asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the attitude of the Government to the proposal that the veto in the Council of Ministers be abolished; and if he accepts that such abolition would reduce the influence, power and effectiveness of the smaller nations in such councils.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Council of Ministers Veto.
36.
I assume that the Deputy's question refers to point 6 of the communiqué issued by the heads of Government of the member states of the European Communities at the end of their conference in Paris on 9-10th December, 1974, which states, and I quote:
In order to improve the functioning of the Council of the Community, they consider that the practice of making agreement on all questions conditional on the unanimous consent of the member States should be dropped, whatever their respective positions regarding the conclusions reached in Luxembourg on 28th January, 1966.
This reference to the conclusions reached in Luxembourg relates to an "agreement to disagree" that emerged at that meeting when one Government indicated that where in its view its vital interests were affected in respect of a matter which under the treaties was subject to a qualified majority vote, it would not be subject to a decision reached by this method. Instead that country insisted that where very important interests are at stake the discussion in Council must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached.
Point 6 of the Paris summit communiqué reflects a widespread recognition that during the past nine years the practice in question has been extended to matters which are not in effect of vital interest to any member state and that this has affected the efficient functioning of the Community decision making process.
It was agreed during the preparatory work for the Paris conference that the practical implementation of this proposed decision could best be secured by bringing up at the beginning of each session of the Council those questions appearing on the agenda and which will have been chosen in the course of the preparatory work, with the desire of putting into operation the decision of the heads of Government. Accordingly at the outset of the first normal Council meeting in the Irish Presidency I indicated from the chair that I proposed at the outset of each session of the Council to distinguish items on the agenda requiring decisions by unanimity under the treaty, items for which majority decision making is provided for in the treaty and items not requiring formal decisions by the Council. This procedure is designed to facilitate the implementation of point 6 of the Paris summit communiqué by identifying the matters in respect of which this decision could be applied.
As there is therefore no proposal that the veto should be abolished the second part of the Deputy's question does not arise. I should nevertheless like to draw the Deputy's attention to what I said in moving the motion on European Integration in the Dáil on 4th December last, when I stated that at this stage of the development of the Community I was quite clear that on matters of vital interest the veto has to be maintained and that it would be premature to change the system of vetoes in cases of national interest now. I went on to say, however, that:
I was convinced, before I became a member, from what I knew of the system, and I am thoroughly convinced now through seeing it working in practice, that in the longer run the veto system is the protection for the great powers and the qualified majority voting system provides the protection for the interests of the smaller countries and is one which would be much more suitable for our purposes in the longer run.