We were dealing with questions on this matter and there are 12 minutes remaining.
European Council: Statements (Resumed).
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Nice treaty, which was rejected in the last referendum, has any implications for this country's neutrality? In regard to the current proposal involving the declaration, does it have any implications for participation in PfP or for the operations we would normally be involved in through the UN? Will the monitoring process introduced during the life of the last Dáil with the agreement of the Taoiseach and the approval and agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs be continued or enhanced? Will the process by which the Minister and civil servants appear before the Committee on European Affairs or an appropriate committee to hold consultations prior to attending meetings of the Council of Ministers be continued and will it also apply to COREPER meetings?
The answer to the first question is "no". This is the whole point of the declaration, which makes it absolutely clear that there is nothing in the Nice treaty which need cause us concern. The answer to the second question is also in the negative.
The third question relates to a matter which has clearly caused concern, namely, what could generally be termed the issue of democratic oversight in this country. The improved arrangements agreed in this regard, a form of tracking regu lations as they progress, come into effect on 1 July. Ministers will provide the Committee on European Affairs with regularly updated notes for circulation to all committees. I know from discussions with Deputy Durkan and due to his personal interest in the matter as chairperson of the Committee on European Affairs in the last Dáil that he is acutely aware that regulations can change over time. This means one is trying to track what is very much a moving object. The arrangement of providing notes with regular updates should solve that difficulty.
The third improvement is that the committees can invite Ministers to appear before them prior to Council meetings. Although this possibility existed in theory, it has now been set down in practice and Ministers will be available prior to Council meetings. As somebody who has spoken about the development of the committee system, I welcome this as a very progressive move.
There will also be the possibility of inviting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or even the Taoiseach, to make a presentation before meetings of the European Council. The new arrangements set in train, by which Ministers will report back to the Dáil and there will be questions after each European Council meeting, are also innovations. While I am aware that other parties want the process to go further by incorporating it in law, I am not certain about the wisdom of that proposal. The point is we should be assured.
As the House will be aware, I am a student of comparative European institutions. Looking at other parliaments, it can be objectively stated that we have in place one of the most advanced tracking systems. We certainly have a system which produces more accountability and responsiveness to the concerns of Oireachtas committees than was the case in the past. These measures should help to resolve some of our difficulties. While there is no doubt that there remains much room for further institutional improvements, these measures go a long way and will answer the type of questions the Deputy has raised on numerous occasions.
Does the Taoiseach share my deep concern about sharing common foreign and security policies with countries such as France and Britain, both of which are nuclear powers, particularly Britain with its disastrous track record on human rights, the recent examples of collusion and the Pat Finucane case? Does he not agree that many Irish people want to retain our independent foreign policy line and, hence, have reservations about the 60,000 strong rapid reaction force? Will he join me in commending the Irish soldiers who have given their lives with the United Nations in conflicts throughout the world? Contrary to the accusation levelled against us by so many of our detractors in the recent debate, they did bury their heads in the sand. Does the Taoiseach agree that the way forward in conflict resolution situations throughout the world is a strong, independent, positive, neutral and credible foreign policy?
Common foreign and security positions are precisely that – positions about which a common policy can be agreed. We do not adhere to every area of the foreign policy of France and Germany. Common foreign and security policy is intergovernmental in character. We come to common positions on the basis of agreement. They are about those areas of policy about which we agree, not those about which we disagree. Therefore, to characterise common foreign and security policy as in some way imposing a uniform foreign policy in respect of all 15 member states on every issue, is to misunderstand precisely what the position is. I emphasise that this whole area, known as the second pillar of the European Union treaties, is intergovernmental in character, which means we establish common positions only in those areas on which we agree, while we do not have common positions on those areas on which we do not agree.
Of course we commend the members of the Defence Forces who have worked with the UN. That will always be the case in every respect because the legislative provisions under the Defence Acts require prior UN endorsement before any Army personnel can become involved in an international issue. There has been no change to that position as is confirmed by the declarations.
In relation to conflict prevention in the European Union, the EU is the best example one could find in the recent history of an institution devised to bring about conflict prevention. It has been the best example of conflict prevention ever devised in Europe. The legal basis upon which it will apply its security and defence policy are the Petersberg Tasks relating to conflict prevention, humanitarian tasks and crisis management tasks, which are set out in the treaties. In so far as Ireland is concerned, this area of policy is the one where we can demonstrate, as the declarations do, where we have retained sovereignty because the Government decides, on a case by case basis and subject to Oireachtas approval and prior UN endorsement, whether we will participate in any crisis management or humanitarian task which the EU military capability will take on board.
That is the position and any characterisation to the contrary has no treaty reference and is not correct, accurate or in conformity with the declarations we have set out. I am glad to note that the one thing we have achieved is that prominent members of the "No" campaign in the past have now confirmed that the declarations are stating the obvious. If that is the case, as it is, I presume I can expect no contradictions of the obvious during the course of the forthcoming campaign.
I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach for making themselves available for the remainder of the debate. Will the Taoiseach inform the House how the value of the declarations secured in Seville differ from the previous declaration on Irish neutrality which was attached to the Single European Act in 1997, given that it was followed by our participation in both the rapid reaction force and the Partnership for Peace arrangement or was it the case that positive Irish votes on the treaties of Amsterdam and Maastricht negated that previous declaration?
On the use of declarations as a way of meeting the concerns of Irish voters, was the possibility of seeking declarations on the many other areas of concern about the Nice treaty, namely, enhanced co-operation, the diminution of Irish voting strength, the loss of an Irish Commissioner in rotation as a member of the Commission and the reduction in the number of Irish members of the European Parliament, considered and why was it not followed through?
