Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 5

Written Answers - EU Intergovernmental Conference.

Robert Molloy

Question:

24 Mr. Molloy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, which has been made on the negotiations leading to the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam in June 1997; and if he will give an assessment of the way in which matters now stand from the Irish point of view. [7550/97]

Liam Aylward

Question:

27 Mr. Aylward asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the attitude he intends to adopt as a member of the European Council to the idea of flexible integration being promoted by in particular Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac. [3575/97]

Denis Foley

Question:

36 Mr. Foley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on the extension of qualified majority voting, the weighting of votes, contained in the Dutch Presidency draft text. [7464/97]

Síle de Valera

Question:

44 Miss de Valera asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the fact that President Santer, the EU Commission President, has proposed bringing health policy under the auspices of the EU's powers. [7466/97]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 24, 27, 36 and 44 together. Significant progress was made at the Intergovernmental Conference during the Irish Presidency. The Dublin European Council on 13 and 14 December welcomed the outline draft treaty presented by the Irish Presidency as a good basis for the further work of the conference. Negotiations are continuing under the Dutch Presidency and the conference remains on course to conclude in Amsterdam in June. The work of the conference since January has been focusing in particular on certain issues where most work remains to be done, notably flexibility, certain sensitive institutional questions and the area of justice and home affairs. While a further three months of difficult negotiations remain, the prospects are that the outcome will be satisfactory from the Irish point of view.

Flexibility is one of the most important questions being examined by the Intergovernmental Conference. The issues involved are both sensitive and complex. The concept of flexibility in the European Union is not new. The current treaty provisions on economic and monetary union, for example, provide for significant flexibility. However, the manner in which the concept is developed in the treaty will be of the greatest significance for the future of the European Union. There are essentially three types of flexibility under discussion at the conference. The first approach would be to provide for flexibility on a case by case basis whereby one or more member states, while not being bound by a decision, would not prevent others from implementing it. The second approach, so-called "predetermined flexibility", would involve establishing in the treaty detailed provisions with a view to flexibility in a particular area. The third type of flexibility under discussion is the so-called "enabling clause" approach which would involve setting out general principles in the treaty to be respected in any case of flexibility as well as enabling clauses specific to one or more of the three pillars of the EU establishing the institutional mechanisms according to which flexibility could be applied.

The overall Irish approach is that we are prepared, as we have been in the past, to consider appropriate forms of flexibility. At the same time we are conscious that if flexibility is developed in an inappropriate way it could undermine the coherence of both the internal development and external perception of the EU. As regards the common foreign and security policy, we have in our outline draft treaty proposed a "constructive abstention" mechanism whereby a member state which decided to abstain on a decision would not be obliged to apply it while at the same time it would accept that the decision commits the EU. We consider that this would represent an adequate form of flexibility under the second pillar.
As regards justice and home affairs, the Irish Presidency proposed that conventions — which would continue to be agreed unanimously — might be allowed on a case by case basis to enter into force when ratified only by a specified number of member states. A strong case has been made for further flexibility in this area reflecting in particular the fact that the European Union embraces on the one hand 13 member states who are committed through the Schengen arrangements to the lifting of internal frontiers and on the other hand the common travel area which we share with the United Kingdom. Our appraoch is that whatever action the EU undertakes in this area should continue to take place within an overall institutional framework in which all 15 member states participate, that priority should be given to EU-wide co-operation involving all 15 member states and that any differentation should be limited to what is strictly necessary.
As regards flexibility under the first pillar we are ready to consider further the case for building into the treaty an appropriate mechanism to allow some degree of flexibility should this prove necessary in the future provided that the functioning of the internal market and the common policies including the Common Agricultural Policy and cohesion are not affected. We are arguing that the institutional provisions would have to ensure that the interests of the EU as a whole would be served, that the central position of the Commission would be fully respected and that any resort to flexibility would in practice be a last resort.
The EU treaties already contain provisions on public health. Proposals have been tabled at the Intergovernmental Conference by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Commission to strengthen those provisions. We are prepared to examine positively the development of the treaty provisions in this area which is of such direct public concern.
We share the widespread view that a significant extension of qualified majority voting for normal Community business would improve decision-making in the existing union and is even more necessary as the EU faces the prospect of further enlargement. However, a number of sensitive matters, notably the taxation area, should in our view remain subject to unanimity. It is generally considered likely that decisive progress on this issue will be posssible only at a late stage of the conference at high political level. As regards the weighting of votes of member states in the Council the more populous member states argue that already the percentage of the Union's population whose Governments can be outvoted in the system of qualified majority voting has increased, that this trend will increase further with the accession of several more small and medium sized countries and that some redistribution of voting weights is therefore necessary. Our approach, like that of several other member states, is that we are not convinced of the need for change in this regard. We are, however, sensitive to the concerns of our partners. The outcome of the conference must be acceptable to all member states and preserve the broad balance between member states which has been essential to the success of the EU.
Top
Share