Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2000

Vol. 522 No. 2

European Summit: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council in Feira in Portugal on 19 and 20 of June 2000, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. The Feira Summit, the second of the Portuguese Presidency, sought to build on the positive outcomes from the Lisbon Summit of March last while developing the agenda for the French and subsequent Presidencies. Although the Presidency itself described the summit as a stock taking exercise, it was no less valuable for that, given the complexity of the issues with which it was dealing. The summit took place against the background of the tragedy at Dover and I want to comment on that tragedy in the course of my statement.

The Council began on the morning of Monday, 19 June with the traditional address by the President of the European Parliament, Madam Nicole Fontaine, and was subsequently addressed by Mr. Ignacio Mendez de Vigo, vice-chair of the convention entrusted with the drawing up of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights. Mr. de Vigo's attendance was in place of Mr. Roman Herzog, the former German President, who had previously chaired the convention but who owing to the sad death of his wife was unable to attend the Council.

The remainder of Monday morning focused essentially on a range of economic and fiscal issues while the working lunch was taken up with the Intergovernmental Conference and the Presidency's report on the negotiations to date.

The afternoon session focused on enlargement, European security and defence and a range of external relations topics including Russia, western Balkans, the Middle East peace process and regional issues in Africa. Regarding the last item, EU Leaders were addressed by President Mbeki of South Africa. The President also attended the informal dinner hosted on Monday evening by the Portuguese President, Mr. Sampaio.

The Tuesday morning session of the Council focused exclusively on agreeing the Council conclusions. I want to record also that there were both formal and informal meetings of the General Affairs Council and ECOFIN in the margins of the summit.

I now want to take the opportunity to outline some of the principal outcomes from an Irish point of view but should mention also that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his concluding statement, will address the main external relations matters which were discussed in greater detail.

Mr. J. Bruton

I note that the Taoiseach is again suggesting that the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the end of the debate will deal with some matters. This means, in effect, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will not be able to deal with issues raised by other speakers because he will have a prepared speech.

There is no point having a debate here unless points made by Deputy Quinn and me may be responded to in some capacity by the Government. We protested about this on the last occasion and it seems to have fell on deaf ears. This is a debating Chamber. It is not a place where people simply read out prepared speeches.

The Taoiseach

Even though Deputy Bruton declined and refused to do anything about that for many years when we asked him to do so, when it was raised here by him and Deputy Quinn on the last occasion we did look at it and there is merit in it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will endeavour at the end to do reply in as much as he can but in many cases that is not possible on the short notice, but we have been looking at providing for where we could have a more meaningful debate at the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the work of the Councils, and are prepared to agree to do that.

Mr. J. Bruton

But neither the Taoiseach, Deputy Quinn nor I are members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Taoiseach

In spite of the fact that he resisted for years, we will now try to make it more meaningful. I accepted that before, and I think we can make more meaningful at the Committee on Foreign Affairs issues which would be more relevant to that.

Together with other parties, I was pleased that the Portuguese Presidency invited a representative of the convention charged with drawing up the draft charter to attend the summit and to report on the progress made to date. Deputies will recall that the charter was first commissioned at the Cologne Summit in June 1999, and that the convention is comprised of representatives of the 15 Heads of State or Government, of the 15 national parliaments, and of the European Parliament, together with a range of observers.

It was clear from our discussions that a majority of member states wish that the charter would remain a political declaration. Clearly, a legally binding document - such that it could adequately cover the very diverse range of issues which have been raised by the convention to date - could not be drafted in the time available. Any legal document would have to meet in a suitable manner the legal and constitutional requirements of each of the 15 member states, and this would obviously require a much more fundamental and extensive exercise.

EU Leaders took the opportunity of commending the convention for the work which had been done to date, and decided that a final draft of the charter should be prepared in advance of the European Council which is to be held in Biarritz in October of this year.

Staying with institutional issues, I expressed strong satisfaction with the report produced by the Presidency in relation to the intergovernmental conference. I warmly welcomed the report, as it sets out clearly the main options which can be further pursued during the course of the French Presidency and helpfully indicates areas where possible solutions may lie. There is increasing acceptance, which we share, as to the need to retain one Commissioner per member state. This is an essential link between member states and the Brussels based institutions of the Union. We will continue to argue strongly that nothing should be done to weaken this link especially at a time when the Governments of each of the member states are seeking to bring the Union closer to its people.

The Intergovernmental Conference will also addressed other topics, including the extension of qualified majority voting; the re-weighting of votes in Council; the allocation of seats in the European Parliament; and the reorganisation of the European Court of Justice; the Court of First Instance; the European Court of Auditors; the Economic and Social Committee; and the Committee of the Regions.

Together with my EU colleagues, I stressed the importance of ensuring that the work of the conference can be successfully concluded at the Nice Summit in December. A successful conclusion to the Intergovernmental Conference is essential if the Union is to ready itself by end 2002 for the accession of new members. Of course, adequate time must be allowed for national ratification processes to be completed. As to the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, the topic of flexibility or enhanced co-operation has been included. It has been obvious for some time that this issue would be formally placed on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda and we remain ready to consider any proposals in this area, both as regards making the current provisions more effective or extending their scope to new areas. However, it has to be said that those proposing change in this regard have not as yet clarified their objectives, and the substance of what might be involved would need to be examined very carefully.

