Before I call on the Parliamentary Secretary, I understand that the White Paper on accession of Ireland to the European Communities will be the subject of a separate debate on a motion which will be taken in the near future. I also understand it has been agreed that on the Bill today we will be dealing with the nature of the constitutional amendment which will be necessary in order to enable the State to become a member of the Communities. In general, matters appropriate to the White Paper will be reserved for the debate on the motion.
An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1971: An Dara Céim. Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1971: Second Stage.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair."
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the amendment of the Constitution so as to enable the State to undertake all of the obligations of membership of the European Communities. The text of the proposed amendment is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Under the procedures laid down in Article 46 of the Constitution the Bill when passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas must be submitted by referendum to the decision of the people.
The people then must decide in the referendum on the question of the specific amendment to the Constitution which is proposed. This could suggest two separate operations. Thus they will have the opportunity to pronounce on the question of vital importance to the nation of whether or not Ireland should join the European Communities.
The proposed constitutional amendment takes the form of a new subsection to be added to section 4 of Article 29 of the Constitution. This subsection provides, firstly, that the State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community established by the Treaty of Paris, the European Economic Community established by the Treaty of Rome and the European Atomic Energy Community established by the second Treaty of Rome; and secondly, that no provision of the Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State and which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities or institutions thereof from having the force of law in the State.
Senators will note—and it is important that this point be emphasised —that the proposed amendment is related solely to the question of membership for Ireland of the three existing European Communities. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to enable us to assume all of the obligations which membership of these three Communities, specifically, will entail. I think that it would be useful if I outlined briefly at this stage the nature of these obligations.
As a member of the European Communities we shall be required to accept the Treaties of Rome and Paris which established the Communities and the legislation enacted by the Communities and their institutions in implementation of the Treaties. Such acceptance will involve for us the implementation and application of the provisions of the Treaties and the other Community legislation and it is herein that the obligations of membership will arise in specific and concrete form.
This Community legislation takes a number of forms. In the case of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community the legislation takes the form of regulations, directives and decisions. Regulations are of general application and are directly applicable in each member state. Directives must be implemented by each member state but it is a matter for the Government of the member state to enact whatever national legislation or take whatever other national measure is necessary to achieve the result prescribed in any directive. Thirdly, there are Community decisions. These must be implemented by those to whom they are addressed—whether it is a Government of a member state or an enterprise or private individual in a member state. Again, it is up to the Government of the member state concerned to enact whatever national legislation or take whatever other national measure may be necessary to ensure that the particular Community decision is given effect to. In so far as the European Coal and Steel Community is concerned, member states are required to implement decisions of the Community while recommendations are binding as to objectives to be achieved but not as to the means to attain them.
The proposed amendment to the Constitution is required to remove the incompatibilities which would otherwise exist between provisions of the Constitution and the application and implementation in this country of certain of the provisions of the Treaties of Rome and Paris and of implementing legislation enacted by the Communities or their institutions. I should, I think, cite for the information of the House some major examples of such incompatibilities.
Article 6.2 of the Constitution states:
These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by the Constitution.
Furthermore, Article 15.2 prescribes:
The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas; no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.
Now, some of the provisions of the Treaties of Rome and Paris are directly applicable in the national law of member states and, as I have mentioned, regulations of the EEC and EURATOM as well as decisions of the ECSC are, similarly, directly applicable in national law. This clearly represents the exercise by the Communities and their institutions of certain legislative powers in respect of each member state in areas covered by the Treaties. In the case of Ireland, there would thus be an incompatibility with Articles 6.2 and 15.2 of the Constitution which I have quoted. The proposed amendment will overcome this incompatibility.
Then there is the position of the European Court of Justice. The court is responsible for ensuring the observance of law in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of Rome and Paris. It shares with the national courts of the member states the task of applying Community law derived from the Treaties and the regulations, directives and decisions made pursuant to the Treaties. The jurisdiction of the court extends to disputes as between member states and between member states and the institutions of the Communities in regard to matters covered by the Treaties. The Court also hears appeals brought by a member state, the Council, the Commission or any individual or body corporate in regard to these matters. I might mention in particular that Article 177 of the EEC Treaty provides for the reference by a court of a member state to the European Court of Justice of questions relating to the interpretation of provisions of the Treaties where such questions arise in cases before the national court.
The jurisdiction and functions of our courts are prescribed in Article 34 of the Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment will ensure that Article 34 will not prevent the European Court of Justice from exercising its jurisdiction and fulfilling its function so far as Ireland is concerned.
Perhaps I may cite one further example. The Community Council of Ministers has the authority under the EEC Treaty to take decisions to conclude international agreements on commercial and related matters between the Community and non-member countries. These agreements are binding on member states. Under the Constitution the function of making international agreements is one for the Government. Moreover, Article 29 of our Constitution provides, inter alia, that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by the Dáil. The provision in the EEC Treaty relating to Council decisions on the conclusion of international agreements could be held to be incompatible with these constitutional provisions. However, the proposed amendment would cover any such incompatibility.
The Government in considering the scope and form of the amendment to the Constitution which should be put to the people had to have the fullest regard to a number of important requirements. In the first place, it was necessary that the proposed amendment should be sufficiently comprehensive to enable this country to fulfil all of the obligations prescribed in the three Treaties and in the great body of the Community legislation which has been enacted in implementation of the Treaties. Secondly, it was important to ensure that the proposed amendment should not be wider in scope than is necessary to enable this country to accede to the three Communities and to fulfil the obligations which membership of these Communities will entail.
A further requirement which the Government considered of considerable importance in the framing of the proposed constitutional amendment was that it should be in a form which will enable the electorate to answer a single question in the referendum by a simple "yes" or "no".
The people would thus be able, while voting on the specific issue of the constitutional amendment, to pronounce in a clear-cut way on the question of membership for Ireland of the European Communities. The Government are fully satisfied that this is what the people want and I feel that there will be general support in this House on this point.
I think that Senators will agree that the constitutional amendment proposed in the Bill now before the House fully meets these three important requirements. The text of the proposed amendment differs in one respect from that which appeared in the Bill as introduced in Dáil Éireann. In the Taoiseach's concluding speech on the Second Stage of the Bill in that House, he said that the Government's primary object was to present to the people for approval an amendment of the Constitution that is best for the country and he gave an assurance that he would examine objectively any amendment to the proposed constitutional amendment that might be put forward on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The Government, in fact, accepted one amendment that was proposed in the Dáil and this is incorporated in the Bill now before this House. The effect of this amendment was to delete the words "consequent on" originally contained in Part II of the Bill and to substitute the words "necessitated by the obligations of" and to make a similar change in the Irish version in Part I of the Bill. However, the scope and purpose of the proposed amendment remain unaltered.
It has been suggested that rather than have an omnibus amendment as is proposed an Article by Article approach should be adopted. This would involve amending specific Articles of the Constitution in order to remove incompatibilities existing between them and the obligations entailed for Ireland in membership of the Communities. I can assure the House that this possible approach to the amendment of the Constitution was examined very carefully by the Government, on the basis of advice tendered by the Attorney General. The Government came to the very clear conclusion that such an approach would have serious disadvantages not the least of which would be its impracticability.
For one thing, an Article by Article form of amendment would fail to satisfy the important requirements that the proposed constitutional amendment should be comprehensive enough to enable Ireland to fulfil all the obligations required by our acceptance of the three Treaties and the body of implementing Community legislation which has flowed from them, while at the same time being sufficiently clear-cut to make the issue readily understandable to the electorate.
There is the further major point, that, if the Constitution was to be amended on an Article by Article basis, it would be very difficult to be sure that all the necessary amendments had been carried out. Only the Supreme Court is competent to decide finally which Articles of the Constitution are incompatible with our assumption of the obligations of membership of the Communities and it may only decide this question on consideration of law already enacted or a Bill referred to it by the President.
