Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 5

European Council Meeting: Statements.

I attended the Copenhagen European Council on Thursday and Friday, 12 and 13 December. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs. The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before both Houses.

"Historic" is a word that is much overused. Those of us who engage in politics are perhaps particularly guilty of the overuse of this most valuable word. Of all the European Council meetings I have attended, both as Taoiseach and as Minister for Finance, the Copenhagen European Council is the one of which the word "historic" can be used without fear of contradiction.

Last weekend marked a watershed in the history of Europe. In Copenhagen, the leaders of the existing member states of the European Union and the leaders of the ten applicant countries brought to a conclusion enlargement negotiations which mark a quantum leap in the development of European unity. In welcoming the new member states into the European Union, over seven years of protracted and detailed negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion. We have also given a clear signal on behalf of our peoples that Europe is determined to be united as a zone of peace, prosperity and freedom. This is a moment for celebration. Europe has given concrete expression to the aspirations of centuries.

I am confident that the ten accession states will ratify the Treaty of Accession and that Ireland as President in Office of the European Council will welcome the new member states into the European Union on 1 May 2004.

Enlargement will pose significant challenges for Europe and for Ireland. In Europe's case, the procedures, structures and policies of the Union will have to cope with the largest intake of new member states since its foundation. I have no doubt that further significant reforms and changes will be required at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference if Europe is to remain effective. Ireland will be active in promoting such reforms while remaining vigilant to ensure that the essential balances which underpin the European Union are not endangered.

For Ireland, the challenges posed by enlargement are also significant. We will no longer be the second smallest member state. We are, in addition, becoming one of the richest member states. As such, our approach to European negotiations must continue to evolve and become more focused. In order to advance our core national interests we will need to continue to build alliances with the new member states while deepening and strengthening our alliances with the existing members. We will need to identify our national priorities with care and pursue them with dogged determination. I am confident that Ireland can succeed in the enlarged Europe and I intend to ensure that European policy continues to be a central priority for the Government.

The main business at the European Council was the conclusion of the enlargement negotiations. As is always the case with such negotiations, difficult compromises were required on all sides. The result is, however, a good one for Europe and a good one for Ireland. While additional resources were made available to the accession states, the core elements of the agreement on funding reached at the Brussels European Council last October remain in place. In particular, the agreement on agricultural expenditure reached at Brussels remains. We can now look forward to welcoming Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia into the European Union. The accession treaty will be signed in Athens on 16 April next. We will be joined by 75 million new European Union citizens from 1 May 2004. I am happy to say that it will fall to Ireland's Presidency to formally welcome the new member states into the European Union.

Ireland will be forging ever closer ties with the accession countries from now on and I look forward to visiting the Czech Republic and welcoming the Prime Ministers of Poland and Estonia to Dublin in the new year. These are amongst the range of bilateral contacts that members of the Government will have with our future partners in the lead up to our Presidency in 2004.

The European Union has completed negotiations with Cyprus and it will be admitted as a new member state to the European Union. Nevertheless, we confirm the strong preference for accession by a united Cyprus. We welcome the commitment of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to continue negotiations with a view to concluding a comprehensive settlement by the end of next February on the basis of proposals presented by the United Nations General Secretary, Kofi Annan. We encourage the leaders of both sides to seize this historic opportunity.

The European Council confirmed that the accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania will continue. The objective is to welcome these two countries as members of the European Union in 2007.

If the European Council decides in December 2004, on the basis of an EU Commission report, that Turkey fulfils the political criteria for membership of the European Union, accession negotiations will open without delay. The decision on Turkey balances the incentive of a timeframe in which its application for membership will be considered and the need to fulfil the criteria for membership of the European Union. The new Government in Turkey has shown that it is willing to take the necessary steps to meet the criteria which were established for European Union membership almost ten years ago. The European Union, for its part, will strengthen its pre-accession strategy for Turkey.

The European Council also confirmed its determination to support the efforts by the countries in the Western Balkans, including Albania, Croatia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia, to move closer to the European Union while respecting the political criteria set down for membership.

