Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the negotiations in Biarritz, France, in preparation for the Treaty of Nice. [21175/00]
Other Questions. - EU Treaty.
Emmet Stagg
Question:32 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, he will raise the distortion of the principles of the Maastricht Treaty so as to facilitate a narrow view of neo-liberal market competition at the cost of such citizen protections as were believed to have been contained in the Treaty. [22338/00]
John Gormley
Question:43 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the ongoing negotiations for the Treaty of Nice and, in particular, on the results of last week's meeting at Biarritz, France. [22181/00]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:77 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, on the basis of present indications, it is expected a referendum will be required to ratify the EU Treaty expected to be agreed at the Nice Summit. [22373/00]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:78 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the context of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, he will promote the concept of European integration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21172/00]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:79 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position he will take at the Intergovernmental Conference in relation to EU institutional reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21171/00]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:89 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's position in relation to European integration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22633/00]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:97 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the current position arising from the intergovernmental conference and its future impact; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22643/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 32, 43, 77, 78, 79, 89, and 97 together.
The informal European Council meeting in Biarritz last weekend took stock of progress at the intergovernmental conference, ahead of the scheduled deadline for concluding negotiations at the European Council in Nice in December.
All partners committed themselves to a successful conclusion to the Intergovernmental Conference at Nice and reviewed progress across the four main agenda items, namely, the extension of qualified majority voting; the size and composition of the Commission; the re-weighting of Council votes and conditions governing the use of closer co-operation.
Overall, across a range of issues, the Council was able to note the possibility of useful progress in extending the scope of qualified majority voting. The Taoiseach informed his colleagues that Ireland is prepared to endorse QMV for many of the provisions proposed, including transport, industrial policy, structural funds and certain appointments. He also noted our fundamental opposition to QMV for any aspect of taxation, a position shared by a number of other member states. We take that view because we believe any change in the present arrangements would put at risk the economic model, with its strong emphasis on the partnership approach, which we have followed in this country for many years, and which has contributed to the substantial expansion of our economy.
The Commission was also discussed in depth, with the Taoiseach reiterating our well known support for one Commissioner per member state. The larger countries continue to argue for a capped Commission.
The re-weighting of votes is proving to be one of the most difficult areas to resolve. We have taken a pragmatic approach, but are naturally determined that, while demographic factors are taken into account, existing balances are not unduly distorted. Finally, on closer co-operation, our position was that, while prepared to consider easing the flexibility provisions, we wanted to ensure this would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards for the coherence of the Union. This view was widely shared, and there is strong support for facilitating non-participating members in joining at a later date. Ireland also made known its views with regard to flexibility in the second pillar, in particular our wish to avoid undermining the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Overall, the discussions at Biarritz helped to clarify the various issues and to prepare the ground for the intensive discussions which will take place between now and the European Council in Nice. We continue to stress the importance of a balanced outcome which meets the interests of member states and equips the Union for the challenging period ahead.
Finally, the question of whether ratification of a treaty agreed at Nice would require constitutional amendment can be decided only when the treaty is concluded, and in the light of the relevant legal advice. The question of whether changes relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy are envisaged, and would be such as to require a referendum, is referred to in my separate answer to a question from Deputy Gormley.
Will the Minister outline what extension of qualified majority voting has been agreed to for the Nice treaty? To what new areas will it be applied? In regard to the new treaty and the operation of the Common Foreign and Security policy, will he indicate what has happened to the proposals to merge the Western European Union into the EU and to attach a protocol allowing the neutrals to opt-in or opt-out of the Western European Union's common defence provisions?
I outlined to the Deputy the general areas where we have indicated our willingness to extend QMV. These discussions are continuing and until the full package, if you like, has been agreed, the final positions will not be taken. We are in a negotiating position. No formal decisions were taken at the informal council at Biarritz because it is an informal council. It was simply a stocktaking exercise by the Prime Ministers and Heads of State for the purpose of indicating what momentum should enter the debate as we prepare for Nice through the General Affairs Council, whose job it is to deal with the detailed negotiations. I have outlined in my reply general areas where we are considering the extension of QMV, and it is clear there will be an extension of QMV. The final list, if you like, has not yet been decided nor will it be until we get closer to the Nice summit.
In relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, our position has always been, and remains, that we do not believe any Western European Union commitment is required. We do not agree that a mutual defence commitment of any kind should form part of a Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. We continue to hold that view. The flexibility issue, how it will apply and what pillars will apply is still a matter for discussion and negotiation.
On the whole question of a possible protocol for opting out for neutrals—
As I said, the Irish position is that we do not see the inclusion of a Western European Union into a defence commitment forming part of CFSP.
At the discussion at Biarritz in preparation for the Treaty of Nice, was there discussion on the merits of amending the treaty fundamentally to accept the European Convention on Human Rights as an alternative to the prepared document which has had different names, including a declaration of rights in the European Union and a charter of rights in the European Union? Perhaps the Minister will tell us what his Department thinks of it. Is it a charter with a parallel force of law with the European convention or is it a political declaration? If it is the former, will the Minister be preparing for a referendum to bring it into effect?
Were this charter to take on a legal character, it would involve the requirement of a referendum to be incorporated into our law. Our view and the consensus view of the Council of Ministers, is that this will emerge as a political declaration at Nice.
If it is a political declaration – if I may finish this point – can the Minister assure us then that the rights of appeal of a citizen under the European Convention are not affected by this political declaration? What of the parts of the declaration, as I have read in the final draft, as are parallel to the European Convention? Which prevails, in his view?
Clearly, the jurisdiction of Strasbourg relating to the Convention on Human Rights is the relevant jurisdiction for the Convention on Human Rights. It is not the purpose to set up a parallel jurisdiction under the Court of Justice arrangements within the European Union framework. That is not the purpose for which the charter has been prepared. A formal decision must be taken at Nice relating to the charter and the status it will have. At this stage in the negotiations, it is my view that it will emerge as a political declaration which will not compete with the legal status of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If this is the case, will it not be perceived as an inhibiting and delaying filter, in the way of the ordinary citizen, seeking to vindicate his or her rights under the convention?
No, I do not believe it will. The purpose for which the charter was devised came from the then German Presidency, to indicate to the wider European citizenry what it believed was provided by the European Union. As the Deputy knows, an argument was made in terms of the long-term development of the European Union, about constitutionalisation, as to whether this will form the basis of some European constitution in the future. That idea, while it can be discussed, is one which must be seen in the context of the steps which will next be taken concerning the European Union – beyond the enlargement issue, which will take up the next decade anyway.
So it is not a charter at all.
It is what is known as a charter.
Or a political declaration masked as a charter, depending on where one is.
A rose by any other name. Concerning the Commission, is it correct that the principle of one commissioner per member state is conceded at this stage? The other aspect to this matter concerns junior and senior commissioners. I take it the Government has opposed any such approach and that idea is thrown out also at this stage?
On the question of reweighting of votes, the Minister said that the Government's approach is to be pragmatic on this issue. Is that a code for saying that we are prepared to concede and that we will end up with a lesser number in our weighting as far as this country is concerned? On the question of a referendum, partly because I am interested to know whether we will have one, does the Minister accept that the groundwork should be laid and that if we are to have a referendum, more effort should be made to inform the people of the issues? Otherwise, they will be totally in the dark and we will all rush into a referendum without any proper opportunity to discuss it. Will the Minister say that if the charter is a political declaration, which seems to be what is emerging from discussions, and if what emerges is purely some rebalancing or reweighting, on that basis, if that is the result of Nice, will a referendum be necessary?
We are in the process of a negotiation.
I appreciate that.
Regarding the idea of one Commissioner per member state, that has not been conceded. There are two very distinct views currently as to whether it should be a capped Commission or a Commission comprising one Commissioner per member state. There is no concession made by any of the large five countries relating to dropping their second Commissioner, for example, until—
They will have to.
