John Gormley
Question:14 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his comments following the Helsinki Summit that the next changes to the EU treaties will probably not require a referendum. [2347/00]
Other Questions. - Intergovernmental Conference.
Derek McDowell
Question:15 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for Ireland of the submission made by the EU Commission to the intergovernmental conference and outlined by the President of the EU Commission in his address to the EU Parliament on 26 January 2000. [4314/00]
Derek McDowell
Question:55 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's priorities for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference to resolve the institutional matters not dealt with by the Amsterdam Treaty and which have to be settled before enlargement of the Union; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the European Parliament is seeking a broadening of that agenda; the Government's view on the Par liament's proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4313/00]
Bernard Allen
Question:67 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the upcoming EU Intergovernmental Conference. [4284/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 15, 55 and 67 together.
With a view to ensuring that the European Union could continue to work efficiently in the context of enlargement, it was agreed at the Cologne European Council in June 1999 to convene an intergovernmental council in 2000, with a mandate to examine those issues unresolved at Amsterdam, namely, the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, as well as changes to the institutions necessitated by enlargement and other necessary consequential amendments to the treaties.
At the Helsinki European Council in December, it was agreed that the intergovernmental conference would convene in February 2000 and would aim to conclude its work by December 2000. As regards the agenda, it endorsed the focus on the issues remaining from Amsterdam, as well as other necessary amendments arising in the context of enlargement and the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty. It was also agreed that the Presidency would report to the European Council in June on progress made in the conference and on any proposals for additions to the conference agenda. There is also provision for an interim report to the Lisbon European Council in March.
In accordance with the timetable drawn up by the Portuguese Presidency, the Minister attended the opening session of the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels on 14 February. It is envisaged that the Intergovernmental Conference will meet monthly at ministerial level to coincide with meetings of the General Affairs Council and to take forward the work of the preparatory group which held its first meeting yesterday, 15 February. The Irish member of the preparatory group is Mr. Noel Dorr, former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who fulfilled a similar function during the negotiation of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Ireland's approach to the Intergovernmental Conference will be governed by our desire to ensure that the Union is adequately equipped to cope with the new institutional demands posed by enlargement and our wish that the essential balance that exists within a union of equal member states is preserved. As a smaller member state, Ireland has a particular interest in the effective functioning of the Union and its institutions, and we will examine reasonable proposals in a constructive way. We have already made clear our view that the proper functioning of the Union requires that each member state retain the right to nominate a commissioner. We note that the report of the Finnish Presidency to the Helsinki European Council found that this was the view of the overwhelming majority of member states and we will continue to take this position in the Intergovernmental Conference.
As regards a review of the weighting of votes in the Council, we note that this has been linked with the suggestion that larger member states would be willing to forego their second commissioner. We will carefully consider any specific proposals which might be put forward under this heading to ensure they contribute to the effective functioning of the Union while maintaining the necessary institutional balance.
On the question of extending the scope of qualified majority voting, it is, of course, the case that QMV already applies to a significant portion of Community business and has proven generally helpful from an Irish perspective. It will also be recalled that at Amsterdam, Ireland, along with a significant majority of member states, was prepared to consider extending QMV to some additional areas but agreement in the end did not prove possible. Our approach at the present Intergovernmental Conference, as before, will involve a careful examination of treaty provisions on a case by case basis, with a view to assessing whether a move to QMV would serve our interests and those of the Union, bearing in mind that in a number of sensitive areas the case for retaining the present unanimity provisions remains overwhelming.
In keeping with normal practice prior to the convening of an Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission on 26 January published its opinion on the issues before the intergovernmental conference. While at an early stage in the process, it can be expected that the member states will give careful consideration to the views of the Commission, as they will to other submissions to the conference. The outcome of the conference is, of course, in the final analysis a matter for agreement among the member states.
In keeping with the commitment to work closely with the institutions, it was agreed at Helsinki that the European Parliament would be invited to designate two of its Members to participate in the preparatory group and that, as was put into practice at this week's inaugural meeting in Brussels, each meeting at ministerial level would be preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament. These arrangements, which go beyond those in place for previous Intergovernmental Conferences, will ensure a fruitful dialogue with the Parliament as the Intergovernmental Conference progresses. In this context, careful consideration will be given to the views of the Parliament on the substantive issues, although it is fair to say that we would not share the Parliament's view that the Intergovernmental Conference agenda should be considerably expanded beyond that agreed by the Helsinki European Council.
It is impossible at this early stage to predict the final outcome of the Intergovernmental Con ference. The question of whether a referendum will be required will be a matter for legal advice in the light of the text of any agreement reached. It is possible, depending on the changes agreed, that a referendum will not be required but, given the complex constitutional and legal issues involved, it will be necessary to await the relevant legal advice on the final outcome before a decision can be taken.
As a country which has benefited enormously from membership of the European Union, Ireland looks forward to participating actively in the work of the conference and to contributing constructively to the development of the Union in a manner which reflects the interests of all its people and which strengthens political stability and economic progress in Europe and beyond.
Does the Minister accept that his reply differs substantially from that given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs after Helsinki when they said a referendum probably would not be required? Does he agree that the Intergovernmental Conference is much more than a tidying-up exercise of the Amsterdam Treaty? Is it the case that people, such as Javier Solana, and the German and French Governments would like the Western European Union to be fully incorporated into the European Union? Would the Irish Government resist such moves or is it the intention to agree to a common defence in the European Council, as can happen under the Amsterdam Treaty, and to not require a referendum?
