Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the forthcoming European Council meeting in Barcelona; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4080/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the preparatory meetings he intends holding prior to his attendance at the European Council meeting in Barcelona; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4081/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Laeken Summit. [4162/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the manner in which the Irish representatives at the Convention on the Future of Europe were selected; when the nominations were made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4163/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, at the margins of the Laeken EU Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4164/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meeting with the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Mr. Meles Zenawi. [5388/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the forthcoming Barcelona EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5389/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the European Council meeting in Barcelona; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5412/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which and when the Irish nominations for the Convention on the Future of Europe were made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5413/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the way in which the Irish representatives at the EU Convention on the Future of Europe were elected; the timescale in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5596/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the way in which the representatives from Ireland at the Convention of the Future of Europe were selected; and the timescale involved. [5733/02]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:12 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the strategy he proposes to adopt on the issue of ratification of the Nice treaty at the Barcelona summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6424/02]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:13 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he proposes to have consultations or discussions with his EU colleagues in advance of the Barcelona summit with a view to clarification of procedure in the event of failure to ratify the Nice treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6425/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Viktor Orban; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6523/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 19 February 2002 with the Prime Minister of Hungary. [6594/02]
Michael Noonan
Question:16 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions on 19 February 2002 with the Hungarian Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6675/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6867/02]
Michael Noonan
Question:26 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the total cost of his visit to Brazil and Argentina in July 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6284/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 17, inclusive, and Question No. 26 together.
As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 11 on 5 February, the agenda for the Barcelona summit has yet to be confirmed. However, Spain has set five priorities for the Barcelona European Council. These are the financial markets action plan; labour market mobility and the reform of the labour market; life long education; energy liberalisation and telecommunications.
The Government considered this issue before Christmas and it is clear that Ireland's priorities are strongly in line with the Spanish Presidency's. At Barcelona, we will aim to give added impetus to the work for sustained economic growth, with increased sustainable employment opportunities and greater social cohesion. We will also call for tight deadlines to make the financial services internal market a reality, as this will make access to capital cheaper, give pension funds more scope for investment and profit, and boost our financial services sector. We will also raise the issue of consumer protection in this sector. Ongoing and detailed consideration is being given to other issues that can be progressed at Barcelona.
Since the Lisbon European Council in 2000, spring European Councils have focused on progressing the work programme set at Lisbon. This is a wide-ranging programme aimed at making the EU the most dynamic knowledge based economy in the world by 2010. While the question of Ireland's ratification of the Treaty of Nice will not be a matter for formal discussion at Barcelona, this matter is obviously of considerable interest and importance to all EU member states and the applicant countries.
I expect, therefore, that I will have an opportunity in Barcelona to share with my colleagues at the European Council the efforts being undertaken through the political process and the work of the National Forum on Europe to listen to the views of the Irish people so that the Government can be in a better position to identify genuine concerns which need to be addressed and decide how best this can be done. It would be inappropriate to hold substantive discussions at this time with my EU colleagues on procedures that would be followed if Ireland does not ratify the Nice treaty.
As regards the Laeken European Council and the priorities of the Convention on the Future of Europe established at the Council, I refer the Deputy to my statement to the House on the matter on 30 January. Prime Minister Blair and I did not have detailed discussions at this meeting. As the Deputy will be aware, the Government has nominated Ray MacSharry as Government representative to the convention and Bobby McDonagh, Director General of the European Union division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, as alternate. The convention can play a crucial role over the next year in making the EU more relevant to the people of Europe. I am certain that Ray MacSharry, with his vast experience and excellent record in European affairs, will make a positive and constructive contribution to the work of the convention on behalf of the Government and the people of Ireland.
I take this opportunity to welcome the nomination by the Oireachtas of Deputies Proinsias De Rossa and John Bruton as Ireland's parliamentary representatives to the convention. I congratulate Deputy John Bruton on his election to the presidium of the convention. I also welcome the nomination of Deputy John Gormley and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, as alternates. The procedure employed in selecting Ireland's parliamentary representatives is a matter for the Oireachtas itself and, as such, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the selection process.