The Greek Presidency will organise a summit next June between EU member states and the countries of the stabilisation and association process. The European Union will also work to enhance its relations with Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the southern Mediterranean countries based on a long-term approach promoting democratic and economic reforms. The overall aim is to ensure that the enlarged European Union is a force for stability and progress within and beyond its borders.

On the issue of the functioning of the Presidency of the Council in the wake of enlargement, the European Council took note of an initial report from the Presidency.

The European Council also marked a major breakthrough in relation to European Security and Defence Policy. Berlin Plus relates to the arrangements whereby the EU can have access to NATO's assets and resources for the Petersberg Tasks, an example of which is the possible EU peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. The development of these arrangements had been envisaged since the early evolution of the European Security and Defence Policy, but the issue became bound up in the broader question of a date for Turkish accession talks and a settlement in Cyprus and its accession to the EU. The EU has now agreed a basis to take the matter forward, on foot of proposals by High Representative Solana. NATO is currently responding to the EU position and we are hopeful that the outstanding issues can be resolved without further delay.

The Chair of the European Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, made a progress report on the work of the Convention to the European Council. There was an exchange of views with the chairman on foot of his report. I want to underline to this House that the Government is in no doubt about the significance of the convention and fully accepts that its outcome will be highly influential. At the same time, we are also aware that final decisions on treaty change are for the subsequent intergovernmental conference.

The Government is fully aware of the challenges ahead. As I already indicated, we are working in the European Convention, and we will work in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, to ensure that the European Union is reformed and modernised to meet the challenges which flow from the enlargement of the EU.

In the European Convention, Ireland has been among the most active and influential of the small member states. At plenary sessions, we have made contributions on virtually all substantive agenda topics and we will continue to make contributions. In the convention working groups, the Government and the Oireachtas representatives have made very significant contributions and we are grateful to them for the time and effort they have put into this. We are, and will continue to be, involved in very extensive networking at all levels on appropriate occasions.

In Copenhagen, the European Council decided that the new member states will participate fully in the next intergovernmental conference. This was an important decision and one which Ireland has advocated for some time.

On the Middle East, we adopted a declaration underlining the importance of the quartet meet ing of the UN, the US, the EU and Russia in Washington on 20 December and the adoption of the joint road map with clear timelines for the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005. We expressed our alarm at the continuing illegal settlements and urged the Government of Israel to reverse its policy and freeze all settlements immediately. We called on the Israeli and Palestinian people to break the endless cycle of violence and condemned unequivocally all acts of terrorism.

On Iraq, we underlined the full and unequivocal support of the EU for Security Council Resolution 1441 and reconfirmed the EU's goal of disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We noted Iraq's acceptance of Resolution 1441 and that it has submitted its declaration on its programmes of weapons of mass destruction and related products.

The role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security must be respected and the EU will continue to give its full support to ensure full and immediate compliance with Resolution 1441. The European Council expressed its sympathy for, and solidarity with, the populations affected by the Prestige oil tanker accident off the north-west coast of Spain. The Commission will examine the need for further economic, social and environmental measures.

In the margins of the meeting, I had contacts with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain and raised our concerns in relation to fisheries. I informed the Prime Minister of the difficulties that the Irish fishing industry would face if access to the Irish Box was opened up, especially in the context of declining fish stocks. I indicated that a thorough review of the existing arrangements during next year would allow time for all the issues to be fully aired and for us to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. I also communicated the importance of the issue to the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, and the President of the European Council, Prime Minister Rasmussen.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is attending the ongoing Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels today. The Minister has the full support of the Government in his efforts to achieve the best possible outcome for Ireland's interests.

Last weekend's European Council marked a further episode in the wonderful adventure of the European Union. It proved, once again, that Europe can meet and deal with the challenges of an ever-changing global environment. It proved, once again, that Europe can craft win-win solutions to the problems it faces. It proved, once again, that Europe can reach compromises which respect the vital national interests of its member states while advancing the political, economic and social interests of all of them. Above all, it showed, once again, that Europe works and that Ireland's place is at the heart of the European Union.

