The first European Council under the Italian Presidency met in Rome on 27 and 28 October. I attended the meeting together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerard Collins. A copy of the Presidency's Conclusions has been placed in the Oireachtas Library. Today I want to report on the outcome of the European Council and at the same time to address the related issues that will arise in the intergovernmental conference which will open in December on European Economic and Monetary Union and European Political Union, and at the Europeam Congress of National Parliaments which will meet in Rome at the end of November.
Our membership of the European Community and the need to discuss at national level the changes and developments which have taken place since we joined have provided this House with some of its most important debates. I hope the present one will be no exception. In the past, there has been a general recognition and acceptance of the value of EC membership for this country and a desire that we should make our own contribution to the process of integration of the European Community. It is understood also that the Community provides the fundamental political and economic framework within which, as members of Government or as parliamentarians, we will operate in the future and which affords us the opportunity of achieving the highest level of prosperity.
When we applied to join the European Community we did so in the knowledge that we would be required to develop new policies and to participate in new initiatives, some unfamiliar to us, as the Community itself grew and expanded. The benefits and the obligations of membership go hand in hand. The Treaty of Rome makes it clear that the members of the Community are embarked on a process that leads to an even closer union of the peoples of Europe.
The oil crises combined with the doubling of membership from six to 12 in the space of 12 years understandably slowed down the pace of integration but it could not delay it indefinitely. No doubt some of the member states felt frustrated that it has not always been possible to move forward at a quicker pace; they believed that the Community was at its most vulnerable when it was most divided; they saw the over-zealous defence of sovereignty and protection of national interests as the principal causes of the economic sclerosis which attacked the Community during the late seventies and early eighties.
At the same time, others argued that by consolidating what they had and by feeling their way cautiously with one hand firmly holding on to the past, they would somehow be in a better position to protect their national interests. It was only when the gravity of what was happening to the economies of the member states as a result of the collective failure of the Community to strengthen and develop common policies became clear that a new sense of urgency entered the political arena and set the Community on a new and accelerating course to fuller integration.
Not very long after the entry into force of the Single European Act in 1987, the Community is once again considering how it can prepare itself to face the new realities — political, economic and social — of a changed and changing world. The European Community, which came into existence as a consequence of a terrible war in order to provide reconciliation and hope for only half of Europe's population, has now clearly become a political anchor for all of the people of Europe. Just as the original six members of the Community acted as a spur to other countries including Ireland so, we, the Community of Twelve must inspire and encourage the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe to consolidate their newly won democratic freedom, give it full and fruitful expression and build efficient market economies in order to offer a better life to all their citizens.
We can be justly proud of the progress that has been made since the ratification of the Single European Act, but we must ensure that the momentum which has been generated can be channelled into even more rapid and deeper integration.
The Internal Market is on schedule for completion by 1 January 1993. By the same date, substantial progress will have been made towards economic and monetary union with the possibility of a single European currency — something unimaginable just a few years ago — in circulation before the end of the decade. The legislation under the action programme to apply the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers will be nearing completion. In other policy areas such as research and technological development and the environment substantial progress will also have been made. If we are to go further we must examine together what new objectives we need to set ourselves and, having reached agreement on them, make them part of the Treaty.
At the international level, the Community is facing new challenges. At the beginning of this year, during our Presidency, I moved to put our relationship with the United States on a sounder and more stable footing. It is astonishing to recall that one of the Community's most important relationships had not been formalised and lacked the support of a proper structure within which it was possible to meet at the highest political level and to discuss issues of common interest.
Nearer home, the rapid implementation of the Internal Market caused concern among the EFTA countries who felt that their interests would be threatened if they did not quickly enter into dialogue, as a group, with the Community. Those negotiations are difficult and progress has been slow but they are taking place at an intensive level, stimulated no doubt by the realization on the part of EFTA that not only is the Community moving rapidly towards the full achievement of its present objectives but is about to embark on a process which will set it new ones.
To the south, the countries of the Mediterranean, bound to the Community by traditional trade, cultural and historic links, are looking to us for help to sustain progress already made towards democracy and viable economic reform. Instability in this region of the world would have a direct impact on the Community and we must invest time and energy to address the economic, social and environmental problems of these countries and build a policy of good neighbourly relations with them.