On 6 February I met Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia on his first visit to Ireland. Our meeting afforded us the opportunity to review the excellent relations between our two countries. I was able to reaffirm Ireland's deep commitment to Africa and Ethiopia in particular and to the tackling of poverty and exclusion. There is firm support among the Irish people for helping developing countries to break out of poverty traps. Ethiopia is a priority country for Ireland Aid and Prime Minister Meles was able to brief me on the ongoing projects funded by the Irish Government. These projects help to provide much needed services in health and education. Prime Minister Meles expressed his appreciation for our help and assistance over the years, particularly by Irish missionaries and linked NGOs. Both the Government of Ireland and the Government of Ethiopia are satisfied with the level of partnership and co-operation under the assistance programmes.
On 19 February I received a visit from the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr. Viktor Orbán. He departed for Brussels immediately after our meeting. The Prime Minister and I discussed our excellent bilateral relations and noted that trade between Ireland and Hungary is rapidly expanding. We both welcomed this positive trend. I congratulated the Prime Minister on the progress of Hungary's European accession negotiations. Hungary is one of the leaders in the enlargement negotiations and we are fully confident that it will be among the candidate countries to join the EU in 2004. In this context, we discussed the Commission's proposals for transitional arrangements for the candidate countries. I offered the Prime Minister all practical assistance necessary towards facilitating a smooth integration process. The Prime Minister is satisfied that the outstanding issues in the accession negotiations can be resolved by the end of the year. The Prime Minister and I discussed the outcome of the referendum on the Nice treaty. I emphasised that Ireland remains strongly committed to the European Union and to the enlargement process. The Hungarian Government firmly believes that ratification of the Nice treaty is essential if enlargement is to proceed.
On 20 February I had a short meeting with the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner. We discussed our excellent bilateral relations and looked forward to full co-operation in progressing the European agenda in the years to come.
The cost arising to my Department to date from my official visits to Brazil from 18 to 22 July and to Argentina from 22 to 24 July is €149,303, but has not yet been finalised. In addition, an air taxi was chartered by the Department of Defence for travel within and between Brazil and Argentina. The cost of the air taxi was €242,455. A breakdown of the costs to date is available in the following table, which I will circulate in the Official Report.
|
Cost of Official visits to Brazil and Argentina. |
|
|
Description |
€ |
|
Air Travel |
98,219 |
|
Travel and Subsistence |
10,884 |
|
Car Hire (Brazil) |
3,294 |
|
Accommodation (Argentina) |
15,468 |
|
Car Hire (Argentina) |
7,489 |
|
Equipment Hire (Argentina) |
1,350 |
|
Mobile Phone Charges (Argentina) |
2,862 |
|
Interpreter (Argentina) |
1,037 |
|
Gifts (A number of gifts were not presented and have been returned to general stock) |
8,700 |
|
Total |
149,303 |
I join the Taoiseach in congratulating those who have been nominated to the European Convention and the alternates. I congratulate Deputy John Bruton on his election to the presidium of the convention. The former Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, is the Government representative. Will the Taoiseach tell the House what mandate the Government has given him?
Mr. MacSharry's role will be to work and build on the Irish agenda which has been put forward by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a number of public speeches. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has outlined it in the House on a number of occasions. We would prefer if most of the discussions stayed within the four or five categories which have been designated for discussion on the future of Europe, but we accept and acknowledge that these will expand into other areas. From our perspective and that of the country, it will be important in the debate on the future of Europe that, while accepting that we are planning for the development, evolution and extension of the EU with a possible eventual membership of almost 30 countries, we must also accept that the way we operate must undergo substantial changes.
We believe in the current system and the strength of the Commission. We are working to ensure that the Commission retains its predominantly strong role. The Commission has always been important for small countries such as Ireland and we want to see it maintain that position and enhance its role. The latter is a necessary step. We want to develop our relationship with the European Parliament in a way which will ensure that the Parliament becomes more accountable, transparent and accessible to people living in the European Union. A number of pro posals and suggestions have also been put forward with regard to how the European Council and the subsidiary councils should operate.
Mr. MacSharry will be outlining our position in respect of these matters – I have already placed such information in the public domain. He will be articulating our view on the importance of the Commission, our relationship with the Parliament and the role of the European Council, and indicating how we believe these institutions can work and interact with each other in the future. This will be done in the context of the agenda set down at Laeken by the European Council.
