"On Balance, There Seems to Be a Stronger
Case" for It
MAYNOOTH, Ireland, 31 MAY 2001 (ZENIT).
Statement by the Standing Committee of the Irish
Episcopal Conference on the Treaty of Nice, 31 May 2001.
On 7 June the voters of the Republic of Ireland will be asked to
ratify the Treaty of Nice by way of referendum. The general purpose of
this Treaty is to facilitate the enlargement of the European Union.
Specifically, it addresses unfinished business of the Treaty of
Amsterdam (1997).
I. FACING ENLARGEMENT
Since the Treaty of Amsterdam the implications of a greatly enlarged
union are slowly becoming more clear. More people, for example, are now
asking the key questions. Do we really have to join this vast gathering
made up of such diverse cultures? In doing so, can we realistically
expect to retain our local and regional cultural and religious values?
Is it possible to put a recognisable human face on institutions that are
already complex but will inevitably become more so? How can we best use
our relatively slim resources to make a positive contribution to this
huge process that is already under way? What is our role in future
peace-keeping operations?
The current debate on the Treaty of Nice is as much about these general
issues as about the more specific questions raised by the Treaty itself.
The most significant practical proposal in the Treaty is the extension
of a system of majority-weighted voting in the Council of Ministers as
distinct from decision-making by unanimous consent. Some people are
afraid that this could marginalise smaller member-states and lead to a
two-tier Europe of powerful and less powerful nations. Others point to
the severe reduction of influence Ireland will enjoy in a larger union
due to the redistribution of powers. On the other hand, a revision of
the institutions is clearly necessary to enable an enlarged EU to do its
business.
While the Irish Bishops are aware that we as a people are gradually
getting more familiar with the European process, they are not at all
convinced that our response is adequate. It is broadly accepted that
Europe has treated us well materially and that it will soon be our turn
to help others as we have been helped ourselves. We need a greater
awareness that Europe means more than the exchange of merchandise. Our
involvement in the EU has enabled us to be more outward-looking towards
Europe, to pick up again a vibrant tradition that was launched by the
monks of the early Christian centuries. As a people, we are learning to
appreciate the cultural heritage and national identity of our fellow
Europeans as they are learning about ours. This is a vital message for
our people in considering the challenge of enlargement. The original
inspiration of the Common Market was not to create a new post-colonial
melting pot but rather to enable people to come together as equals and
to participate in a common project of realising the goals of peace,
stability, rule of law and solidarity. The time has come for our people
to draw upon our own inheritance of cultural and spiritual values as a
rich source of human dignity and self-esteem. In doing so, we will have
much to offer the new candidate member-states of the EU.
The principle of subsidiarity (decision-making as near as possible to
the people affected) needs to be more clearly understood in Ireland. In
EU terms it is the policy of encouraging local and regional initiative
and of allowing maximum flexibility to accommodate creative and
constructive differences and diversity. The common rules are designed to
maintain open government and to ensure a level playing field for
competitive business and the generation of wealth linked to social
solidarity. Like all rules they are open to abuse and often seen as
intrusive. But it is simply a matter of fact that the underlying
principle has achieved a fair measure of support both inside and outside
the EU. One thinks, for example, of the programmes that support the
peace process in Northern Ireland and which have generated several
valuable initiatives at local level.
Assessing the cost of enlargement is the most difficult exercise
confronting the voter in this referendum. The issue is about much more
than the redistribution of capital at our expense. It is about a
significant reduction in national sovereignty, a reduction we will share
with all our present fellow-member states. The different mode of
decision-making, replacing debates of the Oireachtas by ministerial
negotiation at the Council of Ministers, makes for less accountability
and less communication with the general public unless new structures are
found and put in place by the Oireachtas. To hold our ground in a larger
union, there needs to be more vigilance in anticipating areas of
conflicting interests, both through informed analysis and public
discussion.
Many who approve of enlargement in principle find the price too high to
pay. Critics of the Treaty argue that the changes in it make too many
concessions and could have done with more discussion and refinement. On
the other hand, it must be said that they were agreed by our elected
representatives after long and difficult negotiations and that they were
regarded as barely sufficient for enlargement by many of the negotiators
themselves.
II. SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY
The section of the Treaty of Nice that has attracted most attention in
Ireland concerns common security and defence policy. Article 17 (TEU
amended by Nice) begins as follows: "The common foreign and
security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of
the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy,
which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so
decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the
adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective
constitutional requirements".
