As Irish soldiers prepare to join with other troops in an EU Rapid Reaction Force, it seems strange that politicians once battled in the Dail over whether merely discussing "security" with European partners could spell the end of our neutrality. But perhaps it is not strange at all. From the days of Ireland's application to join the European Economic Community, as the EU was called back in the 1960s, trying to pin down Irish neutrality led to confusion at home and mystification abroad. It probably still does. From the time Ireland began to move towards EEC membership, successive political leaders of Fianna Fail declared readiness to take part in eventual defence arrangements by member countries of the Community.

When this would take place nobody knew, but it was accepted that it would mean the end of Irish neutrality. The Fine Gael party had no problems with this but Labour was opposed. As taoiseach, Sean Lemass, a veteran of 1916 and the War of Independence, told the New York Times in July 1962: "We recognise that a military commitment will be an inevitable consequence of our joining the Common Market and ultimately we would be prepared to yield even the technical label of neutrality. We are prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservations as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence."

This sweeping declaration followed Ireland's first application to join the EEC and was made in the context of efforts by the six EEC members to move towards a European union which would include defence co-operation, probably within the Atlantic Alliance and NATO. Lemass had also said: "Although we are not members of NATO, we are in full agreement with its aims ... We think the existence of NATO is necessary for the preservation of peace and the defence of the countries of western Europe, including this country". He also claimed that Irish membership of NATO would not mean formal acceptance of partition just because Britain was also a member. By the time Ireland was involved in EEC negotiations eight years later, the ambitious plans for European Union had melted away as the six could not agree among themselves.

Lemass's successor, Jack Lynch, was less forthright on neutrality and NATO. He pointed out that there were no defence commitments in the EEC treaties. But he said that as a member of the EEC, Ireland "would naturally be interested in the defence of the territories embraced by the communities. There is no question of neutrality there". During the referendum on membership in 1972, the neutrality issue was played down and the white paper summarising the terms of entry stated Ireland fully accepted the goal of "political unification" while not yet knowing whether it would be "a federal Europe" or a looser form of political co-operation. In 1981, neutrality again became a live issue.

The Dail in March had one of its rare debates on defence following the Anglo-Irish summit in Dublin the previous December where the taoiseach, Charles Haughey, was rumoured to have discussed with Margaret Thatcher the abandonment of neutrality if there were to be re-unification. In the debate, Haughey accepted that in the event of "full political union" for the EEC, there would be an end to Irish neutrality. The Labour Party's amendment that neutrality be written into the Constitution was rejected. Later that year Fianna Fail and Fine Gael got into a confrontation as to which party was selling out on neutrality as pressure came on from West Germany and Italy in the Genscher/Colombo proposal to move towards European union by increasing co-operation in "security".

Up to then, the EEC foreign ministers held informal discussions on "European political co-operation" (EPC) in which they tried to reach common positions on foreign-policy issues, for example at the United Nations or on the Middle East. Brian Lenihan, who had been the minister for foreign affairs in early 1981, and Garret FitzGerald who became taoiseach in June that year, entered into what today would seem as a surreal debate over whether discussions on "security" as part of EPC would be going down the "slippery slope" to end Ireland's neutrality. Dr FitzGerald claimed that neutrality was saved by Ireland insisting that only the "political aspects of security" could be discussed and not military matters.

Brian Lenihan, now in opposition, argued that this formula meant "the whole area of weaponry and military and defence aspects in relation to political security". It was a far cry from the Lemass readiness to embrace NATO and Lynch's to get involved in the defence of a Community of which Ireland was a part. BUT behind the obfuscation over what "security" meant, Ireland's neutrality was being gradually clarified and the Lemass position, adopted at a critical point in the Cold War, disowned. Fine Gael minister for foreign affairs, Dr FitzGerald said in May 1973 the Irish attitude was "one of not wishing to become involved in any pre-existing defence organisation such as NATO or WEU". Ireland wanted to distinguish between "a possible independent European defence body in the more distant future" and existing alliances, he said. NATO with its reliance on nuclear weapons also became increasingly anathema to Fianna Fail. But Haughey, son-in-law of Lemass, in March 1981 speaking as taoiseach conceded that "in the event ... of the European states being organised into a full political union, we would accept the obligations, even if these included defence".

Some nine months later in opposition, he laid down economic criteria for the discussion of any Irish participation in future EEC defence, which included Ireland's per-capita income rising to "at least 80 per cent of the Community average" instead of the 61 per cent at that time. Today Ireland is fully part of the EU's common European security and defence policy and a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace which Fianna Fail in opposition had denounced. Ireland has representatives on the EU's new military committee and is soon to provide troops for the Rapid Reaction Force. The former battles over neutrality seem remote and irrelevant.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union have removed the threat of communism which was the backdrop to Ireland's initial approach to the EEC. But the basic Irish "military neutrality" is alive and well. Ireland will join with EU partners in "crisis-management" tasks with a UN mandate but there will be no commitment to come to the aid of an EU member under attack or to be part of the mutual defence of the Union, a position presumably shared with other "neutrals" like Austria, Finland and Sweden.

The latest MRBI poll shows that 72 per cent want "military neutrality" to continue while 50 per cent agree with Ireland participating in the EU Rapid Reaction Force which could be used for peacekeeping in say the non-EU Balkans. This seems to mean almost three-quarters of the Irish people are unwilling to give a commitment to defend the EU 30 years after joining. But it more likely means they are confused at the twists and turns on the issue of their political leaders.