It is, however, on the continent of Europe itself that the most dramatic developments have taken place. The farreaching changes in Central and Eastern Europe have helped to encourage the Governments of the member states to accelerate the political construction of Europe. For it was the Community, seen as a symbol of prosperity and freedom, where all member countries have an equal right to be heard and to have their say, which in part motivated millions of men and women to take to the streets and overthrow the oppressive regimes which had held them in servitude since the end of the war.
The unification of Germany on 3 October through free self-determination and by peaceful and democratic means is, and should be, a source of great satisfaction to the Community. It offers a remarkable example of the way in which the Community and its institutions can function and co-operate once there is political agreement and when clear objectives have been set. Ireland warmly welcomed German unification and can take pride in the very positive part we were able to play during our Presidency to facilitate the integration of the former German Democratic Republic into the Community.
What has emerged more forcefully since 1987 and the ratification of the Single European Act is the status of the Community as an area of stability in a turbulent world. The members of the Community have built up a solid network of links — economic, political and monetary — which bind them together in a unique fashion. It has made the Community strong and given it resources to help not only the poorer parts of its member states but others in the developing world. It has also enabled the creation of the necessary wealth and trading power to give it a strong and effective role in world affairs. We cannot stop there. We must press on and strengthen the Community. The pace of change is gathering momentum and the decisions which must be taken to reinforce the Community's coherence and develop its internal and external strength are important for all of us.
The two main fronts on which progress must be made are economic and monetary union and political union.
Deputies will recall that the European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989 agreed to convene an Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union and that the European Councils in Dublin in the first half of this year set the timetable for the conference and the ratification of its results. Further preparatory work has been done in the past months. The European Council last weekend considered the state of the preparations. Eleven member states were able to agree that the work done to date constitutes the basis for the Intergovernmental Conference which will open in Rome on 14 December next. These states also agreed on the principal elements which should guide the work of the conference and these are set out in the Presidency's conclusions. One member state — the United Kingdom — was unable to go along with the majority approach; the conclusions contain their separate views.
For 11 member states there is now agreement on several key issues. First, we agreed on the main aims of economic union including an open market system, price stability, growth, employment, sound financial and budgetary conditions, and greater economic and social cohesion. Second, for the final phase of monetary union we agreed on the creation of a new monetary institution, comprising member states central banks and a new central organ, exercising full responsibility for monetary policy. Third, we also agreed that with the final phase of EMU exchange rates will be irrevocably fixed. The Community will have a single currency — a strong and stable ECU — which will be the expression of its identity and unity. Fourth, it is agreed that the second phase of EMU will begin in January 1994 after certain conditions have been fulfilled. One of these conditions is real convergence between the economies of the member states. Fifth, at the start of the second phase the new monetary institution will be established with certain interim tasks, and, finally, there is a procedure for preparing the move to the third and final phase of EMU. Before this is done there must be a report to the European Council on the functioning of the second phase, and in particular the progress achieved on real convergence.
Ireland's general attitude towards economic and monetary union has been one of strong support. In giving that support, however, we give equal weight to the economic and monetary aspects of integration. This parallelism is of crucial importance for us. We are quite clear that it would not be in our national interest, or in the interest of the Community, if monetary union were to move at an accelerated pace, while the economic aspects of the design were left undeveloped. Our support is also on the basis that integral to economic and monetary union will be a commitment to the implementation of effective Community policies aimed at achieving economic and social cohesion.
Integration will bestow many benefits on the European Community by creating an environment conducive to growth and enhanced prosperity. At the same time, we have to consider the possibility that closer integration could lead to a faster development of the central and more affluent areas thus widening the gap between them and the poorer and more peripheral regions. I am concerned that this should not happen and we have argued this case strongly in the preparatory work on EMU. I believe that the agreements we secured last weekend as a basis for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference will protect and promote Ireland's interests — indeed the Community's overall interest — in this respect. Not only is economic and social cohesion agreed as one of the principal aims of EMU but there must be further progress towards convergence in each of the phases. In the detailed negotiations to come we will be seeking to ensure that the design of EMU takes these commitments fully into account. In this connection, we welcome the ideas put forward by the Commission on a possible widening of Structural Funds eligibility and these ideas offer a useful avenue for exploration. There is still a tendency, however, for many in the Community to consider that structural funding on its own will meet the objective of economic and social cohesion. We have consistently emphasised that the Community must also look to a more effective implementation of common policies — State aids and transport, for example — in bringing about this vital objective.
