Ray Burke
Question:1 Mr. R. Burke asked the Taoiseach if his new year statement that he will fight for a federal Europe in 1997 represents Government policy. [1374/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - European Union Policy.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the President of the EU Commission. [1521/97]
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his speech to MEPs in Strasbourg on 15 January 1997 on the Irish Presidency and the Dublin Summit. [1522/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
As it made clear in the White Paper on Foreign Policy, the Government is committed to the process of ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe. My new year statement clearly falls within the spirit of that commitment.
I addressed the European Parliament on Wednesday 15 January on the outcome of the Dublin European Council and on the Irish Presidency of the European Union. In the course of my address, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, I outlined the significant progress made by the Irish Presidency and the Dublin European Council, particularly on the key issues of economic and monetary union, the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking, employment policy and the intergovernmental conference. The response of MEPs was overwhelmingly favourable on the performance of the Irish Presidency and the outcome of the Dublin European Council.
In my address I also focused on the longer-term challenges facing the European Union in the overall context of the global challenges of income inequality and population growth.
While I was in Strasbourg, I had a short meeting with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer. I told President Santer that Ireland opposed the 10 per cent cut in the rate of export refunds for beef and cattle exports and requested that the Commission reconsider this decision. I have since written to President Santer setting out Ireland's case in detail and requesting that the 10 per cent cut be rescinded.
The Taoiseach in his new year statement referred to a process of an ever closer co-operation with Europe. There is a quantum leap between what he said about fighting for a federal Europe in that statement and the process of ever closer co-operation. Will he accept that the right approach is that followed by my party and by successive Governments which were deeply committed to supporting closer European integration rather than a federal type Europe? The approach we took has been taken by successive governments and is also taken in the Government White Paper where there is no reference to a federal Europe.
The Deputy is entirely wrong in his quotations. The Maastricht Treaty agreed to when his party was in Government agreed not to ever closer co-operation, which is mere intergovernmentalism, but to ever closer union. "Union" means unity within Europe in a union. The Deputy may not agree with what his party signed up to in the Maastricht Treaty but it is there as the law of the European Union. That Union should be made ever closer. From the outset the European Union has enjoyed many of the characteristics of a federation. In many senses the European Union is already a federal structure. That European law has supremacy over national law in the courts of each nation state is the characteristic not of an intergovernmental arrangement but of a federal state. That is an important characteristic of the European Union. There are other aspects of federation in other parts of the world that the Union has not yet adopted. I could list for the Deputy a number of characteristics of a federal state that the Union has already.
Will the Taoiseach agree the proper approach is being taken in supporting integration to which we, like all other parties in the House, are committed but not in the sense of federalism, which term does not appear in the Government's White Paper? Is it the case that the parties in Government do not subscribe to it? Is the Taoiseach concerned, as he should be, that raising the issue could be needlessly divisive and will he accept that we do not want downgrading of our status as a fully fledged member of the international community while being deeply committed to supporting European integration?
In his second supplementary the Deputy shifted ground.
I did not.
In his first supplementary he referred to the need for ever closer co-operation——
That is what the Taoiseach said.
——something one goes far beyond in joining the European Union. In his second supplementary he referred, more sensibly, to the need for ever closer integration, something I support, believe in and understand. Perhaps the Deputy does not.
I am not grateful for the lecture. Will the Taoiseach agree it is very much in Ireland's interests to maintain the cohesion of the European Union and that when we held the Presidency in 1990 and 1996 we went to great lengths to avoid a scenario of an isolated Britain versus the rest? Will he agree that we in Ireland want Britain to join European Monetary Union as soon as possible and that any talk of federalism with its implications for national sovereignty will only frighten Britain off to the detriment of our domestic economy?
The reply to the Deputy's first and second questions is "yes" and, to his third, "most definitely no". I do not believe Britain is frightened off by those who have ambitions of the kind I expressed for an ever closer union of European peoples and by people expressing them publicly. One of the good characteristics of the British political system, and our own, is that it allows robust and honest debate. For us to pretend to believe things we do not believe or to have beliefs other than those we have would not do democracy a service. The European Union is a democratic entity where people should freely express their convictions, as I have expressed mine, on European issues. I took great care in the exercise of my responsibilities as President of the European Council not to allow any country, be it Britain or any other, to be isolated. It was because of the good preparation for the Dublin summit that we had the necessary information to ensure no country was isolated. We were thereby able to get an outstandingly good result from the Dublin European Council, one of the best and most successful summits in recent memory.