Is the Taoiseach stating that Mr. MacSharry, in representing the Government, will be putting forward its view and not advancing his personal view? If, as I understand from the Taoiseach's reply, that is the case, will he indicate for the record three or four of the Government's specific priorities on which Mr. MacSharry will place emphasis at the convention? I know he will refer to the Parliament, how it relates to Ministers etc., but will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government has specific objectives and, if so, what are they?
I assume Deputy Noonan is aware that four or five areas have been set down for discussion when the debate opens. We will have to see how the debate evolves and develops. No one has yet indicated how it is intended to approach the debate. We are not merely discussing the Parliament and the Commission, we are concerned with Europe as a whole. The debate will focus on how we interact with Parliament, how the European Council interacts with it and how the Commission will develop. We will also be concerned with discussing how the role of the Commission can be protected and enhanced and that recent efforts to rein it in will not be allowed to continue. We will take a strong stance in terms of supporting the role of the Commission.
These are the fundamental issues around which the debate will revolve. A number of leaders, Foreign Ministers and others participating in the convention have made speeches about the role of the Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the other councils. The kernel of the issue is how we are going to manage the expansion of membership of the European Union from 15 to 27 and how the new Union will develop and function. When expansion takes place, for example, will we be able to continue to operate as we do at present?
Deputy Noonan is correct that Mr. MacSharry – Bobby McDonagh will be our alternate representative – will be emphasising the Government's position and not his own. We must watch how the debate evolves. We have been considering what the chairperson and some of the members of the new presidium have been saying. The convention begins on Thursday. If the Deputy is asking what is our most fundamental point of interest in this debate, it is our support for the evolving role of the Commission in the future. Having monitored the operations of the European Council in the 15 years since I first became involved in it, I believe that the matters to which I have referred and the right of initiation of the Commission are of fundamental interest to Ireland.
I have two questions to put to the Taoiseach arising from his comprehensive reply. First, following on what he has said, is it the intention of the Government to publish a position paper or other documentation which the Government representative, former Commissioner, Minister and Deputy, Mr. Ray MacSharry, may include in the debate in the convention so that we would see from this perspective what is the formal Government position beyond what the Taoiseach has touched on in his reply? My second question relates to the Barcelona summit of the Council. It is quite obvious there will be an informal discussion at the Council as to progress with regard to ratification of the Nice treaty in all member states. No doubt, the Taoiseach will be asked to update the situation in Ireland with the other member states. What does he intend to say to his colleagues, the Heads of Government, in Barcelona as to how Ireland intends to proceed to enable enlargement to take place following the report of the Forum on Europe which Senator Maurice Hayes published yesterday?
In reply to Deputy Quinn's first question, I believe the best approach is for the Government representatives and parliamentary representatives to liaise on what we are doing. As the group representing this country is relatively small, the more co-operation and co-ordination we can achieve in relation to our plans, the better. If that means publishing material on some of the issues, that can be considered but the group should work closely together. It will be a demanding and very time-consuming task.
Does the Taoiseach regard the Government representatives and their opposite numbers as constituting an integrated group?
No, I do not. I have made it clear in my reply that they are two separate groups but it is in the interests of the country that the small group we have should co-operate in this matter rather than work against each other. Even if they do not agree on everything, as no doubt they will not, they should still work together as, to my knowledge, the Government and parliamentary representatives of other countries intend doing. What was the Deputy's second question?
What does the Taoiseach intend to tell his colleagues?
In relation to Nice, I hope to have an opportunity to bring them up to date. I do this through bilateral meetings and by telephone contact whenever I have the opportunity, which occurs regularly. I will bring them through what we have done since last summer, particularly since last Christmas. I will make them aware of the report published yesterday and of the proceedings of the forum, which their Ambassadors have been following with interest, as the Deputy is aware, through their regular attendance at the forum. I will also brief them on our research, the results of opinion poll surveys following the Nice referendum and the issues about which people were concerned. I believe the position of people on the enlargement issue is now quite clear and I will also deal with the other issues. I will convey my view that the majority of people do not wish to block enlargement, that we must proceed to ratify the Nice treaty and facilitate the arrangements which must take place before the end of this year and that it is our intention to work to that agenda. I also hope to explore, perhaps informally, some of the areas, format and procedure on which it may be possible to get the agreement of other member states. We know the areas on which we will not get agreement but there are some legal issues we need to explore to see if we can get agreement on them.
