"We do not need legally binding opt-outs from obligations which simply do not exist." The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, makes this convincing defence of his Government's approach to military neutrality and the Nice Treaty in an article for this newspaper today.
The two declarations made at Seville yesterday spell out the existing treaty obligations about the European Union's security and defence policies. They clarify the Government's policy in this area and that of its 14 partners towards the sovereignty and constitutional procedures that must be followed if they are to develop further.
Following their adoption, the Government must now decide whether to include a reference to neutrality in the constitutional amendment. There is a good case for doing that on political grounds. Military neutrality has been selected from a range of concerns that surfaced during the referendum campaign last year as an area in which assurances could be secured that would not involve renegotiating the treaty. Yesterday's declarations originated in Ireland, but were found useful by other member-states encountering similar problems with their electorates on the implications of the EU's developing security and military capacity.
The logic of Mr Ahern's argument about opt-outs points to the need to reassure Irish voters about the guarantees secured. If they were to be put into the Constitution the case for voting Yes to the treaty would be strengthened, because the mistrust generated by the Nice campaign would be substantially dispelled. The Government's declaration contains a "firm commitment to the people of Ireland" that a referendum will be held on the adoption of a common defence and "on any further treaty which would involve Ireland departing from its traditional policy of military neutrality." It should be possible to find a formula to entrench that promise constitutionally. In the light of previous broken promises to have a referendum on Partnership for Peace, a legally binding obligation to hold one makes sense to many voters.
The arguments against doing that centre on the difficulty of defining military neutrality clearly, so as to avoid recurrent legal restrictions on Ireland's full participation in the EU's developing security and defence policies. That involvement has been mandated by the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, both of them passed by referendums in Ireland. The Nice Treaty does not add substantively to these mandates, but it does provide an opportunity to provide reassurances about them.
It is up to the Government to decide how this might be done in coming days. It would have support from the Labour Party should it opt to present the referendum in the context of neutrality. There are signs too that the Government is prepared to respond sympathetically to that party's detailed demands for more effective Oireachtas scrutiny of EU legislation. Such energy on this vital issue, passed over in the election debate, is welcome. It must be kept up relentlessly if the second referendum on Nice is to be passed.