It would not therefore be possible to obtain in advance an authoritative identification of the Articles which would require amendment. There would be a further serious disadvantage still in the Article by Article approach. It would result in a situation in which each Article of the Constitution affected would have to be expressed as unaltered for domestic purposes but to read as amended for the purpose of Ireland's membership of the European Communities. This clearly would be undesirable.
I think that the House will agree from what I have said that it would simply not be feasible to adopt the course of amending the Constitution on an Article by Article basis. In contrast, the approach adopted in the Bill is practicable and relatively simple and will ensure that the Constitution will be amended to the extent and only to the extent necessary to enable the State to accede to the European Communities and to assume the obligations thereof.
There is one final but very important point which I wish to make and I am most anxious that there should not be the slightest misunderstanding about it. The proposed constitutional amendment is concerned with the Treaties of Rome and Paris and with the three Communities which were established by these Treaties, that is, the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. The constitutional amendment is required to enable us to become members of these three Communities and these three Communities only and to accept the three Treaties of Rome and Paris and no other, either present or in the future. These three Treaties are concerned only with economic, commercial and related social matters.
The proposed amendment would in no way bind this country to the acceptance of obligations falling outside the scope of the three present Treaties. It may be that the member states of the enlarged Community will eventually agree on the creation of a new political community evolving from the present three Communities and in pursuance of the long-term political aims of the founders of these Communities. The creation of such a political community would require a new and separate Treaty to which those states wishing to participate in it would have to become parties. The question of Ireland becoming a party to such a Treaty would, of course, be subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann. Furthermore, depending on the form and nature of the political community created and the commitments involved for the member countries therein, the question of this country's adherence to it might well have to be put to the people in a separate amendment to the Constitution.
I commend the Bill to the House.
This Bill is designed as a global omnibus amendment to the Constitution. It does not, as the Parliamentary Secretary has explained, spell out precisely which Articles of the Constitution will be affected, and as originally introduced the Bill seemed to go a lot further than was strictly necessary and to give carte blanche for the enactment of any laws without any risk of constitutional challenge, that is, to challenge on the grounds of un-constitutionality any laws which might be designated as consequent upon membership. This danger has been removed by the amendment made in the Dáil to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred, and the position has been safeguarded by the acceptance of the Fine Gael amendment in the Dáil.
It is still desirable to know in what respect the Constitution will be affected by this amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has covered the ground in that regard fairly well. He also mentioned that it was open to the Government to propose an amendment which would detail the various Articles of the Constitution requiring amendment. There was a strong view at one time that that might be the right way to set about this and that it would be the best thing in the long run that everyone should know precisely, when voting in the referendum, just which Articles of the Constitution will be affected.
On balance I go along with the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. If this Bill were framed so as to spell out in precise detail the Articles requiring amendment, there would be complications and there would be the risk, however slight, of some Article being overlooked, and the whole trouble and expense involved in the referendum might be nullified. It would also be very difficult to frame an uncomplicated question for the purposes of voting at the referendum if it has been decided to deal with this on the Article by Article basis to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred.
The necessity to amend the Constitution arises from various aspects of the Treaties which establish the Communities which it is proposed we should join. Generally speaking the Treaties provide only a framework for achieving their aims and they leave the implementation of the aims to the institutions which were created by the Treaties. These are the Treaties establishing EEC, EURATOM and the Coal and Steel Community. The two Treaties establishing EEC and the European Atomic Energy Community give power to the Council and to the Commission to make provisions of different kinds, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. They may exercise these powers by the making of regulations or the giving of directives or decisions.
When regulations are made they apply directly in member states without any further legislative enactment by the member states. The directives must be implemented by the member states and their implementation will require member states to adopt any legislative measures which may be necessary for their implementation. The decisions must be carried out by those to whom they are given, and in the case of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty the Commission also have the power to take decisions which would apply directly to member states. To that extent in relation to that particular Treaty, decisions so taken by the Commission are on a par with directives.
The various Treaties contain certain provisions which are directly applicable to the national law in the various member states. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, under our Constitution, Article 15, the Oireachtas is the sole law-making authority of this State.
The fact that some of the community laws and directives will apply directly to member states, immediately necessitates an amendment so far as Article 15 of our Constitution is concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned also the question of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice is common to all three Communities—the EEC, EURATOM and the Coal and Steel Community— and the Court of Justice thus established has very definite functions in relation to the Treaties. It has the function of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the Treaties. Anyone in any member state may have recourse to the Court of Justice of the Communities in respect of any decisions of the Communities which may affect him. The position under Article 34 of our Constitution spells out that justice must be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in accordance with our Constitution. Therefore, the mere existence of the European Court of Justice carrying out the functions which it has to carry out by virtue of these Treaties would also necessitate an amendment so far as we are concerned in Article 34 of our Constitution.
Also in relation to the European Court of Justice, and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned this in his speech, the EEC Treaty provides that certain matters, if they are raised before a domestic court from whose decision there is no appeal under domestic law, must be referred by the domestic court to the European Court of Justice. The particular matters which it is obligatory to refer to the European Court of Justice in the circumstances I have mentioned are questions concerning the interpretation of the Treaty, questions concerning the validity of the acts of the Community institutions, questions concerning the interpretation of the acts of the Community institutions and finally the interpretation of the statutes of bodies which are set up by the Council. The Treaty requires that in certain circumstances those must be referred to the European Court. Again, under Article 34 of our Constitution we provide that the decision of the Supreme Court in this country will in all cases be final and conclusive. Obviously, an amendment to that particular article in relation to the conclusiveness of Supreme Court decisions is also required if we are to become a member of the Common Market.
The Parliamentary Secretary has also pointed out, quite correctly, that under the EEC Treaty agreements may be concluded between the European Community and non-member states. Once those treaties are concluded they are binding on all member states of the Community. Here again Article 29 of our Constitution provides that this State cannot be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of that agreement have been approved by the Dáil. Another section of Article 29 provides that no international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas. Here again, in relation to Article 29 of the Constitution as regards treaties, obviously membership of the Community is going to necessitate an amendment of our Constitution.
I hope I have mentioned all of the Articles in the Constitution which seem to me to require amendment because each of those articles is in some degree incompatible with certain of the provisions of the Community laws. Obviously, if we are to become a member of the Community those incompatibilities must be removed. I have some doubt, and I do not wish to introduce a red herring here, as to whether Article 5, which defines Ireland as a sovereign, democratic, independent state, would in any way be affected. Whatever degree of loss of sovereignty might be involved by membership does not diminish our status in any way as a sovereign state and whatever we agree voluntarily to do by way of limitation is also agreed by other members of the Community. Any international agreement involves to some extent a derogation from the sovereignty of the state entering into it to the extent that restrictions of one sort or another may be accepted. I do not really regard Article 5 as being affected by this Bill or by membership of the Common Market, if we become a member.
The Bill, as amended in the Dáil, relates specifically to matters necessitated by the obligations of membership. It does not bind us to accept any obligations which do not come within the scope of the Treaties. The Parliamentary Secretary rightly emphasised that point and it is one that deserves to be emphasised.
Finally, I should like to say that it is absolutely clear that, because of the direct application to member states of the Community regulations and those provisions of the Treaties which are directly applicable to member states, it becomes necessary for us at some stage to enact the Treaties into our own domestic law. So far as the present Bill is concerned, those who favour membership of the Common Market will favour this Bill as a reasonable way of submitting the question to the people. Presumably, those who are against membership of the Common Market would be against this Bill not so much because of its terms, but I assume they would oppose any Bill which would frame a question on membership for submission.
