Sir, - Patricia McKenna's letter (September 2nd) commenting on my reply to her previous letter was, yet again, inaccurate in content. I did not, as she claims, "very conveniently" avoid the argument which she and Frank Keoghan put forward in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty. Nor did I "put forward an entirely different scenario", thereby giving the impression that Ms McKenna MEP and Mr Keoghan are "uninformed" or "missing the point". They are doing quite a good job of giving that impression themselves. What I did, in fact, was to explain the circumstances in which the scenario they envisage might come about, something which they appear not to have grasped.
Ms McKenna is correct in stating that I used the phrase "integration of the WEU into the European Union". As is her wont, she is highly selective and partial in what she quotes, thereby giving an incomplete account of my argument. In the interests of clarification, I repeat the full statement included in my letter:
"A decision to recommend the integration of the WEU into the European Union would, under the provisions of Article J.13, have to be a unanimous decision of the European Council. A Member State which did not agree could abstain and would not be bound to apply the decision. Furthermore, Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty expressly states that `the policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.' "
I am delighted to note that we are making progress with Ms McKenna's understanding of these issues, since she now accepts a further referendum would be required in Ireland if the European Council decided unanimously to recommend the integration of the WEU into the EU. This is in marked contrast to her letter to this paper on July 8th 1997, when she erroneously declared: "Should Ireland ratify Amsterdam after the forthcoming referendum, a common defence can be established at any time in the future by a decision of the EU Council of Ministers, without the need for a further referendum". What she must now grasp to understand the issue fully is that the most likely form of common defence would involve the integration of the WEU into the EU, an event which she considers (and I agree) "unlikely in the foreseeable future."
If, as I hope they will, the Irish people vote yes to the Amsterdam Treaty, naturally they will be giving the Irish Government permission to act for them in a range of areas dealing with European matters. The nature of diplomacy in the EU, and indeed internationally, is that a government negotiates on any issue on behalf of its people. However, in this specific policy area, the people would be further consulted via the referendum mechanism because it would involve a change to the Amsterdam Treaty and constitutionally, Ireland would be obliged to put this to the people. Article J7 of the Amsterdam Treaty is therefore not "dangerous".
To assert that if we vote yes to the Amsterdam Treaty we would be "formally licensing a future Irish government to abandon Irish neutrality without need for further referral to the people" is clearly an error on Ms McKenna's part, particularly since she now accepts that a further referendum would have to take place if the most likely course towards a common defence, is, in fact, adopted.
The adoption of a common defence under the provisions of Article J7 simpliciter is not an option, since that would not provide the basis for the decision-making and executive structure that would be required. Such structures would have to be added, by Treaty amendment, to those already provided for in the Treaties: that, in turn, would require a referendum in Ireland.
Although Ms McKenna never refers to this, Article J1 of the Treaty explicitly states that the implementation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy by the EU will be in conformity with the principles of the UN Charter and with those of the Helsinki Final Act.
If I may be permitted a comment on a related point arising from J. A. Barnwell's letter of August 8th: While it is true that we have a constitutional commitment to the "ideal of peace" and the "pacific settlement of international disputes", and while it can be argued that these principles underpin Ireland's neutrality (though that is not why we declared neutrality in 1939), it is equally true to say that the same principles are held by the nonneutral Member States of the EU and, indeed, by all states that subscribe to the UN Charter. The point is that adhesion to those principles does not necessarily require a neutralist stance. - Is mise, ALAN DUKES TD, Chairman,
European Movement,
Dublin 2.