Irish Times Letters Section: EU Constitution Debate

national | eu | other press Monday May 09, 2005 15:42 by redjade

From April Fool's Day forward....

Just doing some research on the issue and decided to *publically* archive the ongoing debate - it's the kind of issue that will keep you up at night or put you to sleep...

I think I have them all and hope the web address are correct...

25 States and only 12 stars - 'In varietate concordia' indeed!

April 1 2005
GAY MITCHELL TD, MEP, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0401/index.html#1110799569931

Madam, - Prof Ben Tonra (March 21st) might look up the term " Belmont Syndrome".

If the current EU constitutional treaty is passed, a future common defence can be established by the European Council acting unanimously. At that stage we would have to have a further constitutional referendum in Ireland, unless we address this issue in the upcoming referendum by asking the people to empower the Dáil to take such decisions.

Article 28.3.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann empowers Dáil Éireann to assent to participation in war. Why should Dáil Éireann not be empowered to assent to participation in a common EU defence which could prevent war?

Ben Tonra's particular difficulty seems to be my argument that we should seek to negotiate to do this on a "case-by-case" basis - i.e., leave it to the Dáil to decide in each case. I believe if we were to seek to negotiate this as part of the "arrangements" to be agreed in the future consequent on the, very brief, protocol no.24 of the draft treaty, we might succeed in bringing this about.

Prof Tonra seems to think that this would not then qualify as a common defence. Yet when Russia, Britain and the US were allied against the Nazis it was by no means clear until very late in the day that Russia would also join the war against Japan. That they decided this on a case-by-case basis does not negate the fact that the three countries were aligned.

The European Union has no precedent in political science. Trying to fit other political science terms to what is evolving in the EU is nonsense. The Constitution for Europe probably contains more declarations and protocols than any other constitution anywhere in the world. The Secretary General of the Council of Ministers/High Representative is also double-hatted as Secretary General of the WEU. Denmark, a full member of Nato, is not a member of the WEU and yet, as protocol 24 points out, "The Union shall draw up, together with the Western European Union, arrangements for enhanced co-operation between them" on common defence as set out in Article I-41(2).

The WEU is not my "preferred choice" but it is that of the treaties, as a Jean Monnet professor should know. If a common defence is agreed in the future, there is no one-size-fits-all application set out in the treaty for the arrangements to be decided later to implement such an agreement, which would have to be decided unanimously by the heads of state or government of the 25 EU members. If the people authorised the Dáil now to make the decision on a case-by case basis in the future we would have the best of all worlds if we could negotiate to bring this about.

It is not just a question of whose defence we would participate in. Who will participate in the defence of an increasingly wealthy and global player like Ireland? If it will work in practice it will work in theory and Prof Tonra need not fret. - Yours, etc.,

GAY MITCHELL TD, MEP, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.