Much of the uncertainty here centres on the definition of a common
defence policy, more particularly on what is meant precisely by
peace-keeping and peace-making. It has been argued that the commitment
to a common security policy already agreed at Maastricht and Amsterdam
is gradually moving us into a NATO-style involvement and away from our
traditional neutrality. While Nice adds nothing radically new to these
two treaties, it encourages the concept of common security by setting up
a permanent committee to monitor policy in this area. On the other hand,
it must be clearly understood that the right to stand aside and to be
critical of any kind of intervention in matters of security and defence
is explicitly enshrined in the Treaty. This means in practice that each
and every case of intervention would have to be approved by the
Oireachtas in the same way that participation in UN peacekeeping is
currently organised. Moreover, Ireland will not participate in any
action that is not mandated by the UN.
The prior need arises to query the use of any kind of military activity
on the part of the EU. Recent experience is relevant here. The
consistent paralysis of the EU in the face of the terrible wars in the
Balkans has been fairly universally identified as a serious weakness.
Consequent reliance on the UN and NATO seems unsatisfactory and
undesirable as a permanent solution to European problems in the
post-Cold War era.
The argument that the bigger nations call the shots must also be
addressed. The crucial factor here would seem to be the democratic
stability of the member states and the consequent force of public
opinion. The folly and futility of using force, save in extreme
circumstances such as genocide, have been integral to European public
opinion since 1945 and have been a strong motive for the built-in
equilibrium which the treaties have provided between the large and the
small member states. As for nuclear armaments, the context of their use
getting the unanimous approval required, either constitutionally or from
public opinion, would appear to be as inconceivable as their use would
be utterly immoral. The challenge is to recognise and overcome the
temptation to return to the excesses of nationalism that were the
undoing of Europe in the past.
III. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
This charter was adopted at Nice but is not part of the Treaty. While it
is not yet legally binding, it expresses institutional EU thinking in a
number of highly significant socio-ethical areas.
At their meeting last October the Council of European Bishops
Conferences (CCEE) gave a carefully balanced assessment of the draft
Charter. The Bishops saw the Charter as representing "something
positive in itself, for it strengthens the freely undertaken network of
inter-relation and cooperation, which assures and promotes the
development of peace, justice and solidarity on our continent. Human
rights are among the most valuable elements of the religious, moral,
cultural and civil tradition of Europe." In particular, according
to the Bishops, the Charter acknowledges the principles of subsidiarity,
solidarity and respect for national identity.
At the same time the Bishops felt obliged to point out areas where the
Charter is manifestly incomplete. For example, the prohibition of the
cloning of human life extends only to reproductive as distinct from
therapeutic cloning. In addition, they considered that the contribution
of religions, in particular of Christianity, in promoting the dignity of
the human person and the rights accruing from that dignity could have
found a more robust acknowledgement, particularly in the preamble.
IV. A CHURCH CONTRIBUTION
The Catholic Church offers a unique contribution to the European debate.
Being universal it can claim to represent not only the Church in Europe
but the Church in the outside world as well. The Church acknowledges the
important role the EU has played in creating peace and prosperity in
western Europe. Because of the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity
on which it is constructed, the EU is not seen as a threat to the world
at large but rather an admirable example of a well-directed search for
unity and peace in an increasingly interdependent world.
The search for unity and peace is at the heart of the Christian Gospel.
It gives a mission to all who would make our broken world a better
place. It is clarified by ongoing and intensive reflection. Our mandate
from the Lord is to reach out to all the "scattered children of
God" (John 11:52) and to receive from him "a peace the world
cannot give" (John 14:27).
V. PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE
The Treaty of Nice is an important step on the road towards shaping
Europe. In addition to completing the business of Amsterdam, it sets out
the route for the next revision of the Treaty in 2004. A lively public
debate on the subject will serve to sharpen our sense of responsibility
as Irish and European citizens. It should also lead to a maximum turnout
of voters on 7 June.
These comments are intended to encourage people to vote. They are not
intended to express an unqualified preference as to how votes should be
cast one way or the other. They are also an appeal to politicians,
educationists, journalists and other opinion-makers to develop and
promote a culture of informed debate and discussion of European issues
in our media and public institutions. In making up their minds on the
Treaty of Nice, people may wish to take into account what the Bishops
think. Arguments for and against have to be considered, but in the end a
decision has to be made. On balance there seems to be a stronger case
for the Treaty than against. To vote against Nice would be to change the
direction of positive involvement in Europe we have been going for more
than twenty five years, an involvement that has been to our benefit.
|