European Bill 2009 - 2nd Stage Debate - 22nd October 2009

European Bill 2009 - 2nd Stage Debate - 22nd October 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. We have had a certain amount of sparring over the period on this matter but we have finally managed to bring our views into a certain degree of alignment. I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill because I was probably the first person in this House at the time of the previous referendum to declare a position against the Lisbon treaty. I made my reservations and the reason for those reservations perfectly clear. They were because of what I perceived as the increasing militarisation of the Union and my inability to get this taken seriously at Government level, particularly the “morphing”, to use a horrible modern word, of the European armaments group into the less sinister-sounding European Defence Agency. I tried to raise this with the Oireachtas joint committee established but they ignored it. I tried to raise it with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and it was deflected in a manner fairly similar to the way in which the abuse of Shannon Airport during the rendition flights period was brushed aside by answering completely different questions to the ones I raised. However, I was very pleased with the assistance of some of the departmental officials who are here today to extract in the weeks before the final vote on this referendum a specific commitment from the Minister on behalf of the Government and signed and delivered to me and with the indulgence of the Chair I wish to put some of this correspondence on the record of the House. It is the instrument that allowed me to change sides, which I wanted to do, because I have always supported the European Union and the European movement generally. He first wrote some nice things about my change of heart and then continued:

I am happy to give you the reassurance you request regarding Ireland’s position on an EU munitions industry. We would have no interest in supporting any efforts to develop a European munitions industry for export. The Lisbon Treaty does not contemplate any such policy initiative or make any provision for movement in that direction. Ireland would indeed resist any pressure which might be exercised in future by any Member State to take the Union down such a route, which would , of course, require a unanimous decision in the unlikely event that any such move were ever to be contemplated at EU level.
In my opinion this amounts to a commitment to use the veto. The reason for my concern is the kind of incautious things said over the preceding years and also during the first referendum campaign by, in particular, the French, who seemed to be driving in this direction. It appeared to me they were determined to use the kind of shelf company of the European armaments group to promote this idea of a munitions industry for export and to go into competition with the American munitions industry. In my view this explained the intervention of Mr. Declan Ganley because he was plugged in to certain aspects of the American munitions establishment. I thought that was one of his principal motivations in campaigning against the Lisbon treaty because he saw the danger of competition in this area. This aspect was never explored by people in public, so far as I know.
He was a bit of an embarrassment on the occasion when I was on the “No” side but there were a lot of other embarrassments. I refer to those people who said that if we voted for Lisbon, we would get homosexual marriage and abortion information and God knows what else. As I said at the time, if I thought that, I would vote for it. Although I am not sure that sexual orientation is actually included in the provisions of this Bill-----

Deputy Dick Roche: I draw the Senator’s attention to the charter which is a wonderful expression of all the rights and is a wonderful expression of the safeguarding of citizens for a whole variety-----
Senator David Norris: That is rather general.

Deputy Dick Roche: It is very specific.

Senator David Norris: It shows the kind of incremental development. I well remember the time in Paris when at a COSAC meeting I had an engagement with Monsieur Alain Juppé. He rounded on me and said the European Union is not a human rights organisation, it has no human rights competence. This is now incrementally growing and it is to be welcomed.
At the conclusion of the Minister’s correspondence he states:

On another matter in which I know you take an interest, [I had raised it with him in a message] I would like to assure you that the promotion and protection of human rights - including those of children and women affected by armed conflict - are integrated fully into the planning and conduct of the EU’s civilian and military missions. An outstanding example is the mission in Chad....Support for human rights in areas of armed conflict is an important part of the Government’s overall approach to human rights, peace-building and development issues.
This statement is very important. The Minister is committed to arms reduction and to protecting the rights of civilians in these areas.
I wish to raise one or two other issues. I deplore the inactivity of President Václav Klaus. It really is a defiance of democracy that he is still refusing to sign the treaty, despite the express wishes of his elected parliament.
Will the Minister of State look into the wheelie bin controversy of the previous referendum in which 3,000 votes in Donegal went missing? There has been no satisfactory explanation of it or of the responsibilities either of the returning officer or the Garda, despite citizens’ concern about this matter.
I have always stated and I still maintain that even if we had voted “No”, we could not have been thrown out of the European Union. Even if we had voted “No” we could not have been relegated to second class citizenship, legally or officially. However, the European Union is something that works on political goodwill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are working on a timeframe, Senator.

Senator David Norris: I am finishing now. Political goodwill is the lubrication of the European Union and we have had very fine diplomatic representation in Europe, as previous speakers have stated. We have a very high reputation. I was concerned that in this difficult economic time we might sacrifice that goodwill and turn it into ill will, such that although we could not be punished legally, there are other ways of skinning a cat.