Does the Taoiseach intend telling his colleagues in Barcelona that Ireland looks to the emergence of a declaration from the Seville summit at the end of June to allay Irish fears expressed during the course of the Nice campaign with regard to military engagement, conscription and forced participation in some European military organisation? While they were not part of the contents of the Treaty of Nice they were nevertheless part of the debate that surrounded it here.
Does the Taoiseach intend to indicate to his colleagues in Barcelona that Ireland is expecting a declaration – perhaps subsequently a protocol – and will he outline what that declaration might contain because it is presumably not his intention to allow the other member states guess what we want? Rather, I imagine it is his intention to indicate to them what he believes we need to ensure the successful ratification of the Treaty of Nice and to allay the fears which were clearly expressed in the course of the referendum campaign this time last year.
Deputy Quinn knows I have already made a number of those suggestions and proposals elsewhere and the general answer to his question is "yes". Precisely how that can be done will have to be discussed and explored with the legal services – centrally around the issue of neutrality. As I have said numerous times in the forum process as it moved around the country, whatever we do we need the agreement and support of the other member states and they have indicated time and again that they will support us once we are not opening up the negotiation of the agreement. I have no doubt the legal services will make it clear to us that we cannot start changing the Treaty of Nice in any way. However, as the Deputy says, these are issues which were not part of the Treaty of Nice but formed part of the decision made by people who rejected it.
In the European Cabinet subcommittee we have been working with officials and examining how we might best go through this. In the best interests of the organisation of this, at Barcelona I will probably get a brief opportunity to convey where we are at and where we want to go but it will be the Seville summit before the negotiations are complete.
I heard the Taoiseach say – I ask him to comment further on this – that he regarded the Irish members of the European Convention as being in two separate groups. Does he mean Deputy Gormley and the rest?
The Taoiseach did not say that.
I am trying to clarify what the Taoiseach said because he was asked if the group would act together and he said he did not accept that. I want to clarify this since there is a view that the people who rejected the Treaty of Nice are not represented in numerical terms in that convention membership.
In relation to the discussions the Taoiseach will have in Barcelona regarding ratification or otherwise of the Treaty of Nice, I assume there will be discussions on the possibility of the Irish people ratifying it, but will there be discussions on the implications if there is a second rejection of the treaty particularly following the comment by Senator Maurice Hayes as chairman of the forum that there is widespread frustration over the possibility of the Treaty of Nice referendum being re-run unchanged? Will the Taoiseach give us an indication of the views he will express if the treaty is rejected?
In relation to the subject matter of the Barcelona meeting, as the Taoiseach referred to earlier, it will be economic issues only that will be dealt with. I understand from reports from the director of the European Environment Agency that the Barcelona summit was to include both economic and environmental issues but that only economic issues will be presented. Will the Taoiseach comment on his view of the seriousness of the information given by the European Environment Agency which, to quote the director, has some unpleasant facts on environmental developments – particularly in relation to greenhouse gas emissions – which may not now come to light? Is the Taoiseach aware of that? I believe Commissioner de Palacio is to go to Barcelona to seek a commitment on pushing the development of nuclear energy in the European Union. Is the Taoiseach aware of that? Is there an Irish position and, if so, what is it?
On the first question from Deputy Sargent, I was merely answering Deputy Quinn that the Government representatives and parliamentary representatives are separate. They are not all the one team, but they are all Irish people. I wanted to clarify that position. I am sure Deputy Sargent intended to mention he is glad that Deputy Gormley is on the parliamentary team.
Naturally.
So am I.
It is a lonely position he has.
He has an important position and Deputy Sargent knows it is an important position. An alternate position is a very important position and one has to be totally briefed and au fait with all that is happening with the papers as it goes through the process.
I do not think the AG will give him much time for that.
