The predictions of successive groups of No campaigners about the practical effects of European treaties have been notoriously wide of the mark, writes Alan Dukes
The declaration made by Ireland on the Treaty of Nice and the declaration made by the European Council in Seville on Friday last deal objectively and conclusively with one of the central contentions of the No campaign in last year's referendum.
The declaration by the European Council - that is, by the heads of state or government of all of the 15 member-states - is perfectly clear. It states, among other things, that:
- ". . . any decision to move to a common defence shall be adopted in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements of the member-states"; "in Ireland such a move would require a referendum to amend the Constitution"; ". . . the policy of the Union shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States"; (for Ireland this means that we are free to adopt and maintain whatever security and defence policy we wish, without interference from the EU);
- ". . . the Treaty on European Union does not impose any binding mutual defence commitments. Nor does the development of the Union's capacity to conduct humanitarian and crisis management tasks involve the establishment of a European army"; (that is a direct refutation of the claims made by the No campaign);
- "The European Council confirms that the situation referred to . . . above would be unchanged by the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice"; (this confirms the Treaty of Nice does not in any way "militarise" the EU or draw Ireland into any such "militarisation").
Inevitably, the argument is already being made that these declarations have no force of law and are not part of the Treaty of Nice. Although this is formally the case, this argument ignores the real significance of the declarations. The Irish declaration sets out the Government's understanding of its liberty to act while respecting the terms of the treaty.
Essentially, the Government says that it is not bound by any specific obligations in the area of security and defence by the terms of the treaty. The declaration by the European Council confirms this.
We now have a clear and definitive statement by the 15 governments that negotiated the Treaty of the exact meaning or limits of what they agreed in the treaty. The 15 governments have said clearly, unambiguously and definitively that the claims of the No campaign in relation to neutrality and alleged "militarisation" are entirely without foundation.
Those associated with the No campaign should now formally acknowledge that they were wrong on the issues addressed in the declarations, and withdraw those arguments. If they fail to do so, we must draw one of two conclusions.
Either they absurdly believe that they know more about the meaning of the treaty than the Governments that negotiated it, or they must admit that they are prepared to use patently false arguments to play on emotions relating to sensitive issues.
The claims of interference with neutrality and of "militarisation" of the EU were based on entirely fanciful and malign interpretations of texts which are, in fact, legally clear.
Similarly fanciful interpretations of the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty underlie the No campaign's claim that enlargement of the EU can proceed without the Treaty of Nice. That assertion was clearly not accepted by the 15 governments, the European Parliament or the European Commission.
Had there been any real basis for such an assertion, the negotiation of the Treaty of Nice would never have been undertaken. To put it at its simplest, governments do not commonly and unnecessarily decide to do things the hard way.
The predictions of successive groups of No campaigners about the practical effects of the implementation of European treaties have been notoriously wide of the mark. From Ireland's accession treaty to the Treaty of Amsterdam, opponents have predicted dire consequences. They have been wrong.
Ireland has prospered, employment and living standards have increased and we have not been drawn into any military alliances to engage in actions of which we do not approve.
The demolition by the Seville Declarations of one of the central planks of the current No campaign should lead us to the conclusion that on this occasion, it is as ill-founded as all such campaigns in the past.
It is time now to listen to the candidate countries. Over the past year, presidents, ministers and ambassadors from those countries have come to Ireland to explain how important the prospect of EU membership is for them and how they now need our agreement to realise that prospect.
One No campaigner, Joe Higgins TD, characterises those interventions as emanating from "elites" in those countries. It is surely the height of arrogance to describe in this way the democratically elected or appointed representatives of countries which have, in the last decade, regained their freedom, adopted constitutions and held a succession of democratic elections.
They want to join a post-Nice EU that includes an Ireland which they see as the model of a small state which has made a success of its participation in an increasingly integrated Europe. Perhaps we should share their faith in us.