The proposed amendment to the Constitution does not copperfasten Irish neutrality, maintains Joe Noonan
In Romano Prodi's words "If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Anne', you can find any name."
The Government claims that the proposed amendment to Article 29 of the Constitution copperfastens Irish neutrality. Not so: the proposed amendment has a very specific and narrow meaning which relates only to EU common defence, i.e., a mutual defence commitment among EU member-states.
The amendment provides that: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article1.2 of the Treaty . . . where that common defence would include the State".
It envisages the EU deciding to establish a common defence. It sets out the way in which Ireland may acquiesce, and eventually become involved in common defence.
Under the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, Ireland accepted the possibility of EU common defence including all member-states, except Denmark. Common defence is not limited in territorial scope, nor is it limited to reacting to attack.
The Rapid Reaction Force was established on a voluntary basis among all the member-states (save Denmark). Ireland has already committed troops and equipment. The RRF is not limited to taking action under a UN mandate.
The Government says it will only allow Irish troops to be involved in RRF action under a UN mandate, but there is nothing in the proposed amendment to the Constitution to make this commitment binding. The only legal restraint on the Government is found in the Defence Acts which prohibit Irish soldiers from serving overseas, save under certain conditions.
These Acts can be amended by the government of the day. Draft amendments to allow Irish soldiers to train overseas with the RRF were brought before the Dáil recently but withdrawn shortly after the referendum date was set.
The Nice Summit approved the EU presidency report and annexes on the European Security and Defence Policy. These make intriguing if tortuous reading. (See http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm .)
The report and annexes establish permanent political and military structures for the EU. They establish arrangements for EU-NATO consultation and co-operation, confirm the EU's intention of taking over the crisis management function of the WEU military alliance and establish three permanent political and military bodies: the Political and Security Committee, the Military Committee of the European Union, and the European Union Military Staff Organisation.
The report sets out the level of commitment required from member-states by 2003, namely to provide sufficient resources for the EU to deploy up to 60,000 soldiers within 60 days and sustain them for up to one year. Reading the proposed amendment to Article 29 of the Constitution in the light of these commitments, it is clear the article envisages a specific sequence of events as follows. Ireland will continue to develop its involvement in the RRF.
The EU, including Ireland, will continue to develop the role of the new political and military bodies.
Before long, it is envisaged that the EU will be ready for common defence. At this point, the European Council will consider a proposal to establish an EU common defence.
Considering Ireland's acquiescence in the process to date it is difficult to imagine an Irish government blocking it at the last minute.
IT is therefore most likely that Ireland will vote to establish an EU common defence, thus facilitating the making of what the proposed amendment to Article 29 describes as: "a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty".
EU common defence will then be in place. The only question outstanding for Ireland will be whether it wishes to be included. That is the only matter on which a future referendum will be required under the proposed amendment to Article 29 which we will be voting on now.
By that future date, the Government will have a vested interest in persuading voters to endorse the sovereign and political commitment to establish a common defence which it has already given.
This brings into focus the question of why Ireland did not seek a reservation when negotiating the relevant treaty provisions or, once Nice was rejected by Ireland, did not seek a protocol.
Assertions that the proposed amendment to Article 29 protect neutrality are false. Instead the article fits neatly with Ireland's developing participation in the evolving EU defence structures, which derive further legitimacy from Nice.
Joe Noonan, a solicitor in Cork, was a witness on EC foreign and security policy issues in Crotty v. Ireland, the Supreme Court case which won for citizens the right to vote on significant EU treaty changes