Other than that, these people work well together. The agenda issues have been set by the Presidency, however, since the Lisbon Summit when the Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Guterres, got agreement that at the spring session, Europe should concentrate on the agenda to make Europe the most dynamic economy and a council framework was set out for this. The intention is to concentrate on such issues as competitiveness, technology, education and a host of other related areas. Each period since then, some of these issues have been the focus of getting agreements, and then people benchmark their progress against them. This process is to continue throughout this decade up to 2010.
On this occasion the issues for priority are the financial markets plan which has been under negotiation for some considerable time, the change in labour market mobility due to the enlargement process and the agreements that have been based on that, the reform of the labour market itself, life long education, energy liberalisation and telecommunications, which has also been on the agenda for some time. The Spanish President, Mr. Aznar, is particularly trying to make progress on the latter point.
They have been on the agenda for some years. That does not change any of the other issues on the Kyoto Protocol or any of the other environment issues that are being discussed and, as Deputy Sargent knows, are getting a great deal of attention at EU level through the environment ministers.
Not in Barcelona.
Not in Barcelona. There may be some discussion on it but it is not the central issue in Barcelona.
It was meant to be.
I am not aware that any Commissioner will try to convince Europe to have a nuclear policy and if there is one, he or she will not have much support from me, nor, I believe, from many others either. The nuclear industry, not only in Sellafield, but in many other places, particularly Austria and Germany at the moment, has caused an amount of difficulty of which we are all aware. I think I have covered all the Deputies questions.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach has said the Spanish Presidency wants to push the liberalisation of labour laws and the deregulation of industries such as energy. Is the Taoiseach aware that this is code for an attack on workers rights within the EU and for further wholesale privatisation of public assets? Publicly owned companies such as Aer Lingus and the ESB can be sold to trans-national corporations removed from the social control of the Irish people. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Californian experiment has proved that deregulation of the energy market has been disastrous? If so, why is the Government going along with the EU herd in this regard, rather than standing up and pointing out some truths about the problems that will appear down the line?
When he described the priorities of the Spanish Presidency, why did the Taoiseach not mention that the Spanish Prime Minister spoke to the European Parliament recently of a core issue of converting the so-called fight against terrorism into the task of a European military force? Is the Taoiseach aware of the possibility of the EU rapid reaction force being drawn into this fight against terrorism, which is being led by the USA, a country that feels free to attack Iraq and others? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Spanish Government wants to place anti-globalisation protesters in the same category as terrorists who fly planes into buildings?
In view of these points, is the Taoiseach aware of serious concerns among many here arising from the stated intention of the Spanish Defence Minister that there should be a European arms industry? What is being mooted is that the EU should keep pace with the arms spending of the United States of America, in other words, he wishes to start a new arms race, this time between Europe and the USA. Will the Government go along meekly with this push toward militarisation or will it stand up and reflect the views and concerns of the majority of people who are against it?
I totally disagree with the Deputy in the matter of his first question. The rights of workers have been enshrined in EU law since the Treaty of Rome enabling them to make substantive progress. Success in the fight for health and safety, equality and protection of workers' rights would not have been achieved were it not for the enhancements in EU law. Social policy has been one of the great issues of progress in Europe. The Social Affairs Council has been very progressive, working with employers and trades unions for decades, certainly since Dr. Hillary, ex-President and former Member of this House, took office as Commissioner with special responsibility for social affairs. Every subsequent Commissioner continued to enhance and extend the rights of workers. I compare that to the old regimes of eastern Europe where workers were given a few hours' work with no rights. They were given peanuts and told they were part of the system of labour. I disagree entirely with the Deputy.
Workers unite.
(Dublin West): Is the Minister calling me a Stalinist?
Not at all, Stalinism is not fashionable.
I described the Barcelona European Council agenda rather than any issues cited by members of the Spanish Government. They are the priorities as I have outlined them in replies to Deputies Quinn and Sargent.
Regarding the issue of defence, our position remains the same. We will work to continue to contribute in a meaningful way to the Petersberg Tasks. We are not involved in any European army, we are not involved in aggression and we are not involved in any military regime, other than what is set out in the Petersberg Tasks, and that is evolving very well. That is our contribution and it is one people want us to make. We are not being forced in any other direction and we will continue to play our role.