In the run-up to the summit, I spoke to the Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Gutteres, and his office subsequently kept my Department fully informed of the attitudes among the EU 14 regarding bilateral relations with Austria. I also spoke to Chancellor Schüssel in the week before the summit. As Deputies will be aware, we have been among those countries which have sought to achieve progress in this matter. We believe, like others, that it is time to move forward. However, as consensus did not emerge from the 14 in advance of the summit, this was not possible. The bilateral measures do not fall within the Union's competence and so were not an item on our agenda. However, as is widely known, the matter was raised by Chancellor Schüssel, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Gutteres, indicated that he hoped a revised position would be adopted by the 14 in the near future. Ireland would certainly support such a move.

The European Council welcomed the Presidency's wide-ranging draft progress report on the follow-up to the Helsinki conclusions and mandated further work to be conducted during the French Presidency. The report and its four annexes, from an Irish point of view, represent a balanced outcome acceptable to us and to other neutral and non-allied EU members. The report focuses on military and civil aspects of crisis management and, importantly, incorporates references to the role of the UN and the importance of the EU co-operating with the UN and other relevant security organisations in both military and civil fields.

As regards military aspects, the report records progress on the elaboration of the so-called headline goal target whereby the EU wishes to be in a position by 2003 to field a force of some 60,000 personnel. Such a force would be the equivalent to that operating in Kosovo at present. I welcome this ongoing progress, including the decision to hold a capabilities commitment conference later this year where member states will make initial national commitments. We have a proud history of peacekeeping and current developments are in keeping with our practices in this area.

Apart from the issue of capabilities, the Helsinki conclusions called for progress in relation to our decision making structures. The report submitted to the Feira summit noted the progress to date in the establishment of the interim political and security committee and the interim military committee. At Feira, EU leaders called for an overall report to be presented to the European Council in Nice on the ongoing work in this area and for the interim structures to be put on a permanent footing as soon as possible thereafter. While much of the Presidency report draws its mandate from decisions at Helsinki, it is important to recall the decisions taken at Lisbon concerning the civilian aspects of crises management. We especially welcome the development of work in this area.

The individual annexes to the Presidency report dealt with consultations and relations between the EU and third countries. I am happy that the recommendations in this regard for consultation with European non-EU members of NATO are in line with Ireland's open approach to having inclusive and transparent consultation with such countries, provided the EU's decision-making competencies are respected. I made these points in my discussions with the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mr. Jens Stoltenberg, during my visit to Oslo yesterday. Similarly, the issue of EU relations with NATO and the use of NATO assets are also dealt with satisfactorily from an Irish point of view.

I welcomed the concrete target for the provision of policing support for UN authorised military crisis management missions, for example the KFOR operation in Kosovo. Together with my EU colleagues, I was satisfied to adopt the capability target whereby the EU collectively aims to be able by 2003 to provide some 5,000 police officers to international missions across the range of crisis prevention and crisis management operations. I argued that EU developments in this area should take place in close co-operation with the UN and should avoid duplication of the work of the UN and the OSCE.

I am happy to see that the continued focus of developments in the security and defence area is in line with principles which Ireland can endorse, namely, that such developments fall within the Petersberg Tasks and at all times acknowledge the primary role of the UN in authorising international missions. Equally, I am satisfied that the current developments in the security and defence area fall within existing Treaty provisions and that there is no need to make further Treaty changes in this regard.

The EU Council noted with satisfaction that, with the exception of the chapter on institutions which cannot be opened until the completion of the intergovernmental conference, all the negotiating chapters have been opened with the so-called Luxembourg candidates: Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Cyprus. Similarly, we noted with satisfaction that eight chapters had been opened with Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, and Slovakia, and that five chapters had been opened with Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr. J. Bruton

What is the position regarding Turkey?

The Taoiseach

The position with Turkey is that, as agreed at the previous Council meeting, discussions would commence but they have not involved debate on chapters at this stage nor are they likely to for some time. Steady progress is being made in the enlargement negotiations, despite the inevitable difficulties which arise in sensitive areas such as agriculture. However, as I have made clear both in this House and in my meetings with representatives from accession countries, most recently in Poland, Ireland fully supports the earliest possible accession of individual countries on their own merits, so long as all the relevant criteria are met. I was pleased to note that recent studies indicated that the Irish public was among the most supportive of the enlargement process. The Union should seek to help to maintain the momentum within the applicant states for enlargement to ensure the necessary and difficult processes of structural adjustment and legislative and regulatory reform are maintained and accelerated.

The Lisbon Summit was extremely significant in seeking to define the input by the European Council into the general economic and social strategic management of the Union. Clearly, each of the specific Council formations has unique Treaty-based roles and particular expertise in the execution of its responsibilities. However, it is important that EU leaders provide political direction in the form of a contextual framework for the work of ECOFIN and the other councils to which it primarily falls to achieve the strategic goal set at Lisbon, namely, "To become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion".