The European Council meeting in Copenhagen last week can truly be described as a historic milestone in the development of the European Union. The decision to allow ten new member states to join the Union in 2004 paves the way for the single largest enlargement in the history of the European project. That decision is recognition of the huge changes which have been implemented in those former Soviet-bloc countries in a period of just over a decade.

This enlargement will radically change the nature of the European Union and that change will be very much for the better. First, it will increase the number of members by two thirds – from 15 to 25 – and increase the Union's population by 100 million people. Second, it will present new challenges to achieving economic and social cohesion between the relatively prosperous existing member states and the poorer applicant countries – we must remember that not long ago we were one of those poorer applicants. Third, it will necessitate the rebalancing of voting strengths within the institutions provided for in the Treaty of Nice. Above all, this historic enlargement in which we, a tiny Atlantic island, played such a vital role will establish political stability and therefore greater peace and prosperity in central and eastern Europe.

The European project, as we all know, was born out of a determination to prevent further war and devastation of people and their economies in western Europe. By this yardstick alone, it has been a huge success. When the founding fathers of this project signed the Treaty of Rome, little did they know how far and how quickly it would progress. They certainly never imagined that within 50 years the entity they created would facilitate the reunification of Europe and have the potential to become a real global power.

As a committed European, I am proud of the role that Ireland played in establishing this new age, this new era of European history. We did it before in the Dark Ages when Irish monks set sail to colonise hearts and minds and to civilise the continent of Europe. Many centuries later, we have once again looked east. The people spoke and our speaking gave millions of our fellow Europeans the opportunities for which we ourselves were once so very grateful.

The Nice referendum proved definitively that the people would never again be taken for granted. As Europe evolves, referenda will become part of our political and civic future. Therefore, keeping the public informed and engaged must top the political agenda. Just a few weeks ago, I told the European leaders at a meeting of the European People's Party in Lisbon that Ireland could become a useful example of how Europe can be explained and delivered.

In that context, I remind the Taoiseach and the Government of the importance of resourcing properly the Committee on European Affairs. I know that the committee will have a number of regional meetings but given that the next intergovernmental conference will produce another treaty of much more major significance than the Nice treaty, we do not want to be caught again in a situation where the population and the electorate can legitimately say that they were ill-informed or did not know what the treaty was about.

As the Minister of State dealing with European issues, Deputy Roche, is present, I am sure that in the context of the Irish Presidency in 2004 this will be of critical importance to the way we do our business here, the way we explain Europe and the way we empathise, listen to people and deal with their concerns so that we can win over their trust and confidence. In that context, I would like to think that the work and the moral authority that has been established in part by the convention will be taken in a very serious fashion by Government.

I understand that recently the chairman, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, addressed the French National Assembly on the work of the convention. The Government might consider inviting him, as chairman of the convention, to address Dáil Éireann on the work of the convention and where he sees it going so that he can get a flavour of the opinions, diverse though they may be, in this House. If the chairman is allowed to address the French National Assembly, consideration might be given to extending a similar invitation here in the context of playing our full part in Europe.

On the eve of the European Council meeting, I attended the summit meeting of the European Peoples' Party in Copenhagen. We raised the issue of Turkey's accession to EU membership and made the point strongly that the Commission should be in the position to assess the merits of that application and of the fulfilment of accession criteria before the opening of any formal negotiations. As Turkey was nominated as an official candidate in 1999, the ball is obviously rolling in this direction. The issue of human rights in Turkey has been raised by a number of speakers in the European Parliament. Once that assessment has closed, I hope it will be followed by a detailed analysis of Turkey's fulfilment of accession criteria.

The Danish foreign minister indicated that he received a telephone call from US Secretary of State Colin Powell urging the expeditious incorporation of Turkey into a partnership with the European Union. I understand that President Bush contacted Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen to the same effect on two occasions prior to the European Council meeting. The Taoiseach might indicate whether the US made similar approaches to our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in the lead up to the European Council meeting.

