Danes hoisted on their own protocol

REMEMBER the abortion protocol? That insignificant protocol added quietly to the Maastricht Treaty when no one was looking.' That protocol which was to prove so embarrassing after the X case when it had to be interpreted [away by "solemn declaration".

Well, the Danes also have their protocols, and one of them, couched in rather too general terms, is causing red faces in Danish diplomatic circles. Dangerous things, protocols, particularly [those drafted by panicky politicians.

At the end of June the chickens came home to roost. It was a pretty uncontroversial issue - ministers were agreeing to work with the Western European Union to plan the hypothetical emergency evacuation of EU citizens from trouble spots around the world. The Danish government could not take part in the vote because of legal problems associated with a protocol pledge that Denmark will not participate in the development of European defence. (The reality now is that should any evacuation take place European member states will certainly not leave Danish citizens behind - but Danes cannot participate in the rescue planning or execution.)

Now there is even more embarrassment. Next week EU foreign ministers are to approve a possible request to the WEU to take over part of the demining of Bosnia. The joint action will have to go ahead without Denmark, however, for the same reason.

Yet the Danish government would like to participate. Polls suggest Danes approve of such operations. Humanitarian missions are regarded as a "good thing". And their participation in an identical NATO operation would be unproblematic. If the WEU instead of the EU had taken the initiative there would also be no problem.

The protocol is one of four agreed at the Edinburgh summit in December 1992 after the Danes had voted down the Maastricht Treaty. The other three allow Denmark an opt out on the single currency (unless a referendum approves participation), a rejection of the notion that EU citizenship could supercede national citizenship (no one has ever proposed this!) and a rejection of any supranational co operation in justice and home affairs issues. In return the Danes promised not to block others from going down these roads.

The protocols can only be amended by referendum but opinion polls suggest that, despite patently unintended and unpopular consequences, the deeply Eurosceptical voters are not prepared at the moment to repeal them. In the circumstances the government is doing all it can to avoid putting anything to a vote, and seems to be hoping the Inter Governmental Conference will not produce changes that will require a Danish referendum.

Such a hope is forlorn - at the very least the Danes will require a referendum to put the Petersberg tasks of humanitarian and peacekeeping into the treaty. The irony, the Danish journalist Ole Ryborg points out, is that those Eurosceptics who campaigned in 1993 for a "no" vote on the grounds that the protocols were worthless, are now their most passionate defenders.

From an Irish point of view what is curious about the hook the Danes seem to have impaled themselves on is the fact that they are not neutrals. Denmark has been a member of NATO since 1949. Their problem is with the EU, not neutrality.

But the result is similar to Ireland's neutrality dilemma. A solid public attachment to a general principle of neutrality is at variance with the reality that, on a case by case basis, the public finds itself on the other side of the argument. Would we be willing to serve like Swedish "neutrals", under NATO command in Bosnia? In demining? Polls suggest we would. Would we be willing to come to the defence of fellow EU member states? Likewise.

Yet both types of commitment are incompatible with conventional definitions of Irish neutrality. Is it not time we came to grips with this old chestnut? Or are we ever to be like the White Queen?