Tairgim leasú a 1:
I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, line 6, i ndiaidh "a dhaingniú", an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:
", faoi réir teacht ar chomhaontú, a bheidh ina cheangal dlí agus lena mbeidh éifeacht láithreach, le cinn Stáit agus Rialtais AE, ina sonrófar mar a leanas:
‘Ní bhíonn Éire rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus cur chun feidhme cinntí agus gníomhaíochtaí de chuid an Aontais a bhfuil impleachtaí cosanta acu, ach ní choiscfidh sí forbairt ar chomhar níos dlúithe idir Ballstáit sa réimse sin. Dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh Éire rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart sin. Ní dhéanfaidh Éire rannchuidiú le maoiniú an chaitheachais oibríochtúil a thig ó na bearta sin.',
agus faoi réir Prótacal chuige sin a chur ag gabháil leis an gcéad Chonradh AE eile.",
agus
i gCuid 2, leathanach 7, líne 16, i ndiaidh "2001", an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:
", subject to a legally binding agreement, with immediate effect, being reached with the EU heads of State and Government, stating that:
‘Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer co-operation between Member States in this area. Therefore, Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.',
and a Protocol to that effect being attached to the next EU Treaty.".
I move amendment No. 1:
In Part 1, page 6, line 6, after "a dhaingniú" to insert the following:
", faoi réir teacht ar chomhaontú, a bheidh ina cheangal dlí agus lena mbeidh éifeacht láithreach, le cinn Stáit agus Rialtais AE, ina sonrófar mar a leanas:
‘Ní bhíonn Éire rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus cur chun feidhme cinntí agus gníomhaíochtaí de chuid an Aon tais a bhfuil impleachtaí cosanta acu, ach ní choiscfidh sí forbairt ar chomhar níos dlúithe idir Ballstáit sa réimse sin. Dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh Éire rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart sin. Ní dhéanfaidh Éire rannchuidiú le maoiniú an chaitheachais oibríochtúil a thig ó na bearta sin.',
agus faoi réir Prótacal chuige sin a chur ag gabháil leis an gcéad Chonradh AE eile.",
and
in Part 2, page 6, line 16, after "2001" to insert the following:
", subject to a legally binding agreement, with immediate effect, being reached with the EU heads of State and Government, stating that:
‘Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer co-operation between Member States in this area. Therefore, Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.',
and a Protocol to that effect being attached to the next EU Treaty.".
This amendment is not intended to sabotage enlargement. It is merely to remove a certain military aspect that a number of us are increasingly concerned about. These have been introduced very largely by stealth into the recent treaties of the European Union.
I am not claiming any originality for this amendment. I lifted it from the record of the Dáil, where it had been placed by Deputy Gormley. He took it very largely from a Danish protocol. The Danish protocol is worth looking at. It is very close in wording to ours and it was accepted even though Denmark is a member of NATO. The protocol states:
With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the field of Articles J.3(1) and J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between Member States in this area. Therefore Denmark shall not participate in their adoption. Denmark shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing of operational expenditure arising from such measures.
It is important to put this on the record because it demonstrates that there is a certain level of political seriousness behind this.
I know the Minister enjoyed himself yesterday impugning the motives of certain persons who take this view. I share some of his attitudes towards them, in particular towards Sinn Féin. As I remarked yesterday, there is a degree of irony in Sinn Féin's complaint about the militarisation of the European Union. They did not seem to be particularly worried about the militarisation of Ireland until comparatively recently. It certainly was not snowballs they were pegging at their opponents north of the Border for many years. However, the impugning of certain sections of this lobby does not invalidate the position taken up generally, nor does it invalidate the views of the people on this side of the House generally.
A great majority of politicians and all the major political parties support an unamended Nice treaty. That is fair enough – it is their right, but at least this amendment opens up the possibility of a discussion on the question of neutrality. It seems to me, and to like-minded people, that we are witnessing something we warned of in the discussion of the Maastricht Treaty in Article J7, that there is a growing involvement of Ireland in military operations on behalf of the European Union and a gradual abandonment and erosion of our position of neutrality. That is perfectly fair. If people want to do that, let them, but they should be honest about it and not attempt this manoeuvre simply by stealth.