—I am informing the Deputy of the facts. The position of the large five countries is that they do not concede the second Commissioner—
—informally they are.
—I will make a third attempt to get through this point. It will make sense to the Deputy when he hears it. They do not concede dropping their second Commissioner until such time, in compliance with the protocol of Amsterdam, that there is a decision on the reweighting issue. That was the basis on which they agreed the protocol. Until and unless there is agreement on the reweighting matter, the commissionership issue will not be resolved. Therefore, when I talk about being pragmatic, I mean that we cannot insist on obtaining one Commissioner per state, with a reduction of the big five down to one each without a reweighting. That is the basis on which the protocol was negotiated.
We must await the outcome of the negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference and take our legal advice as to whether a referendum is required. Once we receive the proper outcome, a good outcome for this country, we will do whatever is required to validate it in our law. However, one cannot predict the outcome at this stage because it depends on a range of issues which are still up for discussion. The Biarritz Summit was simply a stocktaking exercise and there will be much discussion between now and our meeting at Nice.
Is the Minister conscious of the danger arising from the Biarritz Summit and discussions that may take place between now and in Nice, as to the emergence of a two-speed Europe under the guise of one group of countries being more committed than the others to, for instance, the fundamental charter, defence and security, qualified majority voting and all the other points such as reweighting of votes etc. that the Minister mentioned? Does there appear to be a possibility now of the emergence of two deliberate and specific trends?
If we are to have a treaty at Nice, it will depend on whether a consensus can emerge on these issues about which there are still differences. Therefore, I am making it clear that if we do not resolve the reweighting issue, we will not have a treaty at Nice. We need to resolve that issue as far as the larger member states are concerned, or they will not concede on the second Commissioner matter. On the question of reinforced co-operation, as it is called, or flexibility, it has been suggested that this could involve a two-speed Europe, an undefined concept meaning different things to different people depending on where one says it. As the concept of reinforced co-operation or flexibility has been discussed, it has emerged, that people recognise that it must be as a last resort, within the institutional framework, it must remain open to those who do not join it immediately and there must be a role for the Commission as the guarantor of the treaties, to ensure that it does not become a treaty within a treaty operation. There are a number of conditions emerging in the discussions which dictate whether we will get agreement on reinforced co-operation in any of the various pillars. That is the issue which is under discussion at the moment. The discussions over the past seven or eight months have brought greater clarity, in terms of what it means and how it might operate. We now must deal with the pragmatic details of the areas in which it is envisaged that it will operate, so that countries can make decisions on their final positions at Nice.
Will the NATO SecretaryGeneral be at Nice?
Not to my knowledge.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Javier Solana wants co-operation between NATO and EU military committees. Has the Minister objected to this?
No, in exercising the Petersberg Tasks as per the Treaty of Amsterdam, co-operation is involved between NATO and the European Union, not on the basis of us taking up a NATO agenda but recognising the co-operation, for example, in meeting the headline goal, the capabilities conference and all the issues which are consistent with the Petersberg Tasks.
Would the Minister object to the NATO Secretary-General being present at Nice?
I do not see what his role will be because we will be involved in the intergovernmental conference issues – the treaty of Nice.
That is not the question I am asking. Would the Minister object to it?
I do not see what business he would have there.
Mr. Solana has made it very explicit that he would like him there.
Fine, that is Mr. Solana's—
—but the Minister is Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country. I want to know his view.
I do not feel contaminated when some people walk into a room, the way the Deputy does. I can keep my own opinion and sense of myself.
The Deputy is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country.
If the NATO Foreign Secretary walked into this House, I would not shrivel up like a prune.
The Minister is not a shrinking violet and he has an opinion. I would like him to express that opinion on behalf of his country.
I know what the Deputy has said. It is the first I have heard of it and I will inquire into it.