At Feira, we were able to review the progress which has already been made and to take note of a number of important documents, including the e-Europe action plan and the charter for small enterprises. It is important that the Luxembourg process relating to employment and the Cardiff process relating to structural reforms are mutually compatible and inform the development of the annual broad economic policy guidelines. Accordingly, I look forward to the synthesis report which is to be produced by the Commission each year in the run-up to the spring council which, in line with the decisions taken at Lisbon, will allow Heads of State or Government to review in a holistic way the progress made in achieving the Union's strategic goal for the next decade. The annual spring council will also allow for strategic directions to be set across a range of horizontal issues such as the information society and social inclusion, while providing EU leaders with an opportunity to give political guidance in the drawing up by the Commission of the first draft of the broad economic guidelines. The broad economic guidelines for 2000 were welcomed by the Council. The general and country specific guidelines presented no difficulties from an Irish point of view.

I mentioned earlier that ECOFIN had a number of formal and informal meetings during the European Council with a view to progressing two key items. One was Greece's entry into the euro and the other was the tax package which has been under discussion for some time. I warmly welcomed the entry of Greece into the euro zone. Greek membership will take effect from 1 January next. The Greek Government has made substantial efforts in recent years to put the Greek economy on a sound footing and I look forward to its participation in a future euro 12 zone. The issue of euro entry will arise in both Denmark and Sweden later this year, and I would also strongly welcome a positive outcome in the case of these two countries.

As is well known, a tax package has been under discussion at ECOFIN for some time. It consists of three elements: a draft directive on the taxation of the interest on savings, the code of conduct on harmful tax competition, and a draft directive on the taxation of interest and royalties. The first of these items has been under intensive discussion over the past six months and an agreement was finally reached at Feira. It sets out a timetable by which an exchange of information system will be established for the taxation of savings income of non-residents. I strongly supported the decision taken by ECOFIN to reach a comprehensive agreement on all three elements of the tax package as soon as possible and no later than the end of 2002.

As I indicated earlier, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will deal extensively with the external relations topics which arose at the Feira Summit. However, I would like to recall the address by President Mbeki of South Africa to the summit and his strong plea for greater engagement by the Union with Africa in tackling both the humanitarian and political difficulties faced in that continent. I had met President Mbeki in South Africa earlier this year and also in Cairo, and I welcomed the opportunity to renew our acquaintance and to thank him for the ongoing contribution being made by his fellow countryman, Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa, to the Northern Ireland peace process.

In addition to meeting informally with President Mbeki, I took the opportunity for discussions with President Sampaio, President Prodi and each of my EU colleagues. I held a formal bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. We discussed a range of issues related to Northern Ireland, including the ongoing and satisfactory work of the Assembly, the Executive and the North-South institutions. We also reviewed the situation regarding the Police Bill when I again emphasised the importance of the Bill faithfully reflecting the recommendations of the Patten commission. The marching season, especially Drumcree, was among the other issues we discussed. Since then, we had in the IRA's confidence building measures a breakthrough of unprecedented proportions. I know the House shares my welcome for this, and our collective gratitude goes to President Martti Ahtisaari and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa.

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the tragic deaths of 58 people at Dover. This human tragedy underlines the need for governments to take firm, decisive and tough anti-trafficking measures. Traffickers in human beings are self-serving criminals who have no regard for the dignity or safety of their human cargo. They operate a trade which runs counter to everything the civilised world has sought to achieve to safeguard human rights.

Ireland is co-operating fully with other EU member states and third countries in working together to defeat the traffickers. One of the major conclusions of the Tampere summit was that an EU-wide instrument should be drawn up to tackle trafficking and to ensure those who engage in this trade will face severe sanctions in all members states. Ireland fully supports this initiative. Our tough anti-trafficking legislation has now been passed by the Oireachtas. Penalties include a maximum of ten years imprisonment for trafficking, forfeiture of vehicles and unlimited fines. Our legislation, which is designed to tackle the profiteers trafficking in people, not asylum seekers, mirrors the provisions in place in the UK and the wider European Union.

The declaration from the Council, therefore, calls on the French Presidency and the Commission to make urgent progress in developing measures requested at the Tampere summit to stop the criminal networks operating in this area. Ireland has recently applied to participate in key elements of the Schengen arrangements. The Schengen states have agreed to co-operate closely in police and judicial measures to tackle serious criminal activity, including crimes involving trafficking in persons. Ireland intends to take part in the Schengen arrangements that deal with police and judicial co-operation, mutual assistance in criminal matters and drug crimes. Negotiations on our application will have to take place with the Schengen states. On completion of these negotiations the applications will, of course, be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval in accordance with constitutional requirements.

Our application to participate in the Schengen arrangements reflects the continuing commitment of this Government to international co-operation to combat organised crime, including those criminal gangs which traffic in human beings.

Finally, I would like to commend the Portuguese Government and, in particular, Prime Minister Guterres, on its conduct of the EU Presidency over the last six months. The Presidency succeeded in progressing a range of difficult portfolios against the exceptional backdrop of the EU 14's relations with Austria. The Presidency has demonstrated great skill in its handling of complex issues and has given clear directions for future work for the incoming French Presidency.

