There might have been a more ignominious declaration by a sovereign European government since Czechoslovakia's "friends" invaded it in 1968, but I somehow doubt it. Still, there is this to be said in favour of the Government's planned constitutional ploy to get the electorate to agree to the Nice Treaty: it clearly proves that we are without shame, pride or dignity in the conduct of our foreign relations, writes Kevin Myers
The proposal to have a referendum requiring the Government to have a referendum on involvement in common European defence is a sleeveen's solution to a sleeveen's problem, and the first step in a constitutional hall of mirrors. Maybe we could have a constitutional referendum requiring us to have a constitutional referendum which obliges us to have a referendum upon the issue of a referendum which will require us to have a another referendum. . .By which time, the war is over and all our friends are dead - but at least our constitutional lawyers have been kept happy, dancing upon the risible pinhead of sanctimonious neutralism.
Only the most abject cowardice could cause us to seek refuge in the weasel-burrows of serial referendums, so as to avoid a decision here and now. Much of that cowardice results from the Supreme Court's ruling that no government may use its resources to call for a particular referendal outcome. In other words, it may not show leadership.
Thorny issues
Now it's not surprising that lawyers should come to such a conclusion. What else have politicians been doing for the past decades but seeking refuge in the courts rather than confronting politically thorny issues head on? Many of the landmark measures in Irish law did not emanate from Dáil Éireann at all but from the courts, either here or in Strasbourg, and politicians were only too happy to see the buck shifted from their thin and ineffectual shoulders onto those of the begroomed and bewigged ones on the bench.
Whatever the history of the Supreme Court ruling, it effectively means that governments may by law not give a lead in the most vital legal issue of all - changes to our Constitution. Instead, they tend to opt for multi-party consensus, essentially giving power to the most frivolous, the most self-righteous and the most irresponsible of fringe know-nothings.
Sinn Féin lectures
So, suddenly, we find ourselves being lectured by Sinn Féin on the evils of foreign alliances - and this from an organisation which has been in alliance with the Red Brigades of Germany, La Lotta Continua in Italy, the PLO in Lebanon and ETA in Spain - not to speak of becoming the primary executive arm of Libyan foreign policy against the UK. And this is before we even begin to contemplate a certain little Colombian involvement. . .
In fact, I rather hope that some country - Ethiopia, say, or Tanzania - does attacks us, and while enemy askari fan out across Connacht and their impi invest Athlone, the rest of the European Union might have a referendum on whether to have a referendum on whether or not to help us repel the invaders, or indeed, have another referendum.
Why should they help us? Why should anyone ever help us? For we seem to have forfeited the right to anyone's friendship, not apparently knowing what friendship involves, or how to discharge the selfless duties that might result from such friendship.
Living in our Atlantic protectorate, made secure by the measures and the treasures of others, we have boastfully turned moral delinquency into a virtue. We have taken the cheap tin of military fecklessness and hammered it into a badge of honour upon a cotton-wool anvil of meaningless conceit. Only Ruritanians could swagger around proudly with such thin alloy medals flapping lightly on their chests.
Yet any attempt by respected people in public life - not least the President, and Laurence Crowley of the Bank of Ireland - to remind people of the gravity of Nice II is instantly denounced by our many Ruritanians as some sort of outrageous and unwarranted intrusion upon our island Elysium's neutrality.
In a way, we should blame those who have defended us that such wake-up calls can be seen as indecent. While our defenders allowed us to become dependent on them, they were too good-mannered to remind us of this dependence, enabling us to indulge in ludicrous postures of military independence.
Thus, alone of any country in Europe, we insist that Britain and the US seek and then be given particular permission from the Government for each and every single military flight over our territorial lands and waters - unless, of course, we have a major emergency for which we are not equipped (and of course, we're not), in which case, we suddenly forget our neutrality and become everybody's best friend.
Public debate
This is degrading. It is shameful. It is a disgrace. Yet our politicians do not feel degraded, or ashamed, or disgraced. Nor does any echo of this dependence enter into public debate about the meaning of neutrality. Instead, we have essays of perfectly numbing vapidity masquerading as thought, such as Brendan Howlin's proposal that the Constitution should contain a full and binding definition of neutrality.
It is all like listening to schoolgirls voting for the Government to abolish violence, war, famine and disease. Moreover, lisps little Blathnaid's elfin voice, we don't need to defend ourthelveth, because we have no enemieth and everyone loveth uth.
So, God's blessing on your arms, you sturdy Tanzanians, God speed you incoming Ethiopians. The flashing torch on the headland is mine. We deserve to be plucked: so pluck away, my boys, pluck away.