Given that the Nice treaty is unlikely to be ratified before the general election and there will be a limited period within which it can be ratified between the general election and the end of the year, has the Government drawn up contingency plans in the event of, first, ratification not taking place before the end of the year and, second, another referendum having been taken, the result being again negative? Has the Taoiseach undertaken negotiations with his European colleagues with a view to identifying the best options in those circumstances? Will he indicate whether he discussed with his colleagues the options of a declaration or a protocol regarding the issues which allegedly have caused concern to the Irish people in the Nice referendum?
Does the Taoiseach agree that the issue of what should go into the declaration is primarily one for debate in this House and, indeed, in the Forum on Europe? Is it his intention, following the completion of the first phase of the Forum on Europe with yesterday's publication of the report of Senator Hayes, that the Government will indicate the content of a declaration in dialogue with those participants in the forum who opposed the Nice treaty on the grounds that, in their eyes, it compromised our neutrality? Is it intended that the Government will initiate, using the forum or indeed this House, dialogue with those parties opposed to the Nice treaty to see if it is possible to agree the content of a declaration which could then be presented in draft form in Barcelona or Seville?
Does the Taoiseach accept it has been as plain as a pikestaff from the beginning, since last June, that one of the major issues of concern to people abstaining or voting against the Treaty of Nice was neutrality and the militarisation of the EU? Whether this was a perception or a misconception, call it what one may, it was there, and does he not agree that to deal with that perception or misconception action has been and is necessary and is becoming more necessary by the day? There is a need for action at European level in the form of a declaration, possibly coupled, following the Danish precedent, with a commitment to a protocol but, more importantly, at domestic level possibly, with an amendment of the Defence Act or a White Paper on neutrality. Has the Taoiseach considered doing these things and has he considered the time which would be needed to put these measures into operation? Does he not realise that the window of opportunity is closing by the day, with the general election and the summer recess approaching, the referendum will be held and then it will be autumn?
My question was asked earlier but there was not a clear answer. When the Taoiseach goes to Barcelona will he broach the subject of the possibility of rejection as well as of ratification of the treaty? Will the scenario of rejection of the treaty be outlined so that the people and the other EU partners will have some idea about what is the next stage, in other words, renegotiation, a declaration or, preferably, a protocol?
There were a number of questions. Deputy Durkan asked a number of questions about scenarios after a possible second rejection of the Nice treaty. We are not contemplating that happening and therefore we are not contemplating any such scenario, although there has been plenty of debate and discussion about what might happen in such circumstances. All our efforts are going into achieving a position where we can reflect on where we are. Having reflected on what happened last year, we are giving people an opportunity to reflect on it and allowing public debate on it. We set up the forum and are having extensive discussion on the matter. The forum has increasingly become more relevant with every passing week, in both attendance and the quality of the people involved. It is clear neutrality is a major issue, although not the only one.
I agree with Deputy Quinn that we must build consensus on this issue as best we can so that the people are in favour of it and are prepared to agree with the protocol. I do not know if that is to be done in the House or in the forum. I under stand the forum intends to reconvene and continue discussions after the recess. Given the timescale, it may be necessary for some of those to take place in the House rather than at the forum. Wherever discussions take place, we should try to build consensus around our position.
In reply to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, I do not wish to take issue but his position last autumn was to urge me to accept the reality, move on and put the treaty to a vote again immediately. I thought that was a flawed position.
I suggested steps should be put in place. I gave a six point plan.
We have taken all the steps. To have proceeded so quickly would have been a mistake. We first had to analyse people's views. That has been done professionally and the analysis and that of many other experts has made very clear that neutrality is the number one issue. Other issues include the bureaucracy of Europe, the parliamentary system and what we in the House are doing to make the European agenda more relevant. The Cabinet committee is examining the neutrality issue and will engage in discussion with the legal services, a process we have not yet formally begun but which we must undertake. We will discuss what happened in Denmark, and clearly a declaration will be an issue with the possibility of becoming a protocol at a later stage. We must tackle all these issues and reach agreement on them.
In reply to Deputy Sargent, I wish to be clear that I will not change my view if I am fortunate enough to be returned as a Member of the House.
Senator Dermot Fitzpatrick is strong, but he is not that strong.
The option of renegotiating the Nice treaty will not get us the first half length because that is not where Europe is at. Member states are willing to discuss issues, but opening up the Treaty of Nice for renegotiation after they negotiated it throughout 2000 is not going to happen.