Will the Taoiseach agree that fiscal federalism is, at best, some way down the road; that the French and British Governments which are facing big economic problems in trying to bring themselves into line with the Maastricht criteria are in no mood to cough up more for the budget in Brussels, and that the cohesion question is vitally important?
No, I will not. When the Deputy's party was in office it looked for £8 billion. That constituted a concrete and tangible expression of fiscal federalism in favour of countries which are less well off. It is not in Ireland's interests to be tepid in our support for fiscal federalism.
Does the Taoiseach's commitment to a federal Europe extend to support for a European defence policy?
The Maastricht Treaty agreed when the Deputy's party was in office and signed by him contains a commitment to the development of a defence policy.
What is the Taoiseach's view on the matter? I outlined my view the day I signed the Treaty. Perhaps our views do not correspond. I understand a common defence policy will be a key component in a federal Europe and because small states under the decision making system will be in the second division, decisions on defence matters will be taken out of our hands. We are trying to hold on to our commissioner. If we follow the Taoiseach's concept of a federal Europe, as I understand it from his statements, the status of small states will be downgraded. That is what others in the same grouping as ourselves seem to say.
When he signed the Maastricht Treaty on behalf of Ireland the Deputy signed up to the aspiration of a common defence and he should not now attempt when he is not in a position of responsibility to resile from commitments he gave when he was in a position of responsibility. It is very important that Ireland approaches that issue in a way that will preserve our traditional position and recognise the distinctive contribution we have made to the overall building of Europe. There are now a number of other member states which have a policy of neutrality. The Treaty commitments signed up to at Maastricht need to be pursued in light of that reality.
The Government has approached the matter in a constructive way in so far as it has looked at a step by step approach which will involve us in taking initial responsibility in what are known as the Petersberg tasks, humanitarian missions involving a military contribution but which are not primarily military in their objective. This is an approach which can be supported by the Irish people who have a strong understanding of the need for humanitarian actions but who also recognise that for humanitarian relief to be given one needs some means of maintaining order and holding the ring. Action in that context would have the support of the Irish people.
We will pursue this matter in a pragmatic and sensible way with a view to ensuring that Europe is strong enough to defend what it has achieved and is also generous in the way it approaches the needs of other countries and recognises the different traditions of member states, including the traditional approach of this State.
We are dwelling overlong on this subject to the detriment of the other questions to the Taoiseach.
I remind the Taoiseach that what we signed up to in 1992 was a common foreign and security policy, not a common defence policy which is different, even if the Taoiseach does not think so.
One cannot have security without defence.
It would be a big leap——
(Interruptions.)
Nonsense.
As the Taoiseach well knows, it is not. He does not have support within Government for a common defence policy. I do not have to spell out what the Labour Party and Democratic Left have stated.
Is the Deputy saying there is no reference to defence in the Maastricht Treaty?
A common defence policy has not been agreed to in the Maastricht Treaty.
Questions, please.
In reply to Questions Nos. 2 and 3 the Taoiseach said he discussed the issue of foreign subsidies and cuts with the President of the Commission. In the course of that discussion did he express his concern about statements made by the Agriculture Commissioner prior to the meeting, particularly his comments that the CAP will have to be reformed before the next world trade agreement and that the various restrictions and impediments to world trade will have to be removed? That will present huge difficulties for us. The Commissioner also said that pressure to trim farm subsidies will come from the European Union's ambitions to extend membership to countries in eastern Europe and that if we keep going in the way we are they will cost almost £9 billion per year.
Let us not have an extension of the subject matter.
He further said this will result in huge cuts when the 15 member states shortly sit down to negotiate a new six year deal. What was the Taoiseach's response to these statements and how does he see the CAP being reformed? Is the Government yet in a position to outline what position we will take in the next round of negotiations?
The Maastricht Treaty to which the Deputy referred and which he signed on behalf of Ireland contains a reference to a security policy. The words "leading to a common defence" were included in the document signed by the Deputy. I regret if he has forgotten what he signed.
It is not negotiated.
There is a clear commitment. One does not put in something like that into a treaty unless one means it. If the words "leading to a common defence" are contained in a legal document like a treaty——
Does the Taoiseach think the British will sign up to a common defence policy?
It was signed by Deputy Bertie Ahern on behalf of the Irish people.
The Taoiseach is giving up without negotiation.
Questions have been asked. We should listen to the reply.
The Deputy, if he wishes to maintain a reputation for sincerity——
Ask the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa if he agreed.
——should not attempt to resile from, or pretend to have forgotten, documents he signed as that might cast some doubt on the seriousness with which he signs documents in general.
Ask Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Taylor, Minister for Equality and Law Reform, if they agreed.