Another interesting pointer to the way in which a mutual support system could evolve in the context of EMU is the Commission's idea of a scheme of grants or loans to help member states overcome major economic problems. While the details of this suggestion remain to be fleshed out, it should prove to be a useful part of the new system required to ensure the capacity of less-developed regions to continue on the journey to economic and monetary union.
I would like in particular to emphasise the wide measure of agreement which exists on certain key matters of principle in both the economic and monetary domains. In the monetary area, there is almost unanimous agreement that there should be a common monetary policy under the control of an independent and federally-structured banking system which would have, as its overriding objective, the maintenance of price stability. A single currency is now also seen as an integral feature of the final stage of economic and monetary union. Our experience within the European Monetary System suggests that we are well able to cope with the rigours involved in this approach, subject to appropriate measures to improve cohesion. Indeed, the experiences gained by all members participating in the European Monetary System will be of great worth in ensuring that the degree of co-operation which is necessary to bring this about will be readily forthcoming.
To guarantee the success of economic and monetary union, correct economic policies will have to be implemented in tandem with monetary policy geared to price stability. The framework for ensuring that is already in place with the agreement reached by Finance Ministers during our Presidency on mutual surveillance of economic policies. Moreover, all member states are agreed that budgetary discipline is a key to the success of this process. They are also agreed that certain broad principles, designed to bring this discipline about, should be incorporated in the amended Treaty.
Given the degree of institutional change contemplated by the moves towards integration, it will be necessary to consider the issue of democratic control in some detail. There are important issues here relating to the respective balances which should exist between the various institutions. The role of the European Parliament, in particular, will require special attention. The Conference on Political Union will, among other matters, be examining these issues and it is to that conference that I now turn my remarks.
The resolve of the member states to press ahead with the further integration of the Community was evidenced by the decision at the European Council in Dublin on 25 and 26 June to convene a second Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union and to draw up the appropriate Treaty changes. Since then Foreign Ministers have been preparing the work of the conference and the Commission have given their formal opinion on the proposal. We had a full debate on this issue at last weekend's European Council. Eleven member states were able to agree on the broad lines of their approach to the Intergovernmental Conference which will open on 14 December next. The agreement amongst these 11 and the UK's position of reserve, are contained in the Presidency's Conclusions. Understandably, given that work did not commence until the spring of this year, preparations for the IGC on political union are not as far advanced as those on EMU. Foreign Ministers have been asked to continue their preparatory work up to mid-December under four broad headings: the overall objective and scope of political union; the democratic legitimacy of the union; the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community and its institutions; and the unity and coherence of the Community's international action.
Our approach to the preparatory work in these four areas is shaped by a number of guiding principles. Firstly, it has been a basic tenet of our policy towards the European Community that the development of political integration should be based on a growing community of interests in the economic and social field. Progress in the latter area, which from the beginning the Treaty of Rome saw as the means of eliminating the barriers dividing Europe, will shape the pace of developments in the former.
Secondly, the Community has proved its political role as a unifying force in Europe, based on its democratic values, success in improving the living and working standards of its peoples, its commitment to international peace and prosperity and its openness to the rest of Europe and the wider world. Nothing in the current exercise should diminish the constructive and flexible character of this role.
Thirdly, the two IGCs should mark a significant and coherent advance in the internal efficacy and deepening of the Community and the ability of the Community and its member states to work more closely and constructively with other countries of Europe and internationally.
Fourthly, the development of the Treaty to cover new areas of policy must proceed on the basis of the existing obligation of the Community and the member states under the Treaty, to strengthen the Community's economic and social cohesion and, in particular, to reduce regional disparities and the problems of the least favoured regions. With this goal in mind, it would be unreal to consider extending the scope of Treaty competences without addressing the means, financial and otherwise, required to meet the new objectives and to implement new common policies.
Two other issues can usefully be examined in the context of the scope of political union. They are subsidiarity and the concept of Community citizenship. Subsidiarity can be defined as the notion that the Community will only act to carry out tasks which can be undertaken more effectively by the member states acting in common than separately. The question is an important one which is related both to the transfer of competence to the Community and to the exercise of competences which already exist. Several of our partners wish to see the principle of subsidiarity anchored in the Treaty. The question is how do we go about this? For example, do we seek to define what should be exclusively the competence of the union, and those which should be left to national administrations, or should be, on the other hand, list those which cannot be ceded to the Community? Again, should we suggest areas which can evolve over time from the competence of member states to the Community?