Regrettably, this morning's debate is probably one in which we are wasting our sweetness, not quite on the desert air but on a comparatively limited number of personnel. There are less than a dozen people in this Chamber. The newspapers seem to have abandoned the record of the Senate entirely, and I notice that there is no "Oireachtas Report" whatever scheduled for tonight. Apparently RTE takes the view that when the Dáil is not in session, regardless of whether the Seanad is conducting its business, the Oireachtas has ceased to function. That is a pity because this would have been another opportunity for an informed discussion on a very important matter, one in which the public have a right to join in.
Support of the amendment does not mean that we abandon peacekeeping. I do not know if was intentional, but yesterday the Minister appeared to give the impression that if one supports this kind of view, one is against a peacekeeping role. I certainly am not, rather I am absolutely in favour of it and honour the activities of the Army in peacekeeping roles. However, the operation of the military aspects of the Nice treaty will mean a consistent draining of our support by NATO. The figures show us committing 850 troops to the rapid reaction force which is almost precisely the number we were committing to UN operations in the Middle-East. Is this not a clear example of a draining away of support from the UN which would be something I should very much regret?
Article 1.5 of the Nice treaty establishes a new institution, referred to as the Political and Secur ity Committee, which will exercise political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations and will direct military interventions during a crisis, including the waging of war. Nobody could describe that as anything other than military; in fact, it could not be clearer. This is to be supported by an elaborate military, bureaucratic, Euro-Pentagon structure set out in the annexes to the Presidency report and referred to in the first declaration attached to the Nice treaty of 33 pages, with seven annexes detailing the new EU military capacity. I am quoting from the record of the Dáil where this point was made very effectively by Deputy John Gormley.
Very few people, and not many in this House, have access to, or are aware of, the content of this considerable volume of supporting documentation which elaborates on this military structure. When I talk about the lack of information it is worthwhile to point out that the views of Mr. Javier Solana on access to information are fairly narrow and he is restricting access to documentation, threatening that if there are leaks access of parliamentarians throughout Europe to information will be further restricted. That is something which should certainly cause us concern.
The Finns and the Swedes no longer describe themselves as neutral and Mr. Solana, who has transferred from being the chief executive of NATO to being very centrally involved in this new group, has actually described neutrality as an out-of-date concept, more or less redundant in the discussions. He said that because simple non-participation in the collective defence pact cannot be seen as equivalent to neutrality, which is a concept of the past. What I might call the chief executive of this powerful and largely secretive committee, which will deal with military matters, regards neutrality as a concept of the past which suggests that the view from outside is that our participation in an unamended Nice treaty means our neutrality is a thing of the past and that is very worrying indeed.
I will leave it at that for the time being as I have also made substantial arguments on Second Stage of the Bill but I would like an opportunity to respond to the Minister and look at the growing trend toward involvement by stealth in groups that are almost inseparable from NATO and the implications of that for the military industrial complex in Europe and America. That is something that worries a number of us very seriously.
I was delighted to see that the Minister has been studying a copy of the booklet released by AFrI yesterday entitled The Treaty of Nice, NATO and the European Army written by Mr. Andy Storey. The Minister may have some answers and may want to challenge some of the material in it, although it is very well referenced, containing substantial quotations from authoritative sources. It is very much part of the debate that the Minister inform himself as to what is being said by responsible groups such as AFrI which cannot be dismissed in the way one can dismiss the cynical manoeuvrings of certain political groupings. AFrI has a track record on the ground and on almost the first page it recites its credentials:
AFrI, whose executive committee members have worked in Kampuchea, Rwanda, the Sudan and campaigned in solidarity with the people in Burma, East Timor and West Papua.
These are the kinds of people who have produced a document which is strongly critical of the Nice treaty and goes further than I am prepared to do at the moment by actively campaigning for a "No" vote. They raise very serious issues which need to be answered before this referendum can go through.