We will have to make that decision around Eastertime, and we will do so. The purpose of the Nice Treaty is to make the necessary changes to prepare the European Union for enlargement. It does so by ensuring that a Union of 27 members will be in a position to operate effectively while, at the same time, making sure that the essential safeguards for smaller countries remain in place, as they have done since 1956. As a country that continues to benefit greatly from Community membership, it is in our interests that the Union can operate and take decisions, even with a larger membership. We had many debates on this issue in the House last year, including how the new system will operate and how we can protect our position. Ireland is well placed to take advantage of the benefits offered by an enlarged Union. The Single Market will expand to over 500 million people and the opportunities for exporters, and people generally, are obvious. Irish companies have already demonstrated this and have moved into countries, such as Poland, which provide excellent investment opportunities through growing markets.
The Government's view, and that of many others also, is that the decisions taken at Nice fully protect our essential interests. First, we achieved our priority objective whereby all decisions on taxation will continue to be made on the basis of unanimity. Second, a balanced outcome was achieved on the European Commission whereby, starting with the next Commission, the five biggest member states will give up their right to nominate a second Commissioner. There will be one Commissioner per member state, so I do not accept what Deputy Higgins said about the super powers being in a dominant position. I have almost 14 years' experience of attending European Councils and I never felt that at any time. I am sure that others who have represented Ireland at Council of Ministers' meetings over the years since 1972 have not experienced that either. I do not know from where the Deputy obtained the notion that a number of superpowers are lurking under the table or outside the window. Quite frankly, I believe he imagined it.
When the number of member states reaches 27 – this could take a decade or more to happen – a rotation system will be introduced. An important achievement in Nice was that this system will operate on the basis of strict equality. The reason for this was that some countries believed that if we were to wait to expand the number of member states to 27 at some time in the distant future, the concession on strict equality might no longer apply. Everyone was satisfied that we can operate a large Commission involving 27 countries. I have stated on many occasions in the House that I could not see how we could administer the Commission if there were 30 countries involved and if changes were not made. We argued our position at Nice and obtained a satisfactory agreement.
Under the new system, an Irish commissioner will serve in exactly the same way as a French or German when the number of member states reaches 27. As part of the deal for surrendering their right to a second commissioner, the voting weight of larger states has been increased. Ireland's voting weight will be only marginally affected and, as previously, will remain the same as that of Finland and Denmark. It is also important to note that most decisions of the Commission are taken by consensus. In practice, it is rare that there is a large state-small state division on an issue.
Many other arguments have been put forward. What I referred to earlier were some of the arguments put forward. For example, it has been stated that we should oppose enhanced co-operation because it might mean a two-tier Europe might be created merely because two countries might want to take action on an issue in respect of which they have reached agreement. I do not believe that argument stands up to scrutiny. In his meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, Franz Fischler has argued the benefits of this for small countries and I agree with his assertions in that regard.
I am not opposed to the debate on this matter; I welcome it. I am sure the Deputy does not oppose my emphasising the positive aspects of it. On each occasion we have debated Europe, whether in respect of our entry in 1972, the Single European Act in 1987, the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1998 or the Nice Treaty this year, people always seem to want to debate everything that is not contained in the relevant treaties and are concerned about under the table dealings. As soon as the relevant referenda are passed, however, they state that there is no difficulty and that what went before is water under the bridge. These people then use the same erroneous arguments on the next occasion we debate a new treaty. I do not believe their behaviour is either logical or fair; it is merely represen tative of the type of scaremongering with which we have had to contend for the past 30 years.