I would argue that in considering this issue we should be clear, firstly, about the legal implications of any definition and, secondly, that subsidiarity would not be used to limit the development of the Community. This will require political agreement between the member states on the nature of the control of subsidiarity. Should this be of a legal nature with the involvement of the Court of Justice or a new Constitutional court as has been suggested? There are good arguments in favour of a general reference in the Treaty with control being exercised at political level. At a stage where the Community is in the process of evolving towards a fuller union, it would be more sensible perhaps to allow the designation of what should be the competence of the union and of the member states to be made at political level.
As the Community evolves and develops it is only proper that greater consideration be given to the rights which the citizens of the Community should enjoy. As part of the programme to establish the Internal Market, decisions are being taken to allow people to move more freely between the member states, to take up residence and to obtain employment. Attempts are also being made to reduce the bureaucratic barriers which confront the citizens of one member state when they move to another for employment or recreation. It is vitally important that the interests of the people of Europe should not be ignored by over-concentrating on economic and monetary issues or when striving to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutions of the Community.
I welcome, therefore, the proposal to see included in an amended Treaty the question of citizens' rights. It is possible to imagine a legal definition of Community citizenship which would be made up of a series of rights, freedoms and obligations. Those would, of course, flow from the competences conferred on the Community. Basic special rights might cover the right of Community citizens to full freedom of movement, the freedom to choose one's place of residence and the right to political participation at the place of residence.
Additional rights would result from new policies. The extension to citizens of other member states of the right to vote in local and national elections in their country of residence and the establishment of a common procedure for elections to the European Parliament are areas which could also be examined. Ireland has already an advanced profile in relation to the right to vote in elections by nationals from other member states.
Other ideas have been put forward to help establish the concept of Community citizenship. One is to create a Community Ombudsman who would help to safeguard the rights of Community citizens in areas where legal redress through the court might be difficult or simply not available. A second idea, which can draw on experience from the Gulf crisis, is that Community citizens, irrespective of the member state of which they are nationals, should have the right, when outside the Community, to avail of the protection of the diplomatic missions of any member state. Ireland would be willing to study positively both these ideas.
In general, we should support an evolution of the concept of Community citizenship but ensure that from the outset a framework is established which will allow for practical measures to be adopted. It will be important to take into account rights already provided for in Community legislation and give a new impulse for others in the domain of a people's Europe.
At a time in the history of the European continent when barriers whether physical or ideological, are disappearing we must find ways of demonstrating to our citizens that they belong to a single geographical and cultural entity. By quickening the pace at which we remove internal frontiers and consolidating the concept of Community citizenship, we will be making significant progress.
Just as, in 1985, the intergovernmental conference from which came the Single European Act agreed to broaden the scope of the Treaty by bringing in new areas of competence, so too the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union will examine ways of broadening the scope of the Community by giving it new competences. This can be examined under three headings: first, areas which are covered by existing Treaty articles such as those relating to certain aspects of social policy, environment, research and technology and vocational training where decisions are currently taken by unanimity; second, areas which are not specifically mentioned in the Treaty such as health, civil defence, culture, education, consumer protection, energy policy, telecommunications and development co-operation; and third, areas dealt with at intergovernmental level outside the Treaty framework such as immigration, drugs, police and judicial co-operation could be codified in the Treaty establishing political union. An issue for consideration in this context is whether the decision making procedure applicable in these areas would be the classic Community procedure or, drawing on the experience of the procedure for European Political Co-operation under Title III of the Single European Act, an altogether special arrangement.
The implications for Ireland of any proposed changes under any of these three headings must of course be examined carefully. We would need to measure the advantages and disadvantages in any change to the voting procedure, especially were there to be a move away from unanimity or where areas of a particularly sensitive nature, presently dealt with at intergovernmental level, were to be brought within the Treaty framework. However, we cannot lose sight of the very real implications for this whole exercise which would result from a cautious or indeed negative attitude on the part of member states to a broadening of the scope of the Treaty. On the other hand, if all the areas I outlined earlier were to be included, we might run the risk of overburdening the institutions of the Community, slowing down the decision making process and allowing the Community to develop in an unbalanced manner.