Senator O'Higgins said he presumed that anybody who was against entry into the Common Market would be against this Bill. Perhaps his assumption is correct. But an advocate of membership of the Common Market need not necessarily be in favour of this Bill. One could be in favour of joining the Common Market but against the principles of the Bill. I am opposed, along with my party, to membership of the EEC. It is difficult, at this point of time, to decide whether this is a Government Bill or a Fine Gael Bill but one thing is certain : it is a combination of the efforts of the two major political parties to get us into the EEC. The effect of this Bill will be to ask the people to give a blank cheque to the Government and to those who are in favour of our joining the EEC.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in his statement, has given us many assurances as to how this omnibus Bill will enable the public to vote on a straight "yes" or "no" basis on referendum day. He has assured us that the Bill affects only the three Treaties concerning social, economic and related matters. But what guarantee have we received from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government or even from Senator O'Higgins that our neutrality or sovereignty will not be affected by the blank cheque which we are asking the people to give to this Government or, indeed, to any future Government? It appears that the protagonists of the EEC in this country are prepared to risk anything and everything in their efforts to join the EEC.
I do not believe any of us can agree that we should ask the people to change or perhaps jettison the Constitution in this way. In effect, we are asking the people to suspend the Constitution. During the next few years we will be able to observe the effect of membership on the Articles of our Constitution. We seem to think that it will be all right to preserve whatever Articles will not be affected by our entry. This is not the way the people should be asked to make a very important decision as to the future of our Constitution. In effect, we seem to be asking them to scrap the Constitution in order that we may be able to negotiate entry, see what Articles will be affected as a result of our membership and then return to the people and say: "Certain Articles have been affected by our membership. This is the part of the Constitution left to us and we hope you will accept it." We are prepared to ask the people to give us permission to risk some Articles of our Constitution and yet we have not the courage to effect any amendment in our Constitution to enable the minority to take their rightful place under our Constitution.
I am opposed to this Bill. I regret that I cannot join with the parties on the right and left here who have committed themselves to membership of the EEC and are prepared to risk the Constitution introduced many years ago. They seem to be prepared now to throw the Constitution overboard.
I think it is necessary —and I feel sure it will be necessary again and again between now and the referendum—to repeat that we are not scrapping the Constitution. This kind of emotive approach to what is proposed in the referendum is quite wrong and quite exaggerated and bears no relation to reality. We propose, if we join the EEC, to undertake certain obligations which are clearly set down in the three Treaties which have been mentioned; no more than that. It is not a question of our handing over the government of the country to Brussels and possibly taking back the power of local administration. We are merely saying that we are willing to be bound by the obligations laid down under the three Treaties. Those obligations are very limited in the sense that they deal only with economic matters, the free movement of goods, people and capital, customs barriers outside the Community and a common agricultural policy. They cover a very limited sphere.
It is true that they will have very wide effects from an economic point of view, but in so far as the obligations are concerned they are in a very limited sphere. There is no question whatever of scrapping the Constitution. When people express legitimate fears about the effect on the Constitution I think most people would be thinking in terms of the parts of the Constitution which deal with the liberties and rights of the individual as laid down in our Constitution. It is quite clear that those rights will in no way be affected by what is proposed in this amendment. Three Articles of the Constitution will be affected, but these form a very small part of the Constitution. The bulk of the Constitution will be unaffected. The parts of the Constitution dealing with people's liberties and rights will be completely unaffected and will continue to be operative.
The Supreme Court, which is the guardian of the Constitution, will remain the guardian of the Constitution. It is for them to say whether any particular law by which we will be bound is in fact necessitated by our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. If they say it is not necessitated then we are not bound by it. Consequently, it is essential that we should understand exactly what we are obliged to do as a result of this amendment. On the one hand, we should fully appreciate what we are doing, and the importance of what we are doing; on the other hand, we should not exaggerate or distort what is being done.
Senator Fitzgerald made the suggestion that our neutrality might be affected by this. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome or in the other Treaties about neutrality, so there is no question whatever of our neutrality being affected by this amendment. If at some time in the future the European Community propose that their powers and so on should be extended and that there should be some kind of political union, this would of course have to be agreed by all the governments. It would have to come back to the Dáil and Seanad, and it would almost certainly have to be the subject of a referendum. In the meantime there is no question whatever of our neutrality being affected by what is proposed to be done in this referendum. It is essential that we should keep this firmly before us. I am sure we shall have to repeat it many times and if necessary we will repeat it many times.
It is very important to remember at all times that we are not deciding in this House—and the other House could not decide—the outcome of this referendum. We are merely discussing the form which the referendum should take. The only regret I have is that some indication of the final form of the referendum could not be given to the House. This is merely an omnibus form of resolution to provide that certain alterations in certain of the Articles of the Constitution can be made to provide for the obligations that we have agreed to undertake by joining the three Communities. It should be spelled out again quite clearly that we are joining three Communities : one Community dealing with economic and social affairs; one dealing with atomic energy and one with steel and coal. We are not asking the people to agree to alterations in the Constitution that would obligate us to join any other community that might be evolved at a future date dealing with foreign affairs, defence or political institutions.
I think I am correct in saying that this country could, if the referendum is passed by the people, agree to join the three Communities now in existence and, at a future date and in a future referendum, could turn down or refuse to join communities dealing with political, foreign affairs or matters of defence. After experience of the membership of the Economic Communities for a period of years, I hope we would be prepared to accept further obligations, particularly those dealing with political issues. The founders of the European Economic Community visualised that in time the states of Europe would be joined together by political institutions. It therefore seems logical and reasonable to assume that at some future date proposals will come before the member countries to approve certain political institutions. Assuming we join the EEC, by that time we shall have sufficient experience to decide whether we, as an independent sovereign state, desire to join any further communities attached to the EEC.
The three reasons the Parliamentary Secretary spelled out in his statement put the position quite clearly. He stated that in the first place it was necessary that the proposed amendment should be sufficiently comprehensive to enable this country to fulfil all of its obligations prescribed in the three Treaties and in the great body of the Community legislation which has been enacted in full implementation of the Treaties. Secondly, it is important to ensure that the proposed amendment should not be wider in scope— it is very important to underline that —than is necessary to enable this country to accede to the three Communities, and to fulfil the obligations which membership of these Communities entail. A further requirement which the Government considered of great importance in the framing of the proposed constitutional amendment was that it should be in a form which will enable the electorate to answer a single question in the referendum by a simple "Yes" or "No". It was this further requirement that prompted my query a few moments ago to the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication as to the final form in which the referendum question will be put to the electorate. Will they be asked broadly to agree or not to joining the European Economic Community, and if so, thereby agreeing to the consequent changes in the Constitution? In other words, whether you are a pro-mar-keteer or an anti-marketeer, everybody in this House would agree that we want the Irish people to decide, in full knowledge, whether they want this country to join the EEC. None of us would wish any ambiguity or any misunderstanding about the form of referendum. That is why I think it is very important that even the simplest of the electors should be in full possession of the implications involved in putting his or her "Yes" or "No" on the ballot paper. It is probably the most momentous decision that this country will have to make since the foundation of the State. Therefore, it is only right and proper that all our people should be fully informed as to the implications and the decision of their vote.
I would like to refer to one other matter. If you want to join a community, whether as an individual or as a group, whether it is a religious community or a political community, or merely a social club, you must agree to accept certain obligations of membership. If you do not agree or you feel that, having joined, you do not wish to continue to be a member of the group or community, the proper course then is to resign. If this country decides, after a period, that it does not wish to continue as a member of the European Communities, it can, by not acceding to the rules and by not carrying out the obligations, cease to be a member. This is important and should be spelled out. It is very important that the question is put clearly to the people and that whether one is against or for the Community, the implications should be clearly spelled out to the people in the campaign which will be starting during the coming weeks. Efforts should not be made to cloud the issue by—as Senator Ryan said, quite rightly—emotive issues being dragged in, or by issues that are quite outside the facts of the situation. We are being asked to amend our Constitution only in so far as it is necessitated by this country's desire to join and to accept the obligations of the three existing European Communities. That is the fundamental question and nothing else. No other irrelevant matter should be dragged into the debate in this House or into the campaign that will be carried out during the coming weeks.
