. Sadly, many in this House do not share that view and often dismiss it in these debates.
I have five main concerns about the proposed constitution for Europe. I ask the fundamental questions about the direction the EU is taking and these concerns deserve to be heard in any democratic state. People want to know if the proposed constitution will have primacy over the Irish Constitution and if EU Presidents and Prime Ministers can change the voting system for policy areas without the consent of national Parliament or peoples. They also want to know if the constitution enshrines the concept of a common defence policy and if our human rights can be limited to meet the objectives of general interests recognised by the European Union. People also want straight answers to questions, particularly if the constitution facilitates the commercialisation of health and education. These are the issues I want to deal with in more detail.
Article 1(10) of the constitution states: "The constitution and the law adopted by the union's institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it shall have primacy over the laws of member states." This clearly means that if the proposed constitution is accepted by the Irish electorate at referendum, it will have primacy over the Irish Constitution. We can then no longer consider ourselves independent, but will enjoy a status in international and even domestic affairs akin to that of a state of the US or Australia. We will become a small state in a federal Europe of at least 25 states, with little influence over our future.
Article 1-40(2) unambiguously states: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the union. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides". Article 1-40(3) makes it clear that: "Member States shall make military and civilian capabilities available" to the union, while Article 1-40(1) proposes that "The Union may deploy them on tasks outside the Union". Mutual defence will be a component of common defence, as is made clear in Article 1-40(7). This Article also commits us to increase military spending through our agreement to "undertake progressively to improve military capabilities." If we accept this Constitution, we become constitutionally committed to the achievement of a common defence.
There can be no evasion or turning back. The gradual erosion of military neutrality over a succession of referenda will culminate in our becoming a full and active member of an aggressive military alliance mandated to operate outside its borders and have a mutual defence pact obliging us to give aid and assistance by all means in our military power to any other member state which is a victim of armed aggression on its territory. The only aspect of this scenario which cannot be predicted is how soon it will happen. That will be totally in the hands of the European Council if this constitution is accepted.
Regarding the constitution facilitating the commercialisation of health and education, there is a power of veto on commercialisation — a buzz word for privatisation — of health and education, and cultural services. The proposed constitution moves decisions on trade and these services to qualified majority voting. Article 3-2(171) outlines the common commercial policy as a fundamental element of the EU. It is based on uniform principles regarding the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements related to trade in goods and services and to uniformity in measures of liberalisation. This policy will determine those aspects of service that are commercial and then proceed in secret to liberalise them. There will be no minutes of the Commission or Council debates on these issues as they decide which are the commercial aspects of these services. They would then be empowered to make agreements with the World Trade Organisation, allowing international trade in these services. This measure in the proposed constitution signals the end of social Europe and the increased privileging of those who can afford to pay for basis services. It also opens up a lucrative market in necessary services while at the same time secretly determines the economic and social policies to be followed by member states.
These are the issues that concern me. I urge caution and more informed debate. We are treading a dangerous path if the Government and the three major political parties try pulling the wool over people's eyes.