The recommendations of the NESC report on Ireland in the European Community are relevant in this regard and Deputies will recall the argument put forward in that report that an advanced economic and monetary union with the Community involved in a wide range of policy functions would benefit the Community as a whole as well as the less developed regions. Furthermore, such involvement is necessary to achieve genuine integration of the Community.
It is not yet possible to say how much the scope of the Treaty will be broadened in the course of the current exercise. However, if we are to attain a level of European integration envisaged in the NESC report which can include appropriate mechanisms for genuine regional coherence and convergence, we should favour a wide rather than a narrower transfer of competence. Amendments to the Treaty should be framed in such a way as to further this objective and not to hinder it.
Concern has been expressed by the European Parliament and by a number of member states that unless the democratic legitimacy of the Community is strengthened as part of the present Treaty reform process the basic principles of democratic accountability could be undermined. At the same time national parliaments have expressed disquiet at the gradual erosion of their own powers following the adoption of the Single European Act.
The European Parliament believes that a significant increase in its powers is necessary as a result of the moves towards greater political union. Among questions posed here are the right of Parliament to co-decision with the Council of Ministers within the legislative and constitutional area, and Parliament's involvement in the nomination of the President and members of the Commission.
In the Single European Act, Parliament was given significant new powers under the co-operation procedure and it has used these powers constructively. We are prepared to examine in a positive spirit all practical suggestions aimed at developing the role of the European Parliament in the legislative process of the Community.
It would certainly be difficult to consider changes of a far-reaching character to the Treaties without ensuring that the participation of Parliament is also considered. Not to do this could diminish the credibility of the Parliament in the eyes of the electorate. It must, however, be stressed that a serious concern for us will be to ensure that the efficiency of the decision making process is not impaired — indeed it must be improved — and that any additional powers accorded to Parliament should not result in delays in the processing of Community legislation. Furthermore changes arising from the intergovernmental conference in the role and functioning of the institutions should not alter the existing institutional balance.
As a directly elected body, the European Parliament has a special role to play in ensuring that the Community is grounded in the principles of democratic accountability, but other institutions also have a part to play in this respect. We should not lose sight of the fact that the European Council and the Council of Ministers are fully representative of the peoples of the Community. The representatives of the member states in these Councils are answerable to their own parliaments and through these to their peoples — as, for example, I am answering to you today for last weekend's European Council.
As the process of Community integration develops and with the prospect of further competences being transferred to the Union, concern has been expressed about the role of national parliaments. These concerns and the whole question of the role of the national parliaments in the future work of the Community will be debated at the proposed European Congress of National Parliaments and the European Parliament to be held in Rome from 27-30 November. The preparatory work for this congress began at a meeting in May of representatives of national parliaments and the European Parliament which took place in Cork and was followed by two further meetings in Brussels and Rome. The Oireachtas was represented by Members of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I have no doubt that the congress will be an important opportunity for national parliaments to put forward their own views on how they would wish to be more closely involved in future Community activities. I look forward to the outcome of the congress which I am confident will inform the work of the intergovernmental conference.
The Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union will provide an opportunity to examine and improve the response of the Community and its institutions to the major policy developments since the ratification of the Single European Act. Any necessary changes in the light of the additional competences and policies which the Community will acquire under the present Treaty amendments can also be made. Here, too, changes in the role of the institutions should in no sense be allowed to disturb the balance between them.
The European Council has played a central role in the development of the Community over the past five years. During our Presidency I felt it necessary to call an exceptional meeting of the European Council to allow for joint consideration at the highest political level of the dramatic pace of events in Eastern Europe and especially the rapid progress towards German unity.
When I wrote to my fellow Heads of Government in February inviting them to Dublin, I stressed the importance I attached for the Twelve to bring their collective voice to bear on the issues arising, to consider the steps to be taken to develop the Community's own integration process and to examine the demands that were likely to be made on the community in the new European. It is this broad political role to which the European Council is particularly suited. It can give a general political direction or impulse, act as arbitrator and, on occasions, decision maker on areas affecting the future of the Community. During our Presidency I became increasingly convinced of these crucial functions which the European Council must exercise in the construction of Europe. In my view the Council should retain the flexibility which has helped it fulfil this role.
