Proinsias De Rossa
Question:1 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the summit of EU leaders in December 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15364/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Luxembourg European Council.
As the member state holding the EU Presidency it is for Luxembourg in the first instance to propose topics for discussion at the Luxembourg European Council. It is unlikely the Presidency will finalise its proposals in this regard until much closer to the date. It is expected, however, the December European Council will debate the major proposals put forward by the Commission in its Agenda 2000 document, in particular the necessary decisions concerning the launch of the enlargement process. Other matters likely to arise at the Council include the fight against organised crime, including drugs, EMU and the Union's external relations.
Ireland's priorities for the European Council will be to ensure that the main challenges facing the Union at this time — the completion of the third stage of EMU and the enlargement of the Union — are satisfactorily progressed. It will be important, in relation to the non-enlargement aspects of Agenda 2000, to ensure any broad orientations or priorities which the European Council may adopt take adequate account of Ireland's continuing development needs.
Does the Taoiseach intend to undertake any initiatives, diplomatic or otherwise, in relation to the threatened blocking of Agenda 2000 in advance of the December summit? Will he agree that an attempt to tie the reduction or the elimination of the Structural and Cohesion Funds to countries which qualify for EMU is totally unacceptable to Ireland?
It would be unacceptable to tie or to prohibit countries which are moving to EMU as not being entitled to be involved. At this stage it is highly unlikely that negotiations on the Structural Funds aspect of Agenda 2000 will have progressed sufficiently for any debate to take place on them during the summit.
The Taoiseach indicated what he regarded as Ireland's priorities for the December summit. Has he any indication of the priorities of the more powerful countries in the European Union for that meeting, given the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr. Santer in regard to the treaty which has been signed by all member states?
The main item being pressed at the employment summit at which there will be discussion on some other issues at the dinner for that European Council next month is the enlargement issue. The Presidency is anxious to make substantial progress on the enlargement issue to see what countries are likely to be in the first stage of the accession discussions and how other countries will be dealt with. At the end of August I had a meeting with the President of the Council, Jean Claude Juncker, at which we discussed the Agenda 2000 items but he would like to finalise the enlargement of the Union and some outstanding issues of economic and monetary union.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is essential he undertakes an early and urgent initiative with the leaders of the other European countries to ensure the tieing of progress on Agenda 2000 and membership of the EMU to reductions or elimination of Structural and Cohesion Funds does not gain any credence whatsoever? In relation to the Amsterdam Treaty does he propose to have the referendum to ratify that treaty at the same time as the local elections next year?
I said this morning I hope to have that referendum in March. That is the date we are working towards and for the White Paper to be published in November. In relation to the Deputy's concern, which has been mentioned in the media, there is no great difficulty at this stage but we have raised our concerns. I will be meeting President Jacques Santer shortly and will discuss these issues with him. I do not think there is any serious attempt at this stage on Agenda 2000 and Structural and Cohesion Funds specifically to try to prohibit countries moving to EMU from being part of that.
Does the Taoiseach anticipate that there will be a proposal for adding to the number of six countries that have already been identified as ones with which negotiations will be opened when the EU leaders meet in Luxembourg or will there be anything concrete on the table on enlargement for decision in Luxembourg? Will the Taoiseach consider it would be useful to look at particular asymmetric shocks that could cause a problem in the early years of the euro, in particular, for example, a sudden increase in oil prices, to identify which parts of the Euro zone would have greater adverse effects from that than others? I am not aware of any analysis being done on that point at this juncture but it is important that it be initiated. Perhaps the Luxembourg summit would be an opportunity to initiate contingency planning against possible asymmetric shocks.
The issue raised in the second part of the Deputy's question is a fair point. In the early years of the euro there is still much uncertainty about what might and might not happen when the currencies are inextricably linked, how the world markets will look at a system that is moving speedily into the next millennium to the dollar, the yen and the euro. I will certainly speak to the Minister for Finance about the studies already undertaken. I am not sure if the studies outlined by the Deputy have been done but I will raise the issue. In relation to the other question it is hoped to make substantial progress at the Luxembourg summit on what countries will move to the accession negotiations. The larger countries are still divided in their view. Five or six countries have been mentioned. How the other four or five are treated and in what way they can all feel they are moving forward into some level of pre-accession negotiations over the next five years or so is a major issue. Prime Minister Juncker, as President of the Council, is making strident efforts to resolve those issues this month and hopes to discuss them at the dinner and on the fringes of the employment conference and summit and to move them to a decision in December.
The next round of enlargement presents great challenges because the GNP of the ten applicant states together is equal to the GNP of one of the existing medium-sized states such as the Netherlands. It also presents great opportunities and we, in Opposition, support the Government view on enlargement. Will the Taoiseach raise at the European Council meeting our concerns regarding our cohesion status, Structural Funds and the common policies, in particular the Common Agricultural Policy, and the need to clarify the position for Ireland and other states in advance of the referendum here so that people will know exactly where they stand on those issues before they are asked to vote on the Amsterdam Treaty?
It is likely that the discussions will have advanced to the stage of completion. The Structural and Cohesion Funds do not complete the present round for another two and a quarter years. The proposals have just been published and debate has commenced on the issues. I do not see that these matters will be progressed, if at all, in Luxembourg but will continue to be discussed throughout the whole of next year. The issues raised by the Deputies are of concern to us. We are already putting down strong markers about cohesion, the CAP and the Structural Funds, and we have presented a detailed analysis of the Irish case. The important issue for us is the objective one status. The Deputy will know from Agenda 2000 that proposals have been put forward regarding the transition period which we are exploring. That is a major issue, and these matters will be ongoing probably for the next year.
I wish to return briefly to the last part of my last question on the referendum. Would the Taoiseach agree that it would make sense, both from the point of view of the cost of having separate referenda and local elections and the possible greater turnout if both events take place on the same day, to hold both on the same day? Will he indicate to the House that both will be held together?
They are matters for consideration in due course, including the date of the local elections.
My question relates to what Deputy De Rossa has just put to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach will recall that the debate surrounding the Single European Act was less than satisfactory because of the long delay and how it was handled by successive Administrations. Let me reinforce the point made by Deputy De Rossa because the three or four parties represented in the House currently — I do not know the position of the Green Party — have a shared view on what is more of a mouse than a mountain in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty. The Taoiseach mentioned specifically the month of March. If the local elections are to take place in the same year I strongly urge the Taoiseach to consider combining the two events on the one day. There are reasons of cost — a referendum alone costs in the order of £6 million. To commit oneself gratuitously to an extra set of costs does not make sense, unless the Taoiseach is making a decision with regard to the local elections.
Deputies De Rossa and Quinn are saying that if there are other elections we should co-ordinate the dates. That will be borne in mind.