It is important that we should recognise that the Maastricht Treaty was approved by the Irish people, following the signature of the Deputy on behalf of the Irish Government. It contains the words "leading to a common defence". Those words were signed by Deputy Ahern who seems to have forgotten some of the things he did when he was in Government.
There is no common defence policy signed.
He signed a commitment which involved "leading to a common defence".
If the Taoiseach believes in that——
We need a referendum.
The Deputy now seems to want to go in the other direction to the document which he signed. There are credibility issues for the Deputy.
It is the Taoiseach's credibility because he is not capable of negotiating.
The Taoiseach published the White Paper and did not even mention the word "federalism".
Deputy Bertie Ahern should seriously consider the consistency of the attempt he is now making to convey his party's views as being different from those which he agreed to when he had responsibility.
The Taoiseach does not even mention federalism but stands there and waffles without the support of his Government.
I insist on an orderly Question Time. Will Deputy Burke desist? This is no way to behave at Question Time.
Order goes both ways.
It is important that people should be consistent in what they say when they have responsibility and when they are now in the Deputy's happy position of not having responsibility.
The Taoiseach is entitled to be heard. Deputy Burke must restrain himself.
As regards the second part of the Deputy's question, I was happy to have the opportunity of a meeting with President Santer——
I suggest the Taoiseach has a meeting with his Government
——of the European Commission on the matter of the reduction in export refunds which had been decided by the European Commission some days previously. Under the GATT agreement, which was agreed to on behalf of the Commission by the former Commissioner MacSharry, an upper limit was placed on the level of exports by the European Union which could be subject to export refunds. The Commission, which had entered into international commitments in that matter at the time Commissioner MacSharry signed the world trade deal on behalf of the EU, was concerned to ensure that it did not breach its international commitments and that was the reason for that decision.
I represented to the President of the Commission that this decision had serious implications for Ireland as it exports nine tenths of the beef it produces and exports a great part of that outside the EU. Any reduction in export refunds would have a greatly disproportionate negative effect on the incomes of producers in Ireland, as against producers in other countries. The President of the Commission was careful in the note he took of what I said and I am glad to say that subsequently, following representations by myself, the Minister for Agriculture and others, a change has been made in the method of calculation of the periods used for determining whether or not there should be reduction, or otherwise, in the export refunds.
The period of three months when licences could be bought will be reduced to one month. This change, although technical, will I hope ensure that community exports are micro-managed in a more careful and ongoing way and that people are not allowed to sit on licences. This would put the Commission above the agreed limits in the MacSharry deal and would therefore allow the Commission to review the state of community penetration on a monthly basis, with beef exports enjoying the refunds of the world market. I hope we will revert to a situation where this level of reduction in export refunds will no longer be necessary and that the Commission will be able to continue to support Irish beef exports while at the same time adhering to the commitments it gave in the GATT deal at Marrakesh.
Does the Taoiseach see any merit in considering the establishment of a forum representing different economic interests to consider the implications of European Monetary Union for Ireland?
That would probably be best done through the National Economic and Social Council, which has already undertaken a study of this matter. It is a forum representing all the principal economic and social interests. If the Deputy believes a wider group would be useful, the National Economic and Social Forum, which contains a wider range of representative interests, could also consider the matter. I agree it is important that this matter be discussed and studied carefully. Ireland committed itself in the Maastricht Treaty. It did not seek an opt-out at that time, as Denmark and Britain did. We are committed to membership if we comply with the terms. It is important we should prepare as well as possible for that.
Is the Taoiseach, in his support for a common defence policy, speaking not only on behalf of his own party but of the other two parties in Government?
I am expressing on behalf of the Irish people, support for the commitments they agreed to in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, support for which was recommended by the Deputy's party. It contains a general commitment to moving towards a common defence.
Is the Taoiseach speaking for the Government?
The precise mechanisms of such defence and the way in which it would apply in terms of creating obligations for individual states is of course a matter that can be negotiated, but the principle of leading towards a common defence was approved not only by the Irish people but by the Deputy's party.
That is not what the Taoiseach said ten minutes ago.
Will the Taoiseach stop ranting and return to reality?
"Leading to a common defence" were the words the Deputy signed. One does not put terms such as that into a treaty unless one means it. At least, I would not do it unless I meant it.
Why did the Taoiseach agree with it? Why did he canvass for Maastricht?
The Deputy may sign documents like that without thinking about them but I would think about anything like that before I signed it. If I signed something like that I would remember it. I would not come into the House having forgotten what I had signed.
Have the Labour Party and Democratic Left signed up for it? The Fine Gael federal European policy has no support.