Bearing in mind the need that has been felt in recent years to hold more than the scheduled two meetings per year, we might support any proposal to increase the frequency of meetings of the European Council. As the need for greater unity and coherence of the Community's international action develops, the President of the European Council could become the interlocutor for the union at the highest level. We would be prepared to examine any proposals which might be made about the manner in which it carries out its tasks but our experience would suggest that the value of the European Council might be diminished were its nature and structure to be changed significantly.
There is also a general acceptance that in future the role of the General Affairs Council and EPC Ministerial Meeting should be unified. During our Presidency earlier this year we initiated the procedure whereby Ministers discussed the political as well as the economic aspects of issues without having to change the format of the meeting, as had been so often the case in the past. We found that in working in this manner we were able to improve significantly the co-ordination between the positions adopted in the economic sphere and those adopted in political co-operation. It seems to me sensible that this practice should be continued and formalised. The overall objective should be to ensure the most efficient and rational management of the work of the Community.
The role of the Commission, which is the guardian of the treaties, is central to the proper functioning of the Community. As the initiator of legislation, it must be endowed with the necessary authority and powers to ensure that the interests of all the member states are fully taken into account in the framing of legislation. It must also be given the necessary powers to implement decisions taken by the Council. Under the Single European Act new powers were conferred on the Commission and experience has shown that on balance these have worked well. We can, of course, look at any improvements which might improve the operation of these new procedures.
The number of Commissioners is an issue which from time to time has been considered by the member states, particularly during the negotiations on the Single European Act and on the accession of Spain and Portugal. It has been argued that a Commission with fewer members would ensure better co-ordination, would enable matters to be more thoroughly discussed and facilitate clear conclusions, constitute a genuine team and allow its members to have a better personal knowledge of each other, thus creating a better collegiate spirit, and establish portfolios of genuine content and equal weight.
I see no reason we could not indicate support — we did so in the past — for a reduction in the number of the Commissioners, provided there is no attempt by the larger member states to monopolize the more important portfolios and provided that there is one Commissioner from each member state.
The June European Council decided that the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union should "define the necessary framework for transforming relations as a whole among the member states into a European Union vested with the necessary means of action". One of the areas to be considered in this context is the unity and coherence of the Community's international action — that is, how the policies of the Community vis-à-vis the outside world can be expressed more coherently and implemented more effectively. At its meeting on 28 April last, the European Council agreed that the Community would act as a political entity on the international scene. It is in this framework that the intergovernmental conference will examine proposals that the Community should adopt a common foreign and security policy.
It is clear that fundamental changes have taken place recently in Europe with the end of the Cold War. The situation in Central and Eastern Europe has changed with the diminution of the role of the Warsaw Pact and the restoration of democracy in most of these countries. The security picture of Europe as a whole has changed dramatically. These changes are continuing. At the same time negotiations between the alliances and between the super powers are bringing about reductions in military forces. The level of tension and threat in Europe continues to diminish and the alliances on both sides are facing fundamental questions about their role in this new situation. Security and defence doctrines based on what might be called East-West thinking are undergoing fundamental reassessment.
The United Nations is playing an increasingly important role in the current difficult international situation, and one which is closer to that envisaged for it in the Charter, of an international body with genuine responsibility for international peace and security. This is a development we welcome.
The CSCE process has played a vital role in the positive developments in Europe of which I spoke, in providing an overall framework within which movement towards a new concept of European security has been possible. We believe that it has the potential to contribute further and are in favour of building it up by providing it with institutions and giving it a role in areas such as conflict prevention and verifying military and security commitments, as well as providing a forum for disarmament negotiations among the 34 member states.
We are looking, therefore, at a situation in which the parameters of the debate on foreign policy and on security are very different from what they were four or five years ago. These are the parameters within which we, along with our partners, must look at our approach in the areas of foreign policy and security policy.
At the Rome Council 11 member states, including Ireland, were able to agree that these major developments on our continent required us to get the objective of a common foreign and security policy in order to strengthen the identity of the Community and the coherence of its action on the international scene. We agreed that this action will be open to the world and will give a significant role to development policy. We also agreed that the Community will strengthen its links with other European countries and that for this purpose closer co-operation structures will be sought.