Mr. J. Bruton

I was struck, reading the communiqué from the summit at Feira in Portugal, by the emphasis placed on the rule of law and the requirement of the European Union that the rule of law and fair procedure should be seen to apply in the activities of others. In the discussion in Feira the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers declared solemnly that the activities of the European Union should be designed to promote transparency and greater predictability in the legal systems of the partners. In dealing with crisis management, with great sententiousness, the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers even included a special section entitled "Strengthening the Rule of Law" to ensure the very important principle that no one is the subject of a penalty unless he or she has gone through a fair procedure.

It is fair to say the rule of law is one of the fundamental marks of European civilisation, the idea that people should not be subject to a penalty until they have had the opportunity to confront their accusers, heard the case against them, answered it and then have the issue decided independently.

That is what the heads of Government believe should be the case for others but it is not how they behave themselves. The behaviour of the Taoiseach and all the other Prime Ministers in regard to Austria is a disgrace in terms of the application of the fundamental principles of the rule of law. One of those principles is that any person who is to be subject of a sanction should be allowed first to confront his or her accusers and be heard. The Heads of Government, including the Taoiseach, agreed by telephone to impose sanctions on a sovereign, democratic member of the European Union without putting the case to that country or giving its Prime Minister the opportunity to answer on behalf of his country. Diplomatic sanctions were imposed on a sovereign, democratic member of the European Union behind its back and without it being allowed to be heard.

It is not possible for Premier Gutteres or President Chirac to travel the world talking about how one should apply the rule of law to trials of people or enforce the law of contract in Africa or Asia if they are not prepared to apply the same principles of fairness and due process in the way they do their own business. Let it not be said this is a purely political affair and that due process does not matter in politics. Diplomatic sanctions are being applied in accordance with diplomatic law against a country which was not given a hearing at any stage for its case before those sanctions were imposed. This approach of the member states is polluting the business of the European Union in a most dangerous way.

It is regrettable that this matter has not been finally sorted out by the Portuguese Presidency. I have some confidence in Prime Minister Guterres, and his ability to solve this problem because he is a man of good will and Portuguese public opinion is objective about the matter. I have no confidence at all, however, in President Chirac's ability to deal with the matter. He has been playing domestic politics with the issue from the beginning. His approach to this has nothing to do with Austria or with concern for the rights and interests of Austrian citizens. It had everything to do with pursuing a domestic political agenda. The Belgian Government has pursued the same approach in regard to domestic politics and the Vlaams Blok in Flanders, although perhaps with some greater worthiness. Both countries, however, are pursuing domestic politics and using the European Union as a vehicle for that pursuit. That is wrong.

I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, to some extent, the Taoiseach on at least seeking verbally to separate themselves from the herd that is pursuing this vendetta against the Austrian people because of the decision they made in a free and fair election. I am afraid, however, neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs have gone beyond words. They have not taken any action.

The point must be made that the Irish Government is entirely free to cease the diplomatic sanctions it has now imposed. The Austrian Ambassador is sitting in the Public Gallery. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will not see that man; he is a pariah as far as the Minister is concerned. He will not be spoken to because he comes from a country which, according to the European Union 14, is unworthy of being spoken to by Ministers, untermenschen– beneath mention in the approach of Ministers communicating with it. I do not accept that. I do not accept such treatment for any country.

It may be the case that at some stage people with an undesirable past may take part in a coalition Government in this State. Who has a pure past? Who is without sin? Are we to have a situation in which the Spanish or French will refuse to see the Irish Ambassador because they do not like something said by the former leader of a minor party of a coalition in Dublin?

I have the strongest sense of opposition to the politics of the far right as pursued in some European countries. I realise there is a problem but there was a problem with Austria long before the Freedom Party entered Government. The country had a system of patronage which was polluting the Austrian political system and there was a political monopoly in the hands of two parties, something which was profoundly unhealthy. Something had to give and the Austrian electorate decided that a change should take place.

We must, at European level, combat the far right. However, we must combat it through the use of reason and not by hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to preach the concept of the rule of law or the idea that people should not be tried and sentenced without being heard and not to practice what we preach when it comes to dealing with democratic states and the results of democratic elections. Failing to practice what you preach in the matter of the rule of law and democratic practices will not impress the young men who, in the main, are joining far right parties. These people feel threatened by the pace of change and have been left behind by such change. They are the casualties of other countries' equivalent of the Celtic tiger, people who have fallen by the wayside.

I do not believe that the people to whom I refer will be won back to democratic politics if democratic politicians fail to practice what they preach in respect of the application of due process to the making of decisions. If this procedure of sanction continues, there is every risk that Austrian public opinion will become increasingly alienated. There is a serious risk that the Danish electorate will reject membership of the euro. If they do, it will be mainly as a result of the fact that the 14 Prime Ministers decided to meddle in the internal affairs of a member state, namely, Austria. That argument is being adduced by opponents as an argument against Danish membership of the euro, even though it has no bearing whatever on the Danish decision to join the euro.

