Treaty places practical concerns at EU centre

With more than 25 years experience of living and working in the European Community the Irish public has a sound background against which to pass judgment on the Amsterdam Treaty. These years, particularly the last decade, have marked a period of exceptional development and growth. Ireland exudes a new self-confidence and maturity that eluded many earlier generations.

This is the result of a complex process of change in which our membership of the European Union has played an immeasurable and beneficial part. When you come to vote on the Amsterdam Treaty assess the Union you have come to know rather than the damning caricature presented by its critics, many of whose anti-European fundamentals have altered little in a generation, despite protests to the contrary.

At the heart of each treaty aimed at enhancing European integration and ratified by the will of each member-state lies a paradox. That is the sovereignty paradox. I do not accept the arguments of those who perceive such movement as trampling member-states under foot. The ever closer union of the peoples of Europe is based on consensual contracts freely entered into by free states on behalf of free peoples. This is not an exercise in external dominion. It is founded, through democracy, on the belief, as we agree to progress our affairs together, that the sum of the parts can achieve better practical results than acting separately.

Especially for smaller states, like Ireland, I genuinely believe that in the European integration experience to date pooling sovereignty has added value to that sovereignty. In any event, as a concept sovereignty is far more constrained in practice, in or out of the EU, with or without the Treaty of Amsterdam, than the Euro-antagonists imply.

As to the proposed treaty, it is a solid, workmanlike product. Unlike the Single European Act, with its single market project, or the Treaty on European Union, with the single currency project, this treaty does not launch any major new initiative. It amends, reforms and refines the existing Treaties, in the light of experience. Jobs, a clean environment and the fight against crime are practical dayto-day concerns reflected in the Amsterdam text. The absence of significant new policy departures reflects the public mood for consolidation as we digest the change-over to the new currency and prepare for enlargement.

The critics cherry-pick their way through this agenda selectively, damning parts with faint praise and in some cases raising false and despicable fears. For example, a new employment chapter aimed at improving policy co-ordination and sharing best practice at European level is attacked for being so limited. To leave this important issue out would be unconscionable with so many unemployed. To pretend that the greater part of solving the unemployment crisis does not belong in the member-states and with the social partners would be a lie. The treaty has found an honest, if limited, balance which commends it.

A new clause is to be added by the Amsterdam Treaty to combat discrimination based on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. For reasons best known to themselves the sceptics are seeking to raise and play on false fears related to sexual preference. It has been argued, incorrectly, that a positive vote will result in Europe forcing Ireland to legislate for gay marriages and gay adoptions. Playing this homophobic card is a vulgar and despicable tactic. For a generation we have been members of the European Community. For our heterosexual population Europe has never sought to legislate for marriages or adoptions precisely because that is the business only of the member-states themselves.

So too will it be in future in respect of single-sex partnerships. The enabling new clause was recommended with a much more modest intention. Whether one approves of homosexuality or not is not the issue. Single-sex couples do form partnerships. They experience real practical problems in relation to ordinary rights, such as pensions or insurance policies. It is quite correct that practical issues such as these should be dealt with and not ignored.

The defence/neutrality question is back at centre stage again with all its raw emotion. The anti-treaty forces insist that a Yes vote for Amsterdam will mark the end of Irish neutrality, as they insisted before the Maastricht Treaty, as they insisted before the Single European Act. If neutrality was like virginity, then apparently having lost it on so many consecutive occasions Ireland truly would be a miraculous case.

The New Treaty does not require Ireland to join a military alliance. It does not require Ireland to enter a mutual defence pact with the other states of the Union. What it clearly does in military terms is provide for the possibility of contributing to humanitarian tasks, peace-keeping and peace-making missions which are entirely consistent with Ireland's United Nations commitment and experience, consistent with the UN charter and consistent with the Irish Defence Acts.

The progressive framing of a defence policy is an aspiration which, like all such, may take years to achieve, if ever. Recall the differing responses in London and Paris to the recent crisis with Saddam Hussein, the chaotic reactions to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the palpable tensions between some larger member-states about the transatlantic military role of the United States, and the existence now within the Union of several neutral states, and one can appreciate how difficult converting policy aspiration into policy reality will be. Such a transition would require the active support of an Irish government since it is a policy area totally subject to national veto.

In this regard all our leading Government and opposition politicians have reassured us they would make no such decision without holding a referendum. I accept their word. If the question of a single European defence ever arises you will get to choose at the ballot-box and since most Irish politicians, with regard to neutrality, run a mile from anything but the most prosaic orthodoxy, I suppose that this will not soon arise.

The treaty retains Ireland's right in future to nominate a European commissioner. It enhances the democratic role of the European Parliament. It forces the Council of Ministers' doors open to reveal voting patterns and explanations for the first time. It strikes a blow for media pluralism and public service broadcasting. It will empower Irish speakers to correspond with the European institutions in Irish. It is worth supporting.

I applaud the nay-sayers for forcing a debate, but I could do without their constant conspiracy theories. Their rights have been vindicated, not oppressed. The Commission definitively has not interfered with Ireland's choice of referendum date, in spite of what they say.

If in doubt remember that you elect political leaders to exercise judgment on the nation's behalf. The Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, the leader of the Opposition, the leaders of Labour and Democratic Left and 13 of the 15 Irish MEPs have exercised their judgment in favour of the Amsterdam Treaty because they believe it is in the country's interest. Vigorous debate is good for democracy. Vive la difference! Remaining at the heart of Europe is good for Ireland. Vive l'Europe!

Pat Cox is an Independent MEP for the Munster constituency