Is Bille é seo a léiríonn go soiléir don phobal cad is gá dóibh a dhéanamh chun bheith ina mbaill de Chomhphobal na hEorpa. Más toil linn dul isteach níl le déanamh againn ach é sin a chur in iúl san reifreann. Má ghlacaimid sa reifreann bheith in ár mbaill de Chomhphobal na hEorpa tré bhitin an Bhille seo, is feidir linn pé athrú is gá a dhéanamh ar an mBunreacht. Tá mé féin i bhfábhar beith sa Chomhmhargadh agus da bhrí sin táim i bhfábhar an Bhille seo, agus cuirim fáilte roimhe.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide a means for deciding on the question of membership of the European Community. If we believe that membership of Europe is the way ahead, and I myself believe it is, then it is our duty as legislators to provide the means whereby the electorate may decide on that question, namely, by referendum. Once this Bill is passed and a referendum is arranged it will then be the duty of each one of us, as public representatives, to carry our convictions to the electorate. My conviction is in favour of membership of the European Community and, once this Bill is passed, I will consider it my duty to try and convince the electorate in favour of it.
The debate on this Bill is very limited, being restricted to the terms of the Bill and precluding any wide-ranging discussion on the event of membership and so on. We accept the assurance of the Leader of the House that ample opportunity will be provided shortly for a full-scale debate on this very important subject. Consequently I do not think we should allow this Bill to pass unless we are in favour of what is proposed. That is the attitude that was taken by the Leader of the Labour Party. Having examined what has been the restrictive nature of the commitment involved at this stage I am in favour of the proposal. By and large, the Government have done quite a reasonable job of the negotiations and deserve our congratulations on the end results achieved. We should approve the necessary steps following from that, one being the putting of the question to the electorate necessitated by the changes in the Constitution, or any other changes which may result from membership of the three Communities.
We should welcome the fact that there is going to be a referendum, especially when we see the dissatisfaction in England that a parliamentary majority was allowed to decide such an important question without it being referred to the people. Why are Governments, including our own, not more open with the people by referring important questions for referenda to them? Whether the question of membership necessitated changing the Constitution or not, it is such a big event in the life of our nation that the people should have a say in the decision. I am pleased that the question will be couched in the simplest possible language, requiring a simple "Yes" or "No".
The Government's handling of this question has been rather clumsy. In putting this question, they should have obtained agreement earlier and the acrimony that went on in Dáil Éireann, consequent on the overextended type of agreement that was proposed originally, would have been avoided. I would be very unhappy to see the original form of amendment being put to the people as a means of changing the Constitution. The form of amendment proposed now, "necessitated by the obligations of membership in the three Communities," is much more restrictive and specific but is still adequate for what is required at the present stage.
I agree with Senator Ryan that we should not give way to the expression of extravagant phrases such as "scrapping the Constitution" and so on. In fact, the change asked for is a very specific one. It is only related to such actions as can be shown to be necessary by the obligations of membership of the three Communities mentioned. It is up to the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, to rule anything else unconstitutional. Any groups within the country that feel there is a challenge involved either in our neutrality, foreign policy or any other matter in the political field, have a remedy, because if any directive comes within those particular areas then it is automatically outside the scope of the three Treaties mentioned and consequently they can refer such a directive to our Supreme Court.
There can be no question at this stage that this amendment involves any political or defence commitment. What is implied is the declared intention of the members of the European Economic Community to work towards a closer political union. But such a development will of necessity be quite long-term in the sense of at least ten years, probably 15 years. Quite obviously it will then have to come forth as a very formal treaty implying very definite obligations in the political field. As it is, it would be a brave man today who would venture to predict what the world is going to be in ten or 15 years' time. It would be a brave man who would venture to say what would be the correct course of action for ten or 15 years' time. Indeed, I would not like to feel that today we had to take a decision based on what the world would probably be like in ten or 15 years' time. Consequently it is highly satisfactory that the amendment proposed relates only to the specific obligations under the three Treaties concerned, those dealing with the economic and social obligations following from it.
On the other hand, if we become members we have representatives in all the decision-making bodies, in all the planning bodies and consequently we have at all stages our voice in the shape of the future and the future is being shaped in the context of both the European and the international situation as it appears at the time. Therefore we would like to feel that we were part and parcel of this shaping of our world. On the other hand, our Constitution provides a very real safeguard to us in that any new treaty which emerges will have to come back for ratification here but, more important still, it will have to come back to be accepted or rejected in a referendum by the Irish people. Our Constitution provides that tremendous safeguard. When it does come back, then there will be an opportunity of evaluating and assessing the developments of the previous period of cooperation and assessing the future prospect and making a decision based on that. Of course, a decision not to participate in the political implications of the EEC would automatically be a decision of opting out at that stage. But I, for one, would not like to say at this stage whether in ten or 15 years' time opting out might or might not be a right course. I am glad we will have that facility.
I hope that, in any change which is made in our Constitution in the intervening period, the right to have a referendum on such an important matter will be safeguarded. Indeed, I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary in his statement here—which is otherwise an excellent statement—at the end of which he was rather non-committal about such a referendum. He said that the creation of such a political community would require a new and separate treaty. We all accept that. But then he goes on to say afterwards: "The question of this country's adherence to it might well have to be put to the people in a separate amendment of the Constitution." I cannot see why there should be any uncertainty about that. If it does involve a new treaty, surely the present amendment only covers three named Treaties and that could not be extended to a fourth or any other treaty without making the corresponding change in the Constitution.
I see Senator Ryan went stronger than the Parliamentary Secretary and said it would almost certainly have to be put to the people. But I would like a commitment from the Government in this debate that they are going to put this to the people. All the logic of it— indeed if we have the advice of the Attorney General or anybody else on it—demands that any new treaty is outside the scope of the Treaties mentioned in this change of the Constitution. Therefore any new treaty would have to be the subject of another referendum. I would like, then, the Government to state that fact boldly and to state it is their intention as a political party—I know they cannot bind their successors—that any subsequent treaty will have to be put to the people. Why not make a virtue of necessity because it will have to be put in any case?
Senator Fitzgerald spoke of giving a blank cheque to the Government. It does not do the Labour Party's position any good to use such phrases because the amount of power that is given is quite specific—no more or no less than what can be construed by the Supreme Court as being necessitated by the three Treaties involved. I hope Senator Fitzgerald will take a much more precise attitude to the issues at stake in the subsequent development. Indeed, we would all want to see that the public are not in any way subject to this type of mass emotion-rousing by the far too wide and extravagant statement of what is involved. The issue is too serious for extravagance and we now await the putting of the question. We hope the question will be put in the form suggested by Senator Russell: "Are you in favour of joining the European Economic Community?" so that there can be a clear "Yes" or "No" answer.
I agree also with Senator Russell that when a nation opts out of the agreement to join the European Economic Community that if there is a de facto opting out and the nation refuses to carry out obligations imposed by the Communities, there could be no question of military sanctions or any other such compulsion to carry on. It is important to realise that, while the Treaty does not provide for any means of relinquishing membership, on the other hand, failure to carry out obligations under what is an economic agreement does automatically mean virtual cessation of membership. I should like to raise one point on the measure as proposed. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten us as to whether the second sentence is specific enough. The first says:
The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
That is number one.
No provision in this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adapted necessitated by the obligation of membership of the Community.
