Could the Minister give us some examples as to what he means by the political and economic aspects of security referred to under Article 30, paragraph 6 (a) where he argues that that in no way involves us in a diminution of our neutrality or independence? Perhaps related to that is Article 30, paragraph 2 (d) where the contracting parties are obliged to endeavour to avoid any action or position which impairs their effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations or within international organisations. Would the Minister not accept that there must be some restriction on our independence if we take those two paragraphs together, given that the other partners in the EC are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

The political aspects of security relate to foreign policy issues dealing with international peace and security which are concerned with the Twelve as a whole. Questions relating to international security in general, and European security in particular, have always been central to European political co-operation whether in discussing issues such as the Middle East or South Africa or in discussion of disarmament issues arising in the United Nations. For example, in regard to the economic aspects of security, during the energy crisis of 1973 the economic security of supplies in that area would have been of concern to the Twelve.

In regard to the second point the Deputy raised, obviously the intention is — and it has been part of European political co-operation for the past 15 years — to try to get our political attitudes to problems around the world and international bodies as close together as possible. But it is always on the basis of consensus. Therefore, if only 11 countries can agree to taking a certain stance at the United Nations or at the CSCE then there is not a European political position because there has not been consensus about the position. While we would wish to get our positions as close as possible, there may be issues which cannot be agreed and, therefore, there will not be a common European position. There can only be a common European position when all Twelve agree to it. Otherwise there is not a common European position. There is no diminution of our independence in that regard because we can decide independently we will not be part of that consensus.

Would the Minister agree that the language of the treaty is dangerously ambiguous when it speaks of closer co-operation on security questions being essential to Europe's foreign policy identity? Would the Minister accept that for the German Government or any other EC Government this also includes defence?

It quite specifically does not include defence, as I said in the answer to the original question. Paragraph 6 (a), (b) and (c) must be read together and, to satisfy the Irish demands, part of that says that in relation to military security or defence those countries who wish to pursue these matters must pursue them either in NATO or WEU.

Would the Minister agree that the requirement to inform or consult before taking a position means that in serious international situations serious delay may be involved before taking any peace initiative?

I do not think so. But I can see why the Deputy would ask that question. What is in mind here is that in the CSCE or the Non-Proliferation Treaty Organisation or in the follow up meetings that are taking place in Berne and Vienna at the moment or in the UN in September we would try to get a common European position on that. Obviously if there is an outbreak of some kind of hostility in some part of the world and we want a common European position, there will be the delay that would be involved in the calling of the meeting and the holding of the meeting. But it has been proven that that can be done very quickly. It happened the week before last after the bombing of Tripoli where a meeting of the Ministers working in political co-operation was called within 48 hours and attended fully by all of them.

Is it not a pity that all the members who attended that meeting did not put their cards on the table so that their colleagues would know what the real facts of the situation were at that time?

The communique issued after that meeting also said that the twelve member states were satisfied that on the previous Monday when the meeting was held no one member had information that was not divulged.

Does the Minister seriously suggest that the British Foreign Minister did not know of events which were to take place within a short number of hours of that meeting he attended as Foreign Minister for Her Majesty's Government?

Yes. Those of us who were present at both meetings are satisfied that that was so.

Is the Minister saying he and his colleagues believe that the British Foreign Minister was not aware of the decision that had already been taken by his Prime Minister to allow the bases to be used in the UK for that particular action?

I am not saying that. What I am saying is he did not know when they were going to be used.

He knew that decision was taken and he did not inform——

He knew an agreement had been reached but did not know if or when it would be actually implemented.

He did not tell his colleagues, the Foreign Ministers, of the decision that was taken.

No.

How can we have political co-operation in those circumstances?

That is a different thing. If the Deputy thinks about what I said earlier he will see that is one of the things that should not be discussed there.