Since the Minister for Foreign Affairs said Nice is essential for the enlargement of the European Union, does the Minister say that the enhanced co-operation provisions of the Nice treaty, by which eight member states can proceed ahead of others with particular projects, are essential for enlargement and if so, why?
A statement was attributed to the Taoiseach in which he pointed out that if we vote "Yes" to the Nice treaty we would be in a stronger position to negotiate on any potential proposals that may come from the Agenda 2000 mid-term CAP review. Could these proposals be dealt with before the Nice treaty referendum? Would there be merit in doing this, rather than leaving them unfinished while the people decide on ratification?
Deputy Boyle raised the issue of the Commission and the arrangements for the Treaty of Nice. These arrangements represent the only compromise available between the 15 member states regarding new institutional arrangements to facilitate enlargement. That is the political reality. We do not seek any change in those arrangements since there is no prospect of renegotiating the treaty. This was set out in the Gothenberg Council conclusions when this matter first came up after the rejection of ratification in Ireland on the last occasion.
The declarations which have been made available from Seville by the Taoiseach clarify the meaning of the legal texts which exist regarding this matter. It has been suggested that there are no legal texts in existence which provide a legal basis for the actions of future Irish Governments in retaining sovereignty and in determining whether or not we will participate in any European security and defence policy proposal in the future. The texts are in the treaties of Amsterdam and Maastricht.
With regard to the declaration concerning the Single European Act, which is the treaty in which the question of policy on security co-operation was instigated, we make it clear that our participation will always be on the basis of respect for our position of military neutrality. As those provisions are included in that treaty and subsequently in Maastricht, Amsterdam and now in Nice, we have obtained a declaration which confirms that all the developments which have taken place provide for us the necessary retained discretion which is the exercise of national sovereignty by our Government, subject to the approval of the Oireachtas and prior UN endorsement before we participate in any of those arrangements.
Therefore, the voluntary nature of our participation has been retained as a result of successful negotiations by successive Governments in respect of the provisions of those treaties which sought to develop the European security and defence policy. Those are the facts. The declaration has been confirmed and corroborated by all 14 member states who have confirmed that the outcome of all of those negotiations in respect of this sensitive area of policy, which successive Irish Governments have successfully negotiated, has meant that those sovereign decisions of Government are in no way fettered by the treaty provisions, up to and including ratification of the Treaty of Nice. That is a clear exposition of the legal position as negotiated by Governments and as incorporated in our constitutional arrangements through successive ratifications of all treaties up to this treaty, which has yet to be ratified by the people of Ireland.
We are putting this point again to the people because of the duty of Government to put it to them where we see our essential national interest at stake. This is no way fetters the right of the people to make the sovereign decision on this question. We are simply asking them to consider it once again.
The concepts of enhanced co-operation and flexibility arrangements, which were raised by Deputy Higgins, were first brought in by the Treaty of Amsterdam which was ratified by the people of Ireland. The changes in the arrangements for enhanced co-operation in the Treaty of Nice are modest. I will provide these provisions for Deputy O'Higgins if he wishes. They confirm that there are sufficient safeguards in place. The suggestion was made by the "No" side in a debate I had on a radio programme yesterday that enhanced co-operation provisions will in some way provide for an inner government within the EU – an EU within the EU. This is not available in the Treaty of Nice. It is not possible because the Commission, as the guardian of the treaties and often spoken of as such by the supporters of the "No" campaign, must in all cases agree to any exercise of the enhanced co-operation mechanism.
The suggested arrangement cannot apply to the Single Market, which provides for 80% of the total working of the European Union's institutions, it cannot affect the integrity of the Single Market, it cannot distort competition or be used in any way to provide a union within a union. We believe the flexibility provisions will provide us, in many cases in the future, with insurance of effective decision making processes so that, in an enlarged group of 27 members, a veto by one member state would not prevent Ireland from pursuing its interests. The exaggerated claims being made by the "No" side regarding the enhanced co-operation mechanism do not stand up to scrutiny. The detail of the treaty provisions can be provided to the Deputy if he requires it.
So, enlargement could go ahead without the Nice treaty?
No. Enlargement will go ahead on schedule only on the basis of the ratification of the Treaty of Nice. That is the position of all 15 member states. It is also the position of all ten candidate countries, whose concerns Deputy Higgins often expresses and whose Governments confirmed that position to myself and the Taoiseach last weekend.
I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Timmins, on his elevation to the front bench as spokesman on agriculture. The answer to the second part of his question is negative. It would not be possible to fast-track the mid-term review on CAP and to have that out of the way before we make a decision on the Nice treaty.
Deputy Timmins raised the important issue of the impact of enlargement on any aspect of the Irish economy. Enlargement poses no threat to the Common Agricultural Policy, nor does it pose a threat to existing funding arrangements. Those arrangements were put in place at the Berlin summit in 1999 and we made sure they are protected.
Ireland stands to gain considerably from enlargement because we will get new allies in the area of the Common Agricultural Policy. Eight of the ten aspirant states are very dependent on agriculture and their agriculture or agri-business is not sufficiently advanced to damage us in any way. We will have more friends with a common interest in agriculture at the table than we have had in recent years. We should have sufficient confidence in Irish agriculture, and particularly in Irish agri-business, to recognise that we are well equipped to cope with any additional competition and, more precisely, to supply into a market which will expand by 100 million additional consumers.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said on many occasions, this is a case of more is more and not of more is less. Agriculture has nothing to fear from enlargement and has a considerable amount to gain.