It is a legal reality.
No, it would not be a legal reality. It would be many other realities.
It would block enlargement.
It would not be a legal reality. The other option, which I hope and presume is the Deputy's position, is to examine the process of declarations and protocols, if necessary, and to try to explain the issue of enlargement to the people. When this has been done, we can then progress the matter. That is our position at present and our timescale is not off course. These issues can be successfully dealt with provided those of us who care about these issues—
It is eight months down the road and nothing has been done.
The Deputy should attend the Forum on Europe and he will see what has been done. His party has not contributed to it.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): There has been no result.
It is not lost and that process will proceed successfully to the next phase. We are heading into another intergovernmental conference. We have substantially progressed not only the current agenda but how we will deal with the next intergovernmental conference. We in this House and this country will have to deal with the more fundamental issues with which Europe has been dealing. We should be conscious of these. A general election here will not change any of them. These are the real issues and it is no good our taking up party positions on them because they are too important to the country for that. We should face the hard realities. I do not want to get into an unnecessary argument on this. Whatever position I am going to be in after the general election, I will be pro-Europe. Even if I am in Opposition, I will support Europe.
Does the Taoiseach know something we do not?
It is an unlikely event.
The Minister should not speak too soon.
Let us be sensible, remain focused on the major issues and not run away from them.
The Taoiseach must be frightening people. There could be a Dublin North-Central coup.
I presume the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Orban, raised the ratification of the Nice treaty with the Taoiseach when they met last week. What commitments did the Taoiseach give him on behalf of the Irish Government and did he lay out a timetable for him?
l laid out the same timetable as for everyone else. I am absolutely committed, as I am sure everyone in this House is, that we will not let down our European colleagues and, more importantly, the countries who wish to join an enlarged Europe at the end of this year. We will deal with that timescale and agenda.
Was the Taoiseach embarrassed when he met the Prince of Wales? The Ceann Comhairle's office has disallowed a question in my name which was to ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Prince Charles.
A disallowed question should not be raised in this manner.
I wonder why I was not permitted—
The Deputy must state the relevance of his question to the questions before us.
I asked the Taoiseach how did he get on with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, which was allowed.
We cannot discuss that issue.
The question on our next door neighbour was disallowed, which is a little unfair.
The matter cannot be raised in this manner.
A Cheann Comhairle—
Disallowed questions cannot be raised in this manner.
On the Taoiseach's meeting with the Ethiopian Prime Minister and a report to the effect that a request had been made by the Prime Minister for the return of certain artefacts sacred to the cultural history of Ethiopia which had been part of booty taken to Ireland in the middle of the 19th century, was the question of the return of cultural artefacts currently in Irish museums raised by the Prime Minister and, if so, what answer was given by the Taoiseach?
The matter may have been raised during some other part of the meeting but he certainly did not raise it with me.
A brief question from Deputy Higgins.
(Dublin West): To return briefly to the substantive issue, will the Taoiseach admit that what he said in regard to consulting the people on the Nice treaty by way of a referendum is a charade since he said everything is dished up and we possibly cannot contemplate any change? Therefore, the question will be put in exactly the same way. Will he agree that the appointments to the convention on the future of Europe fly in the face of the principles under which the Forum on Europe has been set up in this country, whereas there is fair representation of all the voices, particularly those who are opposed as well as those who are in favour? In the convention the two full representatives are proponents of the Nice treaty, proponents of the common, foreign and security policy and of the rapid reaction force, and therefore, the views and concerns of large numbers of Irish people are not getting through to this level of the convention on the future of Europe.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply to previous questions, is he aware of the deep concern and anxiety that exists among other European leaders in regard to the Irish position on the Nice treaty? Given that concern, have they offered him assistance or advice on achieving the objective whereby enlargement can take place?
It is not a question of concern. The other member states which wish to be helpful and work with us are satisfied that is what people in this country are doing.
On Deputy Higgins's question, the issue of parliamentary representation must be based on how Parliament is made up, which is what the positions were based on. The Government and Parliament in general have been more than helpful in this regard, which is the correct way to proceed. The parliamentary representation is a fair reflection, or the best that can be done, with four people to represent Parliament.