Neutrality strategy is a mere confidence trick

The minimum required is a legally binding pledge from EU and a positive constitutional amendment, writes Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The minimum required is a legally binding pledge from EU and a positive constitutional amendment, writes Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Treaty of Nice was rejected by the people of Ireland in a referendum held last year.

The reasons were many: concern at the future loss of Ireland's commissioner, the democratic deficit of the European Union, the creation of a two-speed Europe, the lip service paid to human rights in the EU legal system. There was also concern at the increasing erosion of Ireland's neutrality.

At the heart of the No vote was also a broader unease about the way the European Union has evolved and the one-sided nature of debate on European issues in this country.

READ MORE

The shock to the establishment at their defeat cannot be overstated. But as happened to the Danish people before us, the Irish electorate is now being offered the chance to make the "right" decision - not the chance to accept another, modified Nice, but the opportunity to accept the same Nice Treaty already rejected by us.

As part of the Nice referendum campaign, the Government made a declaration at the EU summit in Seville in June stating inter alia: "Ireland is not bound by any mutual defence commitment." This declaration was noted in a European Council declaration that stated the council's belief that Nice would not alter the security position of Ireland as outlined in the Government's declaration.

What legal status do the declarations have? The abortion issue was previously dealt with by way of a protocol to the treaties, and there are four protocols attached to the Nice Treaty. Article 311 (formerly Article 239) of the European Community Treaty states: "The protocols annexed to this treaty by common accord of the member-states shall form an integral part thereof." There is no such provision in European law relating to "declarations".

This distinction is crucial when it is borne in mind that it will not be the European Council who will have to interpret the declaration's legal significance, but the European Court of Justice. The court would be duty bound to consider the Treaty of Nice, as adopted by the member-states. Some of these states have already adopted Nice without, of course, any reference to a declaration that was not then in being.

As part of a two-pronged referendum strategy, the Government has, however, told us it will enshrine the principal of neutrality in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The Article as proposed, would provide that: "Ireland shall not be a member of any organisation or party to any international agreement or arrangement whereby it becomes bound to commit its military aid to the defence of another state or states in any circumstances which constrain the freedom of the State to determine in any case whether to engage in or to continue such action."

It has been argued by Fine Gael among others, that such a wording, which seems to protect neutrality at face value, would in fact allow the State to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for example, on the basis that each NATO state is free to commit troops, or not, even in circumstances where one of their number has been attacked.

The proposed constitutional amendment makes no explicit reference to neutrality. It seems to prohibit binding mutual defence pacts, but would do nothing to prevent "voluntary" involvement in the military adventures of Western powers.

The amendment is a measure designed to sway marginal voters to vote for Nice this time, rather than an instrument designed to serve any purpose in terms of constitutional law or foreign policy.

That this is the case is understandable. Any explicit reference to neutrality might allow citizens to object, for example, to US Air Force planes being afforded training facilities in this jurisdiction as they were recently, while they are actively engaged in an ongoing war, or to allow them to use our international airfields to prosecute that war.

So, even on the ground of neutrality, which the Government has identified as the primary reason for the rejection of the treaty, what the people of Ireland are being offered as an inducement to vote Yes is really a confidence trick.

The incorporation of a positive statement of neutrality in Bunreacht na hÉireann and a legally effective guarantee of that neutrality at the European level, are the minimum which would be needed to sway minds on this issue.

Neutrality was one of many issues that have led to the rejection of Nice. There has been little or no debate in the Irish media about the other issues - the democratic deficit in the EU, the unaccountability of the Commission and the European Council, or the failure of the EU to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is essential that these aspects of the debate are not overlooked or glossed over. For us and for the vast majority of those opposed to the Nice Treaty, enlargement is not the issue. We are not opposed to enlargement and it can proceed if Nice is rejected.

Furthermore, we do not regard immigration as an issue in this referendum.

The question must be asked of those advocating a Yes vote: If the Irish people once again decide to reject the Treaty of Nice, will that decision, finally, be accepted by the political elites at home and abroad?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh is Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central