My reply is not at variance with what the Taoiseach said. If the Deputy listened carefully to what I said he will have heard that, in my opinion, there will not be a need for a referendum, but obviously legal questions will arise and legal advice will be received on those. The European Council will decide in Portugal in June on the basis of a report to be made to it whether Treaty changes are likely to be needed. There are no indications that the follow-up to Helsinki will involve any change. I have no comment to make on the other matters as they are not directly related to the question.
There are two essential points on which I would like clarity. Will the Government resist moves for any incorporation of the Western European Union into the EU and what is its policy in this regard? Regarding the European Council, does the Minister accept that it is possible to proceed with a common defence under the Amsterdam Treaty without recourse to a referendum? What is the Government's attitude to a common defence in the European Council? Those are the two questions I would like the Minister to clarify as explicitly as possible.
The Deputy will appreciate that I am standing in for the Minister for Foreign Affairs at very short notice.
And doing a very good job.
I do not know about that. Deputies are treating me gently and I appreciate that. The Minister was called at short notice to London. I am not in a position to comment on the two specific questions the Deputy has raised. However, I will ask my colleague to respond to him on them.
I thank the Minister.
In the context of preparations for attendance at further meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference, I agree with the choice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mr. Noel Dorr who has made a distinguished contribution to foreign policy in Ireland and who should be a very good representative of the Minister and the Government.
Is it correct to say that everything in the Maastricht Treaty is untouchable? There are many contradictions between the Amsterdam and Maastricht Treaties. The Maastricht Treaty was the creation of a moment when the right was in ascendancy in Europe. It has limited and narrow neo-liberal market principles at its core. The Amsterdam Treaty sought to open a window of correction in some of the worst of those. Can I take it that we are entering an Intergovernmental Conference process in which the only items to be discussed are institutional adjustments which arise from putative enlargement?
I am reminded of the time many years ago in University College Galway when Deputy Higgins was my politics lecturer.
I knew the Minister went wrong somewhere.
He discussed political philosophies and we challenged him with great enthusiasm on some of those philosophies, so I will not deal with the philosophical aspects of Deputy Higgins's questions. It is fair to say that the Amsterdam Treaty represents the vast majority of the principles of Maastricht and our interests are still to the fore in the Amsterdam Treaty.
Deputy Higgins does not know that I also attended one of his lectures in Galway.
I am the only one who did not.
I have a great deal for which to be forgiven.
Deputy Gormley can see where he went wrong. He did not attend one of Deputy Higgins's lectures. That is the problem. I realise that the Minister for Foreign Affairs went at short notice to London with the Taoiseach and that the Minister stepped into the breach and is doing a good job in difficult circumstances. If he is not in a position to respond to my questions now, perhaps he would respond later.
Is it true that, following the passing of the Amsterdam Treaty and its incorporation into law and the Constitution, it would be necessary under Article N of the Maastricht Treaty to have an Intergovernmental Conference, which has now begun and could have its terms of reference added to, a unanimous decision of the European Council, which is the Heads of State or Government, including the agreement of our own Head of Government, and approval in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state – presumably in Ireland that automatically means a referendum – if any further defence commitments were to be taken on?
Does the Minister agree it is time we stopped reacting to foreign policy with the type of statement that we are caught between a rock and a hard place and, instead of leaving the architecture for others to design, it is time we were part of the architecture and became one of the architects setting out what we, as a country which has a long tradition of peacekeeping, want to see in terms of a secure Europe? I am not afraid to say it is time these issues were discussed.
Will the Minister tell the House if it is likely that the instructions of the Portuguese Presidency will be added to cover this area of security and defence, especially given the appointment of Javier Solana as Mr. CFSP while he is double hatting as Secretary General of the Western European Union, or if it is likely that the French Presidency, when it takes over to complete the Intergovernmental Conference, might add areas in the defence and security area for consideration at the Intergovernmental Conference?
I cannot anticipate what is likely from the Portuguese Presidency, much less the French Presidency. I see no value in the new Intergovernmental Conference seeking to open up the security and defence issue in a way which runs counter to the Amsterdam Treaty and the Helsinki Conclusions. The Commission's role in the defence area is limited and Ireland wishes to see it remain limited. The common foreign and security policy should remain fundamentally intergovernmental in character with a strong emphasis on consensus and unanimity in decision making. We believe it is unlikely that there should be a referendum, but legal issues must be addressed and legal advice has been sought in respect of that.
Would the Minister agree there is not a constitutional requirement and it was stated at the time of the Amsterdam Treaty that once Article J.7.2 was signed, we could go ahead at the European Council and agree without recourse to a referendum? That is the point I am trying to clarify here.
I am told that we have a political commitment.
Political – that has clarified something very important there.
Taking account of all the Article J.7s, including Article J.7.1, there is a political commitment given by all the leaders, but would the Minister agree that it is now a matter of law since Ireland ratified the Amsterdam Treaty and it would have had to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional provisions?
That is not correct.
Yes, it is.
No, it is not.
That matter must be clarified and it depends on Treaty changes.
Is it not the case that the Government also gave a political commitment on Partnership for Peace?