I wonder whether it is sufficiently clear that the Communities mentioned in the second part are the three that have been specifically named in the first. Generally in legislation you find that the Minister defines the Communities or you expect to find them defined. I would have thought it would be much clearer if it said:
...the obligation of membership of the above-named Communities.
I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's views on that. Otherwise I think we can commend the Bill to the House and we look forward to a full-scale debate in Seanad Éireann on the pros and cons of entry to the European Economic Community.
I should like to say a few words on this most important piece of legislation. First of all, if I could comment on some of the points raised by Senator Quinlan. May I say how much I welcome his general statement now of his commitment to Irish entry to the EEC and his satisfaction with the terms negotiated. I recall that not so long ago when he spoke on this matter he expressed some reservations and indicated to us that an independent team of academics, I think, at University College, Cork, would study Irish entry to the EEC. It is a matter much to be welcomed that he has indicated his point of view to the House today, no doubt with the full backing of this study group.
I speak as an individual.
Having said that, I was also interested in some of the other points he made. I think perhaps his last point of detail was almost a Committee Stage point, if one could imagine such a thing where a Bill as brief as this is concerned. It seems to me that, since the two sentences of the Bill occur in the one section, and since the words used in the second sentence are "the Communities" with a capital "C" they must certainly be taken as referring to the Communities itemised in the first sentence. I think the Senator is being unnecessarily apprehensive in this regard.
One of the things that disturbs me about Senator Quinlan's contribution was something which disturbs me about many contributions to debates on Irish entry to the EEC I hesitate to say this to a man who is an engineer, so to speak, but it seems to me to show a lack of appreciation of the fact that we are discussing this Bill in the context of a dynamic situation where all the factors involved are shifting and may change constantly over the years. This is one of the things that make it very difficult for us to predict the future. In looking to the future implications of this legislation we have to be all the time aware of a number of varying possibilities which may interrelate in different ways.
I think Senator Quinlan fell into the trap of ignoring the dynamics of this situation when he tried to show up an incompatibility, as he saw it, in what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the possibility of a further referendum if the existing European Economic Community advanced toward a political situation which would require a new treaty to set up a political institution. He felt it was inappropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary to hedge this with "ifs" and "buts" but he noted that Senator Ryan gave a categorical assurance that such a referendum——
Not categorical. I said "almost certainly".
An almost categorical assurance to the House that such a referendum would be necessary. May I say that there is no incompatability here because the only way in which one could give a categorical assurance that a referendum would have to be held should a new European Treaty be proposed, would rest on the assumption that we at that time, whenever it might be, would ourselves still have a Constitution making it necessary to have a referndum.
I asked to safeguard that in any changes in the Constitution.
Again, I am happy to have from the Senator a necessary qualification.
No. I said that in my speech. The Senator must not have been listening.
If I might continue on this point. I think the previous speaker, and indeed most other speakers, really fail to wrestle not only with the potentiality for change in Europe but also to feed in the possibilities of constitutional change here at home. I think this is something we must always bear in mind: that, although we are passing legislation which affects our Constitution in a most vital way, it is completely wrong of us to pretend that there is something sacrosanct about our own present Constitution and to pretend that this is something that will be with us for all time.
It is pretty good. It saved PR on two occasions and that was a pretty big achievement.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Keery on the present Bill and the present proposed amendment.
Certainly I do not think one can discuss a Bill to amend the Constitution without reference to our present Constitution and its future development. I should like to make the point that I think the concern of the Labour Party for our Constitution is a completely bogus concern, because the Labour Party suggestion about the present Bill is that it in some way throws the Constitution out the window. I think what they mean by that is that it somehow takes away from Parliament and people any control over decisions which may be taken as part of our membership of the European Economic Community.
Why I say that concern is bogus is that, as so often happens, they do not follow the logic of their argument. The logic of their argument, particularly faced with the practical realities of politics here at the moment, is that this Bill will become law and will be put to the people. If the Labour Party are at all concerned to contemplate, as they must, the virtual certainty that the Bill will then be further endorsed in the referendum, I would have thought that they should show a major practical concern for indicating ways in which, inside the European Economic Community, they can ensure the maximum control by Parliament and people of decisions made in the course of membership of the EEC.
This is an important area of debate which was completely ignored in Dáil Éireann and was also ignored by the Labour Party in this House. As a European democrat looking toward the future development of Europe, I should like to say that this is one of the most interesting and challenging things facing us. Not only do we contemplate a Europe in which the political institutions will change and develop, but here at home we must always be alive to the implications of such European developments and to any institutional change which would help to ensure that Parliament and people have as strong a voice as possible on decisions necessitated by membership of the EEC.
I should like to state categorically a number of points which are relevant here. By making the decision to accept this legislation and by making a future decision on the terms negotiated, Parliament and the people voting in the referendum will decide for or against joining the EEC. One must reject any suggestion that there is no way of getting out of the EEC by stressing that membership of the EEC will always depend on the national assent of Parliament to continue that membership. In order to end any agreement or treaty obligation Parliament can make a decision that we are withdrawing and are no longer continuing our membership of these institutions. That is the final defence that this country has of its future integrity inside the EEC.
Concern is being expressed, particularly where the Supreme Court is concerned, about the impossible implications of this Bill on the sections of our Constitution dealing with the powers of the Supreme Court. Senator Ryan has dealt extremely well with this point; and it was made quite clear in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech that the activities of the European Court of Justice can only relate to the interpretation of provisions of the Treaties mentioned in the legislation and that that is the sole context in which it can operate.
In the White Paper published by the British Government in July, 1971, on the United Kingdom and the European Communities, they made a point which can apply here in a fellow Common Law country. They stated in paragraph 31:
The Common Law will remain the basis of our legal system and our courts will continue to operate as they do at present. All the essential features of our law will remain including the safeguards for individual freedom such as trial by jury and habeas corpus and the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty, the law of landlord and tenant, family law and nationality law and land law.
The essential domestic matters of legislation remain inside the Community exactly as they are now. They are a matter for our courts and institutions.
A number of speakers made the point about the need for a referendum if a new treaty should appear in Europe and expressed concern that our institutions should be adequate to examine and scrutinise any developments which may be necessitated by membership of the EEC. These matters are often spoken of in a general popular debating way, which is often the only way in which entry into the EEC has been discussed. It appears to me that there has been little attempt made to study the details of the basic documents. I am thinking particularly of the Roman Treaty.
It is worth drawing the attention of the House to Articles 236 and 237 of the Treaty of Rome, where it is made quite clear that, should any amendment be proposed to the Treaty of Rome or in the case of the admission of further members to the EEC, such amendment or such admission shall enter into force after being ratified by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional rules. If Senator Quinlan was looking for guarantees about what may happen in the dynamic future, I suggest the type of guarantee he seeks lies in the Treaty of Rome referred to in this Bill much more than in what might be our Constitution at that time.
I ask the Government to give that guarantee.
Could I make it clear that no Government guarantee is required if we believe in this House that the wording of the legislation passed by Parliament is the crucial test. This Bill refers specifically to the Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957, and I was quoting from an official translation of that Treaty. "Such amendments", that is amendments of the Treaty, "shall enter into force after being ratified by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional rules". It is not a matter for Government. It is a matter for Parliament and Treaty obligation. On this point it is interesting to note that when a question of some change or important modification arose in the EEC and it was decided to merge the institutions of the three Communities in 1965, that merger Treaty was ratified by the parliaments of the member states. This is another indication of national control.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech spelled out the difference between regulations, directives and decisions. In the case of directives and decisions of the EEC, parliamentary control, control by the people and by the Oireachtas and through parliamentary question, and soon is, in effect, built into the definition of directives as these are matters to be implemented by each member state or other body as appropriate. The business of implementing directives and decisions would come up for public scrutiny in the same way as any item of domestic legislation comes up for scrutiny at present.