I note that progress towards an agreed approach to the taxation of savings has been significantly delayed by the position adopted by Austria. Having reflected on the matter, I do not believe the Austrian Government is correct in organising a referendum on the EU position. To do that is simply to descend to the same idiotic level to which the EU Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers descended. Austria should not follow the Prime Ministers along that road of demagoguery. The organisation of such a referendum in Austria will be nothing more than a reaction to the demagoguery of the Prime Ministers of the European Union.

I wish to refer to a number of other issues. I note that a substantial chapter was agreed at the summit on the issue of military co-operation. I also note that legal advice from the Commission's legal services has been put before the Heads of Government regarding whether arrangements for military co-operation can be put in place without an amendment to the treaty. The Council's legal services have been unable to provide a clear and definitive opinion on that point.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

That is not true, it was very clear.

Mr. J. Bruton

It states that amendments would be necessary if the intention is to transfer the Council's decision-making powers to a body made up of officials – the military body will be comprised of officials – or to amend the treaty's provisions regarding the Western European Union. It seems that an amendment to those provisions will be necessary.

Mr. Cowen

We are not members of the Western European Union.

Mr. J. Bruton

No, but the Treaty of the European Union will need to be amended to take account of the position of the Western European Union.

Mr. Cowen

What has that got to do with Ireland?

Mr. J. Bruton

If there is a need to amend the treaty in respect of matters of defence, we will be obliged to approve it.

Mr. Cowen

Wrong again.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Minister will have an opportunity to clarify the position later.

I wish to refer to the Taoiseach's comments in respect of the deaths of 58 people in Dover. It was interesting that he did not comment on the restrictive nature of the immigration regimes in member states. He appeared to take the view that the only people to blame are those who traffic in human beings. I agree that the people to whom he referred must accept responsibility in this area. However, it is important to recognise that in the past people from this country were assisted in escaping from persecution here. These people were admitted to other countries where they became refugees. I refer here to John Mitchell, who was assisted in escaping from Australia and travelling to the United States, and Thomas Francis Meagher, who was assisted in escaping from Ireland and also in travelling to the United States. Many Irish people were asylum seekers.

The European Union is effectively saying that anyone who receives money for helping asylum seekers should be subject to a maximum of ten years in prison for trafficking, forfeiture of vehicles and unlimited fines. It might be argued that these people are not genuine asylum seekers. However, one cannot know whether they are genuine asylum seekers or whether they have a genuine case to be treated as refugees until after they have arrived in one's jurisdiction. Anybody who assists a person in immigrating into the European Union, regardless of whether they are genuine refugees – this will be decided later – will be subject to the penalties to which I refer. There are those who could be helping people to escape from genuine political persecution who will be subjected to these penalties, without the application of political consideration, in precisely the same way as individuals who, for purely financial motives, help people to enter Europe. I hope that in its approach to this matter the European Union will recognise that it should be able to make a distinction between those who are genuine refugees and those who are not. Under the current approach, such distinctions cannot be made.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to share time with Deputy Micheal D. Higgins.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to refer to a number of items from the very comprehensive and substantial communiqué which was issued after the summit. A debate on that communiqué could take a great deal of time and I do not doubt that we will hold such a debate in the future.

I wish to begin by commenting on the institutional issues surrounding the intergovernmental conference and the proposal for a charter of fundamental rights. The Taoiseach stated: "It was clear from our discussions that a majority of member states wish that the charter would remain a political declaration." Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, if he has the relevant information in his possession, indicate the member states which are opposed to the production of a legal document, either within the timeframe of the Intergovernmental Conference – a virtual impossibility – or at some time thereafter, and the member states which are opposed, in principle, to the introduction of a legally binding document? How will such a document be enshrined in a European Union treaty as distinct from the existing European Convention on Human Rights, by the legal structure in Strasbourg?

Many people in this country would like to see developments proceeding in this area, particularly as we move towards an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. Having disposed of certain items that were merely commercial in nature, such as the original Common Market project, and moved towards completing the Internal Market and the harmonisation of many other matters, if we are to create a sense of citizenship among the citizens of the European Union we must examine the possibility of introducing and enshrining in a treaty a set of shared constitutional and fundamental rights. I am aware that the time frame for the Treaty of Nice, effectively six months from now, will make the composition of such a legal document a virtual impossibility. Nevertheless, the Minister for Foreign Affairs could outline the numeric political balance and the Irish Government's current position on this issue.

It is not yet clear whether a referendum would be strictly necessary in legal terms if we are dealing with the Amsterdam leftovers. That will depend on the Intergovernmental Conference's recommendations. I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to indicate that if Ireland wishes the legitimacy of the European project to be underwritten, it would be politically desirable to hold a referendum on this issue, notwithstanding the possible legal advice which may be received from the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Attorney General. The current Minister with his legal expertise and long experience of politics is well aware that any Government which might attempt, on the basis of legal advice, to suggest that a referendum would not be necessary to give effect to the Treaty of Nice would immediately find itself challenged by a group or groups of people. I respectfully suggest that could lead to Crotty mark II. Let us not risk creating a situation where a challenge could be made and where the courts could very well find against the legal advice, as they did in regard to the Single European Act.

