Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if the issue of EU sanctions against Austria will be reconsidered at the EU summit in Portugal in June 2000. [16356/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues emerging for discussion at the EU summit in Portugal in June 2000. [16357/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his telephone discussions on 7 June 2000 with the Portuguese President of the European Council, Antonio Guterres [16665/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
I will attend the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira, Porto, from 18 to 20 June. This is the second European Council of the Portuguese Presidency, following the Special European Council on Employment which was held in Lisbon last March. While I have not received a formal written communication, as of yet, on the issues to be discussed at Feira, I spoke with Prime Minister Guterres by telephone on Wednesday last. Accordingly, I expect the summit to include discussions on the Presidency report on the intergovernmental conference, an oral report from former President Herzog on progress on the charter of fundamental rights, a follow-on report on implementation of the Helsinki conclusions on European security and defence and a range of economic issues, including follow-up on the Lisbon Summit, Greek entry to EMU and the outstanding tax package. I would also expect the European Council to consider a number of external relations matters including Russia, the Balkans and the current situation in the Middle East. While not mentioned as a formal item for discussion, I would expect the situation with regard to Austria to be among the issues for discussion during the course of the summit.
In regard to Question No. 10, following the reports that Austria may hold a referendum on its attitude to the EU and its enlargement, has the Taoiseach given any further thought to Ireland unilaterally ending our role in the sanctions against Austria? What is the litmus test for Austria at this point, given that I am not aware of anybody who can say Austria is in any way breaking any EU law or the spirit of any such law?
In regard to Question No. 11, I understand the arming of an EU police force to be deployed in different ways throughout the world is to be discussed in Portugal. Would this represent the formation of a new armed police force in Ireland? Is Ireland to take part in this development? Will this development be UN mandated? How will it differ in its deployment from the deployment of a military force, given that it is being called a police force?
Those are separate questions.
They relate specifically to the Portugal Summit.
They do not.
The last question will not be discussed until later in the year at the Nice Summit. However, we already have about 60 gardaí on Petersberg Task missions. We did not involve ourselves in the Kosovan situation because it was an armed police operation, but we have been involved in a number of other operations. It is a proposal at this stage. I understand it will not be discussed next week but will be discussed later in the year.
I discussed the Austrian situation at length on Question Time last week. As I said then, the Portuguese Prime Minister is endeavouring to get agreement on some compromise. I spoke to him about that last Wednesday. I agreed to what he was doing and I reiterated what the Minister, Deputy Cowen, said at the European Affairs Council meeting a few weeks ago, that we would like to see movement, relaxation and normality being restored in some organised way.
About time.
However, it will be a collective matter. We are not going to make a unilateral move on this position.
According to a report in The Irish Times today by Patrick Smyth, the Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting in Luxembourg have agreed to recommend that the intergovernmental conference should have its remit broadened. Is the Government aware of this? Has it taken a formal or informal position on it? Does the Taoiseach agree it is advisable that the Government should publish some kind of progress report for the benefit of the public, to enhance and inform public debate on an issue on which the people will have to vote in six or nine months' time?
As I told the Deputy last week, I will take an opportunity to make a substantive statement or put together a document after next week. I had a discussion with Antonio Guterres last week. I have read further letters and documents on various issues. As I said in my reply, we have not got the official text. However, there are not any issues arising other than the ones that have been on the agenda.
Why is the Taoiseach treating the issue of Irish diplomatic sanctions against Austria as a collective issue with 14 of the 15 members of the European Union, given that these diplomatic sanctions are in each case bilateral sanctions against Austria by each country and are not a collective EU decision? If they were a collective EU decision they would be procedurally unsound because they were not taken with due process.
Deputy Bruton keeps asking the same question and I give him the same answer each time. We are not getting anywhere.
The Taoiseach is not giving me an answer.
The Deputy disagrees with the fact that all 14 agreed. We now have to—
There is no such thing as "the 14"– there is the EU and the members and that is it.