Existing and future regulations of the EEC will be of general application and directly applicable in each member state. This is where I should have thought the Labour Party, if they had any legitimate concern, would have shown some degree of interest. I would be interested in any views the Government may have on this. I am sure they are very conscious of their responsibility here that it is desirable that decisions made by the Council of Ministers, when Ireland is a member of the European Economic Community, should at least be open to parliamentary debate and question. It is a difficult and tricky area. I am not fully aware of all the practicalities and problems involved, but at least I am raising an important question which is more than the Labour Party have shown themselves concerned to do.
I only make these points in a very brief way, because we will be preparing for a much fuller debate on the White Paper and aspects of Irish entry. But it seems to me that an informed understanding of this Bill and of the future debate depends on an informed Parliament. I hope the Government will do everything possible to make sure, through the Library of the Oireachtas or elsewhere, that all possible information on developments in Europe come to the attention of our Parliament. If we follow through, as I am certain we will, the implications of this legislation today, when we are members of the European Economic Community it will be vital that Members of Parliament have ready access to whatever documentation may be published by the Community. All of us who want to scrutinise and keep track of what is happening in Europe should be fully informed and fully aware of what is happening inside the European Economic Community.
May I say in passing that it is possible that this again is an example of an area in which we will need institutional flexibility. I hope the Committee at present sitting on Dáil Procedure will be aware of these problems, as I suggested they should be in a memorandum to the committee, and will have a look at the implications for the eventual scrutiny by Dáil Éireann—I am sorry they are not including Seanad Éireann—of the continuing development of the European Economic Community.
It is difficult to know what is relevant to this debate but, as I understand it, the procedure under the Treaty of Rome is that the formation of the European Parliament at the moment is made by nominations from national parliaments. I have referred to the role and the value of the Seanad and I feel the Seanad as a House should not allow the readily accepted idea to continue that membership of the European Parliament, where Ireland is concerned, will only come from Dáil Éireann. Nominees to the European Parliament should come from the Irish Parliament, and the Seanad might be able to make a contribution. I raise this point in passing and I feel it is something with which this House should concern itself.
I was glad to read in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech his reference to the consideration the Government had given to the possibility of dealing with the problem, which is behind this legislation today, of itemising the possible constitutional changes which might be necessitated by membership of the European Economic Community. I accept it is important that this Bill is a practical and relatively simple one. As the Attorney General has made a study of this at some stage, and I am not quite clear what status such a document would have, it would be extremely valuable, particularly for Members of the Oireachtas and for people with a special interest and concern in these matters, if a memorandum could be published indicating the findings of the Attorney General in this matter, indicating what in his view were the items in our Constituton which might be affected and indicating what changes in our legislation would be necessitated by entry into the European Economic Community.
I take the point that there are severe practical difficulties. I note that in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where they have written Constitutions, when they joined the European Economic Community they made a very general change similar to the change we are making now in our Constitution. Perhaps there is something to be learned from the precedents set by the Netherlands and Luxembourg in this regard. I should like to suggest to the Government that a schedule or memorandum of the kind to which I have referred would be extremely valuable, particularly to our Parliament which I hope, as it is now, will continue inside the European Economic Community to be the most significant and important decision-making body where this country is concerned.
I wish to welcome this Bill. We should be thankful that we have a formal written Constitution that we can amend. It is a good thing that the amending of it will be by referendum and choice of the people. Every decade will bring to light a number of people who will find fault, violently or otherwise, with some particular sections of the existing Constitution. It is accepted now in most circles that the original Constitution of 1922 has more to recommend it than our present Constitution of 1937.
I should like to remind people who are in favour of this amendment, as I am, that when legitimate questions are asked or legitimate fears are expressed, as we heard today from the speakers for the Labour Party, these people should not be attacked but rather we should bend our minds and our backs to answering the questions and legitimate points raised. If this Third Amendment to the Constitution is approved by the people we will all be going into a greater united Europe. We will all be affected, whichever way the decision of the people goes. All misunderstanding and misrepresentation must be cleared up to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the people, so that their minds may be at ease and that we may better be able to provide for our country and ourselves in the years immediately ahead.
Last October, when the Seanad delegation went to Strasbourg to study the procedure of the European Parliament, I got the impression that the smaller member countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, were particularly anxious that we, another small country, should become a member of the Community. Those people know that we will have a lot in common with them. With the proposed enlargement of the Community to ten members we will have much in common with our smaller European neighbours.
We are told that our joining the EEC will result in a watering down of our sovereignty, but surely this is a matter that affects each of the ten member States. The Federal Republic of Germany has 61 million people, the United Kingdom has more than 50 million people; Norway, one of the new applicant countries, has four million people and we are at the bottom of the list with a population of three million. If the argument that we are in danger of losing our sovereignty is correct, surely it applies equally validly to the 250 million people living in the ten member states? We should look at this whole question calmly, and rather than meet violent opposition with violence, as some people would like us to do, we should turn our minds to allaying the fears of those who are opposed to our entry.
It is very necessary to remind the people who are not in favour of our joining the EEC that membership of the European Parliament, Commission and the Council of Ministers will give small countries, such as ours, a fair representation. The position and interests of small member countries will be safeguarded and ensured. I believe we have nothing whatsoever to fear in entering Europe. In our discussions with the members of the European Parliament it was quite evident that the present EEC countries—Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany in particular —were looking forward to an enlarged Europe. Since the EEC was founded in 1958 statistics have proved that membership of the EEC has greatly helped the countries who became members at its foundation. Those countries who look forward to a united Europe see the tremendous potential it offers. If we enter Europe prepared to work hard we will be doing a good day's work for our country.
Under our present Constitution, which was enacted in 1937, there are many Articles that could well be amended or looked at a new. After 35 years in force I believe that the Constitution should be reviewed and updated. If we accept that a written Constitution is still 100 per cent valid, especially if it is a Constitution as detailed as ours, one would be conceding that our country is almost standing still. Many things are changing rapidly and we must be seen to move with the times. That is not to say that we should lower our values or ideals in the least. Nevertheless, with new technology of one kind or another we should at least be big enough to have a straightforward look at the rules we have laid down for our society in our present Constitution.
Technology in what areas?
With those few words, I indicate my support of the Bill. I would urge the leader of the House to give us an early opportunity of discussing in greater detail the entire question of Ireland's accession to the EEC. It is most important that we should have such an opportunity before the referendum campaign takes place. Perhaps the House might consider giving us this opportunity within the next few weeks.
This Bill is before us today because of the constitutional requirement that anything which affects our Constitution must be first passed in the form of a Bill by the Houses of the Oireachtas and then submitted by way of referendum to the people. Like Senator Quinlan, I welcome this position. Those of us who are firm advocates for not only our entry into the Community but our playing a full part therein might, on first looking at the problem, feel that this procedure is an unnecessary burden. But if we look at it more closely those of us who are fervently pro-European realise that this requirement, quite apart from its general merits taken in isolation, is something which is particularly valuable in this instance.
If we were to enter the Community merely after parliamentary discussion and parliamentary decision without the people being involved by a nationwide debate and a national referendum, I think we would be entering the Community ill prepared for the role we have to play within it. The essence of the Community is opportunity. As Senator Keery mentioned earlier, the Community which we seek to enter, and for which we now seek to amend the Constitution so that we may enter, is a dynamic body in a changing world. It is proper that the people should be fully involved in this decision, not only so that our constitutional requirements might be met but so that we would, when we enter the Community, do so as a people who are substantially committed to its ideals, who understand the obligations and the opportunities concerned and who, as it were, enter the Community with a degree of national momentum.