I am not suggesting this course of action simply to avoid an unnecessary legal wrangle. The ever closer union of the European project should be underwritten by a referendum in the Irish context, as happened with the Maastricht Treaty with respect to the Republic of France. That was a risk which was taken at the time after the Danes had voted and it very nearly backfired on the French. If we consider the declining level of support for the European project among Irish citizens and combine that with the reality that the intergovernmental conference proposals, in their final form, will not have any cash or financial inducement for the Irish electorate, we should hold a referendum.

I welcome the implicit advances outlined in the Taoiseach's speech to the effect that one Commissioner will be retained per member state, that there will be changes in the weighted majority and that qualified majority voting will be extended. We can live with those changes which have been argued for by all parties in this House which favour the European project. To summarise, I would like the Minister to outline the political situation in regard to those countries which do not wish to see a charter of fundamental rights being incorporated into the EU treaties and the current Irish position on the matter.

My second point relates to economics and the welcome recognition by the Council that the Republic of Greece or the Hellenic Republic now qualifies quite substantially for participation in the single currency, an economic feat which we should acknowledge. We should salute our Greek colleagues for the extraordinary transformation which has been effected in their economy in recent years which is on a similar scale to our own although it does not share the same characteristics as our recent economic advancement.

Perhaps the Minister would address the question alluded to in the Taoiseach's contribution when he stated that Sweden and Denmark may decide to join the single currency later this year. There is a political as well as an economic motive behind this. The Euro 11 will become Euro 12 on 1 January and if the Danes also vote to join the single currency – I understand the referendum is due to take place on 24 September – pressure will be exerted on the Swedes to join too and there will be a 12 month window before the implementation of the notes and coins becomes a reality. If those two Nordic states were to join the single currency to make it the Euro 13 or Euro 14 zone, the consequent pressure exerted on the UK to join would be far stronger and the economic test for Chancellor Brown would be made slightly easier because the balance of trade would shift significantly in terms of Britain's position vis à vis the rest of the European Union. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs share my view that it would be desirable to have monetary union on this island and to ensure that that division between these two islands is eliminated sooner rather than later. Perhaps the Minister would inform the House of his assessment of the situation in Denmark and Sweden and outline when Sweden might opt to join the single currency if Denmark decides to join following the referendum. Does the Minister share my view that the probable date for one or other of those countries joining would be 1 January next year?

I have a problem with this format of dialogue and an argument could be made about how the smaller parties in this House could be facilitated. Perhaps in addition to providing a plenary response on the floor of the House, a Member of Government could in future be briefed to attend the Joint Committee on European Affairs on a bi-annual basis to provide an updated report on the vast array of subjects to which the communiqué refers, none of which can be adequately raised in the format of a series of statements and none of which can be adequately responded to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. M. Higgins

I welcome this opportunity to raise a number of issues which arise from the Feira Summit although time constraints mean I must be brief. However, I look forward to the Minister replying to some of the issues I will raise. The first point that strikes me, having read the Taoiseach's speech, is the degree to which the concept of a transcendent project of European citizenship, such as was envisaged by President Santer in some of his early speeches to the Commission, seems to have receded considerably. Very few people now speak of a European citizenship. When one examines polls of interest in Europe and approval of European policies across all of the EU's member states, one notes an interesting contradiction, namely that member state governments are very much in favour of Europe, as are most parliamentary assemblies, yet citizens in practically all of the member state countries are showing a marked disinterest, sometimes even hostility, to the European project. This raises the question of whether it is possible to create a transcendent project which would rise above particular national interests and embrace the best aspirations of Europe, taking its historic interest in rights and democratic forms of administration into account in an attempt to envisage the future. We seem to be perilously ignoring this omission, which has flown in and out of European consideration at different times, in the discussion on Europe.

If we consider the speech made by President Chirac on 30 May envisaging the French presidency, it is interesting to note the rather vague description of flexibility which the French seem to favour – I use the word "vague" in so far as the areas in which flexibility might be applied, for what purposes and towards which end are not specified. I am far more interested in the overall vision outlined by President Chirac which seems to envisage a Europe at peace following the considerable expansion of military capacity.

This is a matter of grave concern to many, particularly those who see any military action as an action of last resort and who have carefully mapped out those matters upon which it is appropriate to have unarmed intervention, peacekeeping, peace making and so on, and a list of tasks which it might be in the humanitarian interest to advance. The overall thrust of the speech by President Chirac to the presidential committee of the WE parliamentary assembly in Paris on 13 May seems to be predicated on an enhanced military capacity in the first instance followed by, as it were, a consequent peace.

There are other matters in regard to that speech that would raise great concern as core values in international policy. There is a very flawed analysis of the appropriate attitude of the European Union towards the Balkans. There is a residue of the old, dated, infamous Thatcherite thinking that Europe had in the past not only related to the rest of the world but, as she said, "civilised the rest of the world". There is a development model suggested which argues that different countries, including aspects of the applicant countries, will come up to the mark and make the grade as regards democratic reform. I question this on historical grounds and on grounds of moral principle in relation to the appropriate principles of international policy.