The 14 members agreed to a process in January. That process remains in place until we find a resolution. Ireland is one of the lead countries, with just two others, trying to find a resolution to it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the 14 have no locus standi in this matter? They just happen to be 14 members of a 15 member club, which is known as the European Union. The European Union rules do not provide for 14 members to impose sanctions on the fifteenth. There is no provision for that. The only way that can be done is not collectively but individually. However, if it is done individually, these sanctions can equally be reversed individually.
The Taoiseach is entirely wrong, both in policy and in law, in claiming he must act collectively in this matter. He can and should make up his own mind on whether it is justified to sanction a country and refuse to receive that country's ambassador, simply because of a party that happens to be in the government of that country, without regard to the actual policies being pursued by that government. The Irish Government has no expressed objection to any of the policies being pursued by the government in question and has no basis, therefore, for its continued sanctions. The Taoiseach's party has prided itself on its willingness to take an independent stand on foreign policy matters. It also takes pride in the fact that Ireland is a neutral country and can, therefore, be somewhat superior to the rest of the EU which is supposedly polluted by participation in a military alliance. This is a case on which Ireland could take an independent stance but it has not done so. It is hiding behind this entirely bogus collective notion—
The Deputy is making a statement. It is Question Time and the Deputy should confine himself to questions.
The Chair is right to correct me. I have spoken for too long but I feel strongly about this matter and that the Taoiseach is not addressing it directly as he ought. Will he address the points I have put to him?
Deputy Bruton has made known his point of view on this. I disagree with him, as I have since January. The 14 member states acting together were right in the circum stances because of the dangers and fears at the time—
That is all in the past.
Now we must collectively find a way of resolving it.
Why collectively?
We have put forward our proposals to do that. Chancellor Schussel has put forward suggestions but some of them have run into difficulty. There have also been suggestions from Belgium and the European Parliament. We must try to find a way around it. However, if the Deputy is asking if we will act unilaterally, the answer is no.
The warnings at European level about Irish policies vis-à-vis controlling inflation have been borne out to be correct in a rather alarming manner. Did the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance give any undertakings to take early measures to arrest the inflationary spiral?
These matters are dealt with in the context of the stability pact and reports are made to ECOFIN. They are matters for the Minister for Finance to deal with in ECOFIN.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the Austrian chancellor's warning that Austria will hold a referendum, given its treatment by the other member states, on EU enlargement and its attitude to the EU? Will he emphasise that point to the other member states and ask that they remove the sanctions against Austria?
With regard to the summit in Portugal, does the Taoiseach envisage that the changes to be discussed which go beyond the Amsterdam Treaty will require a referendum in this country, given the Treaty of Nice plans for December? Has he given any thought to that and will he make a statement on it before the summit?
I was involved in two summits. I am amazed that the Taoiseach has not received a letter from the Portuguese Presidency indicating what it intends to discuss at this meeting. It is only a few days away. Does the Taoiseach not agree that if one were calling a meeting of the local GAA club, one would probably have issued the agenda by now? This is a summit meeting. What does the Taoiseach think of the businesslike approach of the Presidency that it has not issued the normal letter—
Hear, hear.
—that is sent in advance of these meetings? Why is the Portuguese Prime Minister, whom I know and like, not carrying out a tour, as any Presidency should do during a difficult time in the Union, to talk to each member? Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the level of preparation for this summit? I am not.
Letters regarding summits tend to be slow. The consultation process before they are issued appears to take a long time. The Portuguese Prime Minister has done an excellent job in the Presidency, particularly in the Lisbon summit on which he did an enormous amount of work. It is a pressure of time problem. Normally, a tour would be done. He did a tour on the first summit. On this occasion—
This is only a dinner, a chat.
—he has not had the time to do it. That is his decision and I will not criticise him for it.
The decision about a referendum will have to be made at the end of the process on the basis of legal advice. We will have to wait for that advice. At the end of Amsterdam we went through the legal process and we believed it was essential to do it. It will be a straight question of whether we will legally have to do it.
The Taoiseach is not seriously suggesting that there will not be a referendum?
We will have to wait and make the decision as we did with the Amsterdam Treaty. The Deputy will remember that in that case the decision was not made but was left for some time. There were discussions here but the decision was not made.
There will probably have to be one.
If there are changes in the treaty, it will probably happen.