The Presidency's Conclusions make it clear that while there is agreement on the overall objectives the content and detailed rules of the role of the Community in relation to a common foreign and security policy have yet to be defined. Furthermore they are to be defined gradually and without prejudice to the obligations arising out of the present security arrangements to which member states are party.
Here I should say that the position I have put forward already on this issue, and which reflects the position of successive Irish Governments, is that if the Community were at some stage to embark on arrangements for its own security and with its own security concept, then Ireland as a fully committed member state would be willing to consider participation. The creation of the Internal Market and of an economic and monetary union, the development of the concept of Community citizenship, the increase in the scope and responsibilities of the Community will create a powerful bond between the member states and solidarity between their peoples. It will give rise to an area, a territorial unit, with the closest political, economic and social ties. The question, therefore, is whether there is now emerging a common security interest specific to the Twelve and whether, in accordance with the commitments of successive Governments to which I have just referred, this country would be willing to work with partners towards a structure which would give that interest expression.
As yet member states have not put forward specific proposals or defined what is meant by security or what the limits of the concept might be. In so far as the concept has been talked about it has given rise to a fairly wide range of differing views. Some member states suggest — and I agree with them — that there is a distinction between the concepts of security and defence. The Single Act refers to the political and economic aspects of security. There are two dimensions. There are others apart from the military aspect. For instance, security can cover the defence of the Community and its citizens from international terrorism.
It could have a disarmament dimension. The Community could be seen to be providing its own security by taking a positive attitude and playing an active united role on issues of international disarmament. There are other aspects. One thing is clear to me. A common security policy in the Community is not likely to include the defence or military aspects for some time to come. Why do I say that? I say so because a number of the member states who are most concerned about these matters are adamant that European defence and military matters are for NATO and NATO alone. Others see the WEU as the right vehicle for these matters.
We are now at a stage of pre-negotiation. The negotiating phase will begin with the IGC. Among the questions it will discuss will be what areas a common foreign and security policy could cover, how such a policy could be introduced in terms of the Treaties, in the light of existing obligations of other member states, how decisions should be taken and what institutional and structural changes should be made to enable a new policy to be implemented coherently and effectively. We will be putting our views forward in these negotiations and we expect our partners will be doing likewise.
We will look very carefully at the role of the European Council in this area. We will wish to ensure that the new Treaty to be negotiated sets out clearly the limits of partners' commitments in this sensitive field and that these are not decided in any ad hoc manner. In any case, we would find it difficult to envisage that decision making at any level in an area such as this, being brought for the first time within the competence of Community machinery, should be otherwise than by consensus.
I have thought it right to describe to the Dáil the major issues likely to arise at the two intergovernmental conferences. In some cases — such as economic and monetary union — the issues are now relatively clear and I have given you the main lines of Ireland's position as we enter into the negotiations. Others — such as a common foreign and security policy — are less well defined and will require a great deal more preparation. In these cases I have sought to bring out the key points at this stage and to outline our overall approval. The negotiations opening in December will be crucial for the Community, setting its course for the foreseeable future. They will be crucial also for Ireland whose destiny is now irrevocably linked to that of its partners in the process of European integration.
The discussions on economic and monetary union and on political union naturally occupied a great deal of the attention of Heads of State and Government at the Rome meeting, but we dealt also with a range of other matters of great current importance in international relations.
The European Council heard a preliminary report from the Commission following its talks with the Soviet Government — pursuant to its mandate from the European Council in Dublin in June — to prepare proposals for Community assistance. The Council expressed the willingness of the Community to contribute to the success of the reforms recently adopted by the Soviet Government and asked the Commission to submit its proposals before the next meeting of the European Council in December. If, in the meantime, emergency action is required the Council will take whatever decisions are necessary on the basis of proposals from the Commission. The European Council also asked the Commission to put forward proposals for a major commercial, scientific and technical co-operation agreement with the Soviet Union.
In relation to Eastern Europe, the European Council took stock of the progress made in the programmes of financial and technical assistance and in the Community's discussions on association agreements with the countries of the region. Noting that these countries are experiencing additional adjustment difficulties because of the international situation, the European Council agreed that the Community has a duty to help consolidate and develop the reform process notably by playing its part in the stabilisation of their financial situation. Particular attention is paid to the situations in Yugoslavia and Hungary.