In regard to the proposals which are in the Bill, it is on the whole a pity that it is not possible for the Bill to be more specific. There might be less misunderstanding about the nature of the constitutional provision here if it were possible to schedule certain Articles, sections and subsections as being the parts of the Constitution affected, and be able to say clearly and forever that these would be the only parts which would be affected. But the very constitutional provisions that make the question of constitutional amendment a matter for the people are the very provisions that impede that appeal to the people being made in as specific a way.
There are elaborate provisions in our Constitution which provide that the President is not allowed to sign a Bill of this nature before it has been referred to the people. The very provisions that remove from this Parliament and from the hands of the Government the interpretation of the Constitution and leave this in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is outside the law-making process of the President and Houses of the Oireachtas, these provisions make it impracticable for us to legislate this particular constitutional amendment in this way. Recognising that fact, however, it is misinterpreting the situation to say, as Senator Fitzgerald said today, that this Bill is a blank cheque if in saying so he is talking of it as a blank cheque to which there is no limit, because it is quite clear on the face of this Bill that the commitment to constitutional amendment is clearly limited.
I would suggest to Senator Fitzgerald and to those who think as he does that there are two types of blank cheque. There is one type of blank cheque that I would never sign, except possibly to hand it to my wife; there is another that I would be prepared to sign and hand it to people in whom I might have less trust. One sees continually in business the latter type of cheque—I am not so sure we do not see it on the cheques which we get from the Oireachtas—that is a blank cheque which is issued by a person in authority, left blank but with the overriding provision that the amount of the cheque is not to exceed a certain amount. It is only in the sense that such a cheque, which is blank as to the precise details of the amount, but which is controlled in regard to a total which may not be exceeded, is it at all proper to describe what is being done in this Bill as a blank cheque.
The amount is not limited in the Bill.
I would hope to persuade Senator Fitzgerald that in fact the amount is limited. It is limited by the Treaty of Rome; it is limited by the lesser Treaties forming the other two Communities. If it were true to say that there was no limit on the commitment; if it were true to say that we were putting our whole sovereignty in peril; if it were true we were putting in peril our right to decide on our policy of neutrality, or a policy of belligerence if our Parliament and our people saw fit, then I would certainly share the anxiety of Senator Fitzgerald and of many of his colleagues. But I am convinced that the wording of this Bill is tight enough to limit any obligation to the obligations imposed by three Treaties specified in the Bill, by the Treaties setting up three particular Communities specified in the Bill, and nothing else. Beyond what those Treaties oblige, there is no commitment. If indeed this Bill had come to us in the form it had entered the Dáil, I might still have some of the doubts of Senator Fitzgerald. However, with the word "necessitated by" now in the text as against "consequent on", as it was in the original text. I feel there is a real limitation.
Because these Treaties are concerned only with economic and social matters, there cannot be in what we are agreeing to here any political commitment. What there is when we agree to enter the Community is a commitment to work towards political unity. It is a commitment to seek a closer integration among the countries of the enlarged Community. But there is no commitment to the particular treaty form that that integration will take, because treaty form it must take, so that closer political integration is to be a reality. We commit ourselves here to what the countries of the Six have already committed themselves to and to nothing more. If the Community of Ten should find agreement on other forms of integration, then we will play our part in those negotiations. Our representatives in the Community, in the Council of Ministers, in the Commission and, we hope, to a greater extent in the European Parliament, will all play their part in these discussions. Even that will not commit the country.
Senator Keery pointed out that all amendments to the Treaty of Rome must be ratified by the various national parliaments and ratified by them in accordance with their own constitutional procedures. Many of the fears expressed by Senator Fitzgerald are worthy fears but I think that they are groundless.
If we look on the face of this Bill, it is perhaps disturbing to think that a short Bill like this can, in fact, do all that it does. Let us look at it. What is it, in effect? It says:
Whereas by virtue of Article 46 of the Constitution any provision of the Constitution may be amended...
Let us look at Article 46 of the Constitution and see how this amendment is made. Section 1 of Article 46 tells us that:
1. Any provision of this Constitution may be amended, whether by way of variation, addition or repeal,...
Before anyone talks of scrapping the Constitution they should ask themselves what does this Bill do. Does it vary? Does it repeal? It does not, it only adds. It adds something to the Constitution that was not there before. Where does it add it? We look at the second part of the Preamble: "where it is proposed to amend Article 29 of the Constitution." We look at section 4 of Article 29 and we find here an addition but no repeal of the existing subsections of section 4. Let us just look at the section that is being amended. Subsection (1) says that:
The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.
Out external relations are still, under the Constitution as it is proposed to be amended, firmly in the hands of the Government. The proposition is to add another subsection to subsection (1) of section 4 of Article 29.
Subsection (2) of Article 29 still stands. This Article gives us power to associate for any purpose with any group or league of nations with which the State becomes associated. Even though we are in this particular amending Bill proposing to join a particular group, this is not done by repealing subsection (2) of Article 29. We still have the power to associate with other groups for other purposes. This is an addition to our Constitution. It is not a variation. It does not say in subsection (2) that we can associate in particular with the countries, the present members of the Community and future members. It is something additional to what is being done. For that reason we can conclude reasonably that in bringing forward this proposition, as it now comes to this House and amended by the Dáil, we have here a necessary change in the Constitution to enable us to face the opportunity of membership of this Community. We come, certainly with a limited commitment.
I welcome the fact that this is to be the subject of a referendum because this is a good thing in order to generate the commitment to Europe which will be necessary on behalf of our whole national community here. I welcome it also, as other speakers have said, because we are referring an important matter to the people. We have been too loath to implement this particular provision of the Constitution. Our trouble in this country has been that referenda have been held for the wrong purpose. The results of referenda in the past, on the particular issue of the method of voting, have perhaps made the Government disinclined to consider the advantages of referenda in general. I would hope that in the future we would not be so reluctant to hold referenda on matters of importance. We should not be reluctant to make changes in the Constitution, some of which might be major and some perhaps minor.
Looking at the Bill, as proposed to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, it is in as good a form as one could expect. If it had been possible to have an amendment to the Constitution which would be completely scheduled, then this would have been preferable; but it is our own constitutional protection that makes this impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary in his introductory speech had indicated that the sections which are affected are quite clear. Section 2 of Article 6 which deals with the questions of our organs of State—executive, legislative and judicial; section 2 of Article 15, which deals with the question of the law-making power; and Article 34, which deals with the question of the courts.
It has been quite clear in the whole of this discussion—and I hope it will be quite clear in regard to the national debate prior to the referendum, and in whatever explanatory material is issued to the voter in this connection —that these are the main issues. Over and above this, it is not possible for Parliament to anticipate or divine in any way what the mind of the Supreme Court might be in regard to any other Article of the Constitution. Constitutions, despite all the care in drafting them, tend to be repetitious. There could well be by implication in another Article something with which we could deal under Articles 6, 15 and 34.
The proposition that is put before us is strictly limited by the scope of this amendment to those things which are necessitated—a very strong word —by three specific Treaties. It is not things that flow from them as a half consequence; not things that follow and we are not sure that they are absolutely necessitated—but those things which are necessitated and obligated by three specific documents, three documents which can be read, article by article.
This is not a blank cheque in the sense in which all of us are reluctant to issue blank cheques. It may be that the pence—I was going to say shillings and pence when I realised that I am decimalised—and the halfpence are not specified in this. The level of the commitment, the maximum possible commitment that the Irish people are being asked to make, the maximum consequences of the amendment of the Constitution are clearly there. For that reason this Bill is in a form that the House can accept and provided that what is implicit in this Bill, written in constitutional language, is communicated to the people in a form in which they can understand, then these are changes which the people will accept.
