A Yes vote on May 22nd in the referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam will confirm Ireland's role as a full and active participant in the development of the European Union. It will enable us to continue building on our achievements as an EU member over the last 25 years.
A Yes vote will give a green light for the Union's future evolution and for the enlargement of its membership to include countries which, not long ago, were part of the old Soviet bloc. The EU's enlargement is an important plank of a peaceful future for Europe. It involves overcoming divisions that dominated European politics for over four decades. In Western Europe, the EU has already successfully healed historic rifts that were at the root of two world wars.
Aside from seeking to put an end to Europe's historic divisions, the treaty also sets out to bring the European Union and its institutions closer to citizens and gives it valuable additional competences in such areas as employment, environment, social policy and the fight against crime.
While a Yes paves the way for Europe's development and for Ireland's advancement within the EU, a negative vote would have important negative consequences. A No to Europe would throw the process of European integration into disarray at a crucial juncture, when the Euro is about to be launched and a complex set of funding issues known as Agenda 2000 is being addressed. A negative vote on Amsterdam does not amount to an easy option that will leave things as they are.
By spurning the Amsterdam Treaty we would be turning our backs on the outcome of lengthy negotiations in which Ireland played a significant part. This would prevent the Union from dealing with the challenges that gave rise to the negotiations in the first place. These challenges have not gone away, nor has the need to tackle them.
In the event of a negative vote, we would need to return to the negotiating table and reopen what was decided at Amsterdam. But exactly what in the treaty would we seek to change? And what elements of current value to Ireland might be lost as part of a new round of horse trading?
In a resumed negotiation, would we manage to retain the right to nominate a member of the European Commission? This was something achieved at Amsterdam against the wishes of those who wanted to reduce the Commission's size at the expense of the smaller member-states. Other potentially awkward institutional proposals would inevitably be resurrected, and we would have a fight on our hands to get as favourable a deal again.
A No vote would mean refusing to allow the Union to add its weight to the fight against unemployment. What possible justification could there be for not wanting a more effective European strategy aimed at boosting job creation? By itself, the EU cannot, of course, resolve the problem of unemployment, but it would be perverse to thwart concerted European efforts in that direction.
By voting against Amsterdam, we would be blocking the emergence of a more effective European social policy and making it more difficult for the EU to act against social exclusion. In the process, we would be prolonging the opt-out on social policy which Britain got into the Maastricht Treaty, but which we never liked.
Those who oppose the Treaty should say if they reject the idea of EU action to counter discrimination on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. These provisions do not involve giving the EU exclusive responsibility for anti-discrimination measures, but will enable it to supplement national action.
A rejection of the Amsterdam Treaty would mean cutting across the efforts to step up EU action against crime, including terrorism, trafficking in persons, offences against children and illicit trafficking in drugs and arms. Why would anyone want to do that? Primary responsibility for pursuing criminals will, of course, remain with national police forces, but there is much to be gained from a concerted European response to this major international menace.
Any attempt to renegotiate the treaty would call into question the highly advantageous arrangement secured at Amsterdam on free movement of persons.
We won the right to take part in those EU arrangements that appeal to us while preserving the common travel area with Britain. This kind of bargain might not be available in a reopened negotiation.
Those who reject the Amsterdam Treaty owe it to the public to explain what they have against the Union's ambition to promote peace and security in Europe, founded on principles of democracy and human rights. That objective is as relevant to Ireland as it is to any of our continental partners.
The new treaty reflects a desire that the Union make a greater contribution to international peace and security commensurate with its economic strength and political responsibilities. One of the ways of achieving this is by taking on the Petersberg tasks of peacekeeping, humanitarian actions and crisis management.
This development was not imposed on us by others. It was our fellow neutrals, Sweden and Finland, who tabled the proposal to include the Petersberg tasks in the treaty. Ireland supported that proposal. We did so because this is the kind of activity that deserves to be at the heart of the EU's foreign and security policy.
Under the treaty, EU members including Ireland and the other neutral states (Austria, Finland and Sweden) will be able to participate in such tasks on a case by case basis. No one is going to insist that we take part. It will be entirely our own choice. The inclusion of the Petersberg tasks is fully in line with our long-standing and honourable record in UN peacekeeping.
It responds to the situation where the UN increasingly relies on regional organisations to undertake peacekeeping and crisis management tasks.
Ireland's policy of military neutrality is completely unaffected by the treaty which recognises the specific character of Ireland's defence policy as did the Maastricht Treaty. In the Amsterdam text, EU common defence is seen as a possibility rather than an agreed objective of the EU. Any movement towards an EU common defence will require unanimity in the European Council where Ireland has a veto. Furthermore, it would clearly involve a referendum here. Far from encroaching on Ireland's policy of military neutrality, the EU is seeking to respond to the manifold challenges of the post-Cold War world. This is something that, I believe, most Irish people would want to see happen.
A quarter of a century ago the people took the decision that our future belonged in Europe. Our current economic success and prospects are based substantially on the benefits of EU membership. There has been an unprecedented upswing in the Irish economy. The numbers at work have increased steadily. The level of our national prosperity is moving towards the European average. While sound economic management and partnership agreements have contributed significantly to the dramatic improvement in our economic fortunes, the EU has provided both the context and the necessary support for the progress achieved.
The third millennium will bring a daunting array of challenges: globalisation of the world economy and its impact on employment, competitiveness and job creation; new security challenges; terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime; migratory pressures and ecological imbalances.
The EU is central to our strategy for meeting these challenges. To do so, the Union must enlarge while preserving its characteristic strengths and fundamental values. The Treaty of Amsterdam is a key part of the Union's preparations for the new millennium. It is in our very best interests to ratify this treaty on Friday.