It is flawed because we have not sufficient concentration on the transcendent project of a European citizenship which would be something we could share, of humanité, based on rights and might be part of the general project, but rather we have been much more comfortable in following the economic expansion. In the speech given by the Taoiseach and the statements made by other participants following Feira there is an uncritical view of globalisation. I have placed on the record of this House the uneven impact of globalisation not only on Europe but on the world. What is happening in Europe in applicant countries and in existing members of the EU is that those who are excluded from the alleged universal benefits of globalisation are discovering and inventing forms of ethnicity and identity as a response to their exclusion. One cannot deal with what is happening politically in any of these countries given their history and contemporary situa tion without taking into account the uneven impact of globalisation. It is not an even evolutionary development. Look at what emerged at Feira. The intergovernmental conference, even as it rumbles on towards Nice at the end of the year, is preparing to be much more an economic bloc in competition with other blocs than deepening its connection with European citizens in practically every member country. It is a dangerous position for the existing members and the applicant countries.

A host of questions arise. Is there to be a common attitude towards the reintroduction of a new round of trade talks in the WTO? One must bear in mind that there is no common position between the foreign policy expressions of a number of members of the EU on that matter and there is even less so on the perceived difference emerging between what was the shell of UNCTAD, which had a high participation of less developed countries, and the WTO. A round of trade talks on the previous model in which the EU would participate is simply not on. That is the litmus test.

Other aspects of the Feira agenda did not receive much publicity. If one is to speak meaningfully of Africa, it lost $3 billion of trade after the Uruguay round which gave the greatest benefits to the European Union. One cannot have it every way. What we have had is more of the same in terms of developments on the economic front that are creating an economic bloc capable of competing with the United States or countries led by Japan, but is singularly lacking in relation to anything like a transcendent project at foreign policy level. What is disappointing about the other speeches and participants – I do not refer to the Minister – is the subjugation of what might be regarded as a refined diplomatic position to cover military positions. One continually defeats the other and I discern grave concerns in President Chirac's speech.

When the EU meets in Feira and other places it should bear certain facts in mind. There has been a significant fall in income in the world. The points I make regarding globalisation must be addressed. The Minister has been forthright in answering questions I put to him on the institutional changes suggested. Is the suggestion that during the French Presidency credence should be given to the idea of a two speed Europe not proof of what I am saying, that an economic engine is being identified while at the same time the larger project of European citizenship is being neglected? Is this not the real reason people do not want to take on the obligation of a charter of rights that would establish real obligations as opposed to an aspirational political statement? Is the net result of these rhetorical questions not one that is putting us into a perilous position as Deputy Quinn suggests? Are we not in urgent need of real debate on the future of Europe in terms of its ethics, foreign policy, international relations, attitude to international institutions, the balance of relations between Britain as part of the North Atlantic alliance and other countries that are members of the EU? We will be ill served unless such a debate is generated and widely participated in before we take fundamental decisions on the future structure of Europe.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I will do my best to deal with the issues and those that have been raised in the contributions made to this debate.

Ba mhaith liom i dtosach chomhghairdeas a ghabháil lenár gcomhleacaithe sa Phortaingéil. D'éirigh go geal leo le linn na leath-bhliana seo caite, agus táimid thar a bheith buíoch díobh. Rinneadh trácht ar go leor ábhar i rith an Chomhairle nuair a bhuail cinnirí an Chomhphobail lena gcéile in Feira an tseachtain seo caite.

Phlé muid go mion an caidreamh idir an Rúis and an Chomhphobal; glacadh le tuairisc a cuireadh faoi bhráid an Uachtaránachtais maidir le polasaí Eorpach i dtaobh cursaí cosanta agus slándála.

Bhí díospóireacht againn chomh maith ar an bpáirt a d'fhéadfadh an Chomphobal a ghlacadh chun síocháin a chur chun cinn sa Mheán-Oirthear. Ina dhiaidh sin, rinneadh trácht ar na deacrachtaí a bhaineann leis an ngéarchéim i Kosovo. Tá cinnirí an Chomhphobail and na hEorpa thoir theas le bualadh le chéile níos déanaí i mbliana chun na tíortha sin a mhealladh níos gaire isteach i gceartlár na hEorpa.

Cúrsaí eile a pléadh i rith na Comhairle ná an Conradh um Chearta Bunúsacha, agus an comhaontú a sroicheadh san Algéir, faoi bhráid an OAU, chun deireadh a chur leis an bhfoiréigean san Afraic thoir thuaidh.

Ar ndóigh, bhain tábhacht ar leith le cursaí eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta agus d'éirigh leis an gComhairle dul chun cinn a dhéanamh i gcúrsaí cánach.

The Feira summit allowed us, as the Taoiseach said, to take stock of a number of issues. The general subjects that have dominated this debate, the intergovernmental conference, the direction of Europe, the ability to broaden and develop the EU simultaneously, are matters that require much thought and detail. There is a commitment to enlargement. There is a recognition that in terms of allowing the benefits of European unity to be available to emerging democracies and those African countries that have indicated an interest in joining the EU,that in itself is part of the democratisation that has taken place in the wider European and post-Cold War situation. It is also important to consider the EU's ability, from its own security perspective, to integrate applicant countries, their economies and societies, into the biggest consumer market in the world, the ability to allow democratic forces in those countries to form Governments which can be part of the integration of the European economy which would be of benefit to their people while recognising their own cultural traditions and backgrounds. Clearly that has been the focus and impetus for enlargement which resulted in the historic decisions in Helsinki that propose the most ambitious enlargement yet envisioned.

