Gay Mitchell
Question:3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the progress to date of the EU Intergovernmental Conference. [12862/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - EU Intergovernmental Conference.
The Intergovernmental Conference has been under way since mid-February with, to date, six meetings of the preparatory group of personal representatives and three at ministerial level in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs participated. The preparatory group has completed a preliminary round of discussions on the three issues unresolved from Amsterdam, namely, the size and composition of the Commission, weighting of votes in the Council and the extension of qualified majority voting or QMV.
It has also received a report from the friends of the Presidency group on reform of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, and has briefly reviewed changes in the European Parliament and other institutions necessitated by enlargement. These will be considered in more detail in subsequent phases of the Intergovernmental Conference's work. The group of personal representatives had an initial discussion on the topic of flexibility, that is, closer co-operation by a limited number of member states at the informal meeting in Sintra on 14-15 April.
It is intended that the Presidency, under its own responsibility, will present a comprehensive report on progress in the Intergovernmental Conference to the Feira European Council on 19-20 June. It is anticipated that this will outline the stage of discussion reached under the various headings and suggest approaches as to how the work might be taken forward under the French Presidency. As agreed at Helsinki, there is also provision for the Presidency to put forward for consideration at Feira possible additions to the Intergovernmental Conference agenda. Any decisions on this matter would, of course, require the agreement of the European Council.
As regards progress to date, the House will appreciate that discussions are at an early stage, with the focus thus far on the presentation of national positions. In this regard the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made clear our strong commitment to maintaining the right of each member state to nominate a Commissioner. The indications are that this view is supported by a considerable number of other member states. With regard to QMV, we are prepared to consider sympathetically the scope for extension of QMV, examining each area on a case by case basis. However, we have also indicated that in a number of areas, including taxation, unanimity should be retained.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke on the challenges facing the Union in his recent meeting with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and in his address last month to the Institute of European Affairs. I note also that the Government's personal representative, Mr. Noel Dorr, recently briefed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on developments in the Intergovernmental Conference. We will continue to keep the House apprised of developments as the negotiations proceed.
The Intergovernmental Conference is scheduled to conclude at the European Council in Nice in December. The Government and the other member states are anxious to meet this deadline to avoid delaying the timetable for enlargement. The work of the conference can therefore be expected to intensify further over the coming months. We will continue to work for an outcome which maintains the essential balances within the Union while, at the same time, preparing the Union for the challenges and opportunities of enlargement.
Would the Minister of State share my concerns about statements in recent days by former German Chancellor Schmidt, former French President Giscard d'Estaing and former President of the Commission Mr. Jacques Delors about the need for flexibility and the way this has been conveniently taken up by Chancel lor Schröder and the French President? What need is there for flexibility? This seems to be an old agenda which has been revived for the sake of it. If we were to allow flexibility, I do not know where we would allow it. Why is this agenda being pushed by the German and French Governments, in particular, at this time? What view does the Government take of this agenda?
There are indications of growing support for flexibility, that is, co-operation between a limited number of member states. In keeping with Ireland's position during the Amsterdam negotiations, the Government will be prepared to consider appropriate flexibility provisions but will wish to be assured that they will serve the overall interests of the Union.
There are a number of examples of flexibility, including Economic and Monetary Union, in which Ireland participates. However, Ireland has generally taken a cautious approach on the question of extending flexibility because of concern that it would undermine the Union's internal coherence and even perhaps fragment the external perception of the Union.
It is clear from any of the statements which have been made by Ministers or other European Ministers why they want this flexibility and the areas in which they want flexibility? Ireland has joined in all of the areas of flexibility except the Schengen Agreement because of the difficulty of the common travel area with Britain. If this flexibility is required for common defence purposes, will Ireland be in the vanguard of those nations making use of this flexibility?
As I stated in reply to the earlier question, Ireland has taken a cautious approach to this concept of flexibility. While the question of the shape of the final agenda is a matter for the Feira European Council, flexibility arises in any event in the context of discussion on qualified majority voting. The specific form of the inclusion of flexibility on the agenda is to that extent a procedural rather than a substantive point. I am not in a position at this stage to state definitively Ireland's position on flexibility on the matter of defence policy.