First of all I wish to thank the Senators for their contribution on this very important subject. I should also like to extend my thanks to Senator Fitzgerald for his contribution. Although he may be against the actual Bill itself and the referendum, nevertheless I accept that his contribution was made out of a sincere belief in his case. On that point may I make a number of general remarks. There has been general agreement, with the one exception certainly, during my presence here in this Chamber. There have been no points of disagreement, with the one exception I have mentioned.
The Dáil, as we know, accepted an amendment put forward by the Fine Gael Party on the basis that the effect of the amendment would not upset or in any way greatly affect the Bill as it was introduced originally. This is a point which should be made. May I deal briefly with the debate, on the basis that the contributions themselves were painlessly brief, and compliment Senators on the manner in which they made their contributions in relation to the specific matter before them. I hope, a Chathaoirleach, that I am not usurping your powers in this respect by complimenting them.
Arising out of Senator Horgan's interjection this morning, I should like to assure them that the Seanad will have the opportunity, and a very full and comprehensive opportunity, of discussing the whole question of our entry into the Treaty commitments. I should imagine this will arise some time after Easter. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach I have also the honour to be the Chief Whip of my party. I think it is fair to mention that general agreement, although not copper-fastened, has been arrived at between the three political parties in the Dáil that there will be a full discussion on the White Paper for the last two weeks of this Dáil sitting. Therefore I should imagine that, on that basis the Seanad will follow with their full and comprehensive discussion some time after the Easter recess. I should imagine then that Senator Horgan's and Senator Mary Robinson's motion could in some way be dovetailed into this general discussion.
On the question of the individual contributions Senator Michael O'Higgins agreed fully with the Government's Bill and the proposed form of the Bill. He dealt with a number of rather generalised objections made by people who are not sincerely motivated by any genuine desire to see this country succeed. Emotive terms like "the democratic process will come to a halt,""the question of our sovereignty will be eroded" and "it will be gone and gone forever" have been used here—expressions like "giving the Government a blank cheque" which has been used here and which has been so ably replied to by Senator Dooge. Objections have been put forward by people who use the term "sell-out". These are emotive terms; and emotion, as we know, is not based on reason. If we are emotional in the context of what can be considered to be, after the reunification of our country, one of the great steps facing Ireland, as I suggest it is, then we can throw our hat at it.
There are a number of organisations which hold the sincere belief that if this country goes into the EEC then we are ruined. But there are also a number of people who have no desire to see the country do any good one way or the other. It is those people who are inclined to use emotional expressions like "sell-out", "loss of sovereignty" and so on. I want to assure the House that emotional slogans such as those are not helping the issue itself.
Senator O'Higgins mentioned Article 5, which sets out the question of the sovereignty of the State. I would like to make it very clear that our sovereignty is not diminished in any way except to the degree of our commitments, for instance, to the United Nations. Certainly, in so far as we undertake certain obligations in relation to our commitment to that august body, then to that degree our sovereignty has been to some extent diminished. We have bilateral agreements between nations; nations commit one another to do inter alia certain things which relate to specific points. I do not think that has anything to do with an erosion of sovereignty or a diminution of sovereignty. What is good for Ireland in relation to an international agreement with France is good for France. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that this in any way diminishes our sovereignty. I should also like to ask those people who talk about sovereignty: would nations such as France, Western Germany—the latter may not be the greatest example—Italy, Belgium, Holland and so on sell out their sovereignty because of their commitments to the EEC? My answer to the question is clearly “No”. Any reasonable thinking person would accept that.
Senator Fitzgerald said that our commitments to the three Treaties was giving a blank cheque to the Government. This of course is not so. I do not intend to deal with this sincerely held argument to any great degree because I would be taking up the time of the House unnecessarily. As I have said, Senator Dooge ably and articulately replied to that question.
Our neutrality was also mentioned. This has nothing to do with our neutrality. This is a Treaty relating to social, economic and other related matters. Senator Fitzgerald also stated —I am open to correction in this respect—that people were being asked to scrap the Constitution. People are not being asked to scrap the Constitution in this respect. They are being asked to give an adequate and considered judgment on the proposals as set out in this Bill when it becomes an Act and is put before the people. They are being asked to express a view in "Yes" or "No" terms on the proposal now before the Seanad. That is the answer to the question.
Senator Fitzgerald also stated that the Government had not got the courage to make any change in the Constitution. He then went on to refer to the question of the minority in this country. I am sure he had in mind the Private Members Bill introduced by Deputy Noel Browne of his own party in the other House on the subject of contraception. I should like to clear up a number of points in this respect. I think our record is clear and our consciences are clear in respect of the position of the minority in this part of the country. We have a lot to be proud of. But even by articulating this point of view I am in a way indulging in a form of sectarianism. I do not think we should consider this point at all in relation to the minority position here. The Irish people in this part of our country have a tremendous record in this respect. Those people who suggest that we in this part of the country engage in sectarianism may bring up the odd example of community strife between, say, the majority religion and the minority religion, but these are very isolated incidents. Only very weak arguments can be made for any case that we in this part of the country have indulged in sectarianism. We have not, and our record in that respect is there to be examined.
Any desirable changes in the Constitution will be made by the Government, not looking over their shoulder at one religion or another, but based on their own judgment and their capacity to take necessary action. I reject any suggestion that the Government look over their shoulder at religious groups when considering changes in the Constitution. We have to distinguish between politics and religion. The sooner we do that the better, in the interests, with great respect, of both politics and religion.
Senator Eoin Ryan dealt with some emotional phrases, such as "scrap the Constitution", "sell-out", and so on. He mentioned the question of the constitutional amendments relating to social, economic and other related matters. He dealt at some length with the Supreme Court and pointed out that the Supreme Court remains the guardian of the Constitution. This is so. The Supreme Court will in no way be affected; its decisions will in no way be affected in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution by our commitments to the EEC, ECSC or EURATOM. There is no gainsaying that.
I apologise to those Senators who spoke in my absence from the Chamber. My position as Chief Whip of my party necessitated my meeting my Dáil colleagues in the other two parties to arrange next week's business. That was the main reason for my absence. I meant no discourtesy either to the House or to the speakers who contributed in my absence.
There is just one remaining point: it concerns the question raised by Senator Quinlan on the final sentence of my opening speech. I think it would be worthwhile repeating that sentence before dealing with the point. I stated:
Furthermore, depending on the form and nature of the political Community created and the commitments involved for the member countries therein, the question of this country's adherence to it might well have to be put to the people in a separate amendment to the Constitution.
I apologise to Senator Quinlan for my absence during his contribution. I think he made the point that this was too non-committal. I should like to point out that it is possible that the member states of the Community might decide upon a treaty on political co-operation which would be very limited in scope. While it would be subject to Dáil approval, it might not in any way affect the Constitution. There would be no need to submit such a treaty to the people in a referendum. On the other hand, as the Minister for Finance indicated in the Dáil, if a development took place which would not be binding under this Bill, then it would necessitate a further referendum in which the people would be asked if they wished to take part, and for this purpose to amend the Constitution. I think that is pretty self-evident and self-explanatory. I do not intend going into the matter in any greater depth.
I should like, however, to mention the contribution by Senator Keery and to pay tribute to him for the work he is doing. I do not know whether this is the place to do it, but I should like to pay tribute to the work he is doing towards forwarding Ireland's entry into the Community. He has been doing a lot of work on behalf of the pro-Market lobby and he is to be congratulated in that respect.
Senator Brugha pointed out that in the final analysis, whereas we may pass the laws leading up to the referendum itself, it is the people of Ireland who will decide finally and irrevocably whether we enter the Common Market with the other three aspirants.
Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordaíodh go dtógfaí Céim an Choiste Dé Céadaoin, 1 Márta, 1972.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st March, 1972.
The Seanad adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 1st March, 1972.