One must also take account of the fact that while broadening the Union, the EU's ability to have an effective decision-making process is something to which we are all bound to apply our minds. That is not just a matter for member states but also for applicant countries. We must not end up with a paralysis in the Union's decision-making process which would militate against the continuing progress and prosperity of member states while also militating against the ability of applicant countries to integrate into the new, enlarged Union. There is also the related question of how one deepens the Union and ensures that the project which has been going on for the past 40 years continues to evolve as it has in the past, deepening the relationships between member states and bringing about common action in areas which, with globalisation as the background, clearly require such action for effective decision-making for European citizens. We must recognise that the EU is a union of peoples and states and the shared sovereignty that is part of the decision-making process must continue to be progressed in a way which will maintain a consensus in the Union and allow it to proceed in the way envisaged by the member states at European Council meetings such as in Feira.

Fundamental questions are emerging and are being driven to the forefront by enlargement. There are varying levels of agreement, and some disagreement, as to how we proceed from here, and much debate will take place in the next six months under the French Presidency on the basis that everyone is committed to making decisions at the intergovernmental conference at the Nice summit. I hope the debate taking place at European level is reflected in our Parliament and committee debates so that there is a common understanding of the issues involved. Our economy is open and has benefited greatly from integration with the European economy. We need to debate issues, such as the affiliation of citizens to European institutions, far more and in far greater detail in the next six months so that the electorate understands the issues and the pros and cons of the package that will emerge at Nice.

Our discussions with the incoming French Presidency have shown that it will be a package. The number of Commissioners and the areas in which qualified majority voting will apply are issues to be considered, as is the reweighting of votes, the new European Parliament of a maximum of 700 MEPs in an enlarged Union and the operation of the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and so on. As we progress into an enlarged Union, these are fundamental issues for the institutions. The overall approach of our Government is to ensure that the institutional balance is maintained. We believe very strongly that the Commission is a very important institution in relation to moderating the relationships between large and small states as well as developed and less developed states, but it is also the organ of initiative. The Commission is the guarantor of the treaties and ensures that the EU develops in the way envis aged by the treaties. It is the legal guardian of the legal basis of the treaties.

Our position is that the retention of one Commissioner per member state is fundamental, not on the basis that the Commissioner is a representative of the member state but that the institutional balance within the Union dictates that if one wants affiliation and acceptance of EU decisions in some competitive area, it would be far more difficult to ensure that happens in member states that do not have Commission representation than in those that have. The basis on which the Union has proceeded up to now – the entitlement of every state to a commmissionership – has been one which we feel is an absolute requirement for our negotiating position.

We are prepared to look at extended areas of qualified majority voting and to come to conclusions on the reweighting of votes at Council, but we need to know that the requirement of a Commissioner for each member state is to be retained in the new scenario and we are prepared to enter discussions on that basis. Another important issue raised at Feira regarding the intergovernmental conference was the inclusion of flexibility for discussion in the next six months. The proponents of flexibility would argue that this is an inclusive rather than exclusive concept. They talk about the need for more effective decision-making and the fact that, in the absence of flexibility mechanisms being put in place – we already have flexibility mechanisms under the treaties but we need to modify them so they can be used more frequently – and the absence of coming to agreement on those issues, the possibility of member states proceeding in co-operation outside the treaties is not something that is in the interest of EU unity. We must, therefore, find a balance.

We do not fear any flexibility mechanism. We are prepared to look at the present situation where, under Article 43 of the general treaties in the European Union treaty itself, there is a provision for a majority of states to proceed with enhanced co-operation subject to any member state appealing to the Council. We are prepared to look at modifying that, but we feel we need to know what areas are envisaged for enhanced co-operation so that the overall balance within the Union, and its basic cohesion, is not compromised. I hope the Feira summit has indicated we are moving from the conceptual to the pragmatic – recent General Affairs Council meetings have certainly indicated this. We need to know, for our negotiating strategy, what areas the proponents of flexibility propose should be used in an enhanced co-operation mechanism. If we can do that on the basis of maintaining the present acquis, which is what the French Presidency is saying to us through Foreign Minster Vedrine, we are prepared to discuss those issues, but we need to see the practicalities of the matter in operation.

Regarding the European Convention on Human Rights, it has been suggested that it will be a political declaration in the first instance. The first draft will go to the Biarritz meeting and we will then decide at Nice how and whether it should form part of treaties in the future. However, I do not believe that a consensus will emerge prior to Nice which would allow it to become part of the treaties immediately and there would be worries among states with both written and unwritten constitutions as to the implications of such a measure, particularly in relation to bringing forward duplication of a human rights charter over and above the European Council. It shows, as has been said, that we need to discuss these issues in more detail at either the foreign affairs or European affairs committees. I would be glad to do so with interested Deputies.