I urge the Government to take the plunge into Europe seriously. It is difficult to get away from the culture of parish pump politics, but we are now part of a much bigger entity. European policy for the future will affect all of our lives, and it is important that this country be central to those affairs. The European summit in Copenhagen was historic in the sense that it gave approval for ten new countries to join the EU. I pointed out to the leaders of the European Peoples' Party that Ireland was the only country that gave a people's verdict on Nice. It is as a result of that verdict that these ten countries now have the option of joining the EU. I therefore stress again the importance of involving people and explaining to them what the European project is about.

It is necessary that the convention be given a clearer mandate as to the size of the European project we eventually want to achieve. We do not want to see the convention putting forward a series of proposals for an entity the eventual size of which we are still unsure about. There should be more discussion about this aspect of the European agenda. If Turkey is to be nominated as a candidate country, are we then to consider Belarus and other states contiguous to Russia? If the size of the EU is to expand again beyond 25 states, the work of the convention should be tailored to take account of the likely eventual size of the union.

The leaders of the European Peoples' Party passed a recommendation of solidarity with the efforts Spain is making to deal with the worst ecological disaster in its history following the sinking of the Prestige, and I express that solidarity again here. I am glad to note that the Taoiseach raised the issue of the Irish fishing fleet and the review of the Common Fisheries Policy at the European Council meeting. I am not sure that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will make a radical breakthrough in his efforts in talks this weekend. In terms of conservation strategy, it seems perverse that the Irish fishing fleet is prohibited from fishing in Irish waters and the Irish Box because of the depletion of its very small quota, whereas a Spanish fleet can fish in this box and sell fish caught in Irish waters to Irish citizens. I hope Deputy Ahern will fight vigorously on behalf of Irish fishermen. Some 25,000 families are depending on this, and many of them face extinction under the terms of EU proposals being put forward.

I hope the European agenda will receive very high priority from Government in the next session of the Dáil and beyond and that Members on all sides will have the opportunity to debate issues that are of concern not only to us but to our 100 million new-found fellow citizens in Europe.

The outcome of the European Council meeting in Copenhagen is to be welcomed, to the extent that it finally clears the way for the electorate of the candidate states to pass judgment on what has been negotiated on their behalf. I agree with the Taoiseach's description of what took place as "historic". However, the change in balance and focus now in prospect for the union is enormous – if perhaps still not appreciated fully by many people in the current union. In geographic, cultural and economic terms, the enlarged union will have a new centre of gravity, echoing the old geographical concept of Mitteleuropa. Disparities of income and development will be sharper and the concept of cohesion will need to be redefined. Community policy and the budget will have to be reshaped and there are likely to be new issues as yet unforeseen.

There is no need to fear these prospects. The history of the EU stretching back to the old EEC is one of coping with enormous challenges in a succession of changing circumstances . There were the challenges of structurally changing the shapes of agriculture and heavy industry – coal and steel – in the original economic community. There were the development and regional issues that arose with the accession of states such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece. There was the project of social Europe and the Single Market and the enormous ambition of establishing a single currency. The union did not flinch from such huge projects, and it succeeded.

Those successes should not blind us to the enormity of this next project. Those successes raise expectations in the candidate states. In addition, the sheer scale of this prospective enlargement, combined with the level of integration established within the existing union, makes for a far more complex agenda. At the same time, the existing union has decided to embark on its own reform, some of that taking account of enlargement but some of it also recognising problems that have emerged – the democratic deficit, remoteness of institutions from the citizens and so on. We under estimate the complexity of this agenda at our peril.

Yet, having followed events in Copenhagen and studied the final communiqué, I have to say there is some cause for genuine concern about some of the drift of development and, more particularly, the lack of knowledge of and debate on the future here. The candidate countries seem to be learning the ropes in terms of special pleading, in-fighting and posturing, a special problem that sometimes serves only to divorce the union from its citizens. When people see and hear the jostling and posturing on news bulletins, they see it all as just politics for cosmetic effect.

Besieged communities around our coast who rely upon the fishing industry for their livelihoods are an example of this, as they have little belief that the posturing will protect their incomes. I consider myself as much a realist as anyone, but the kind of game-playing, special pleading and horse trading that have too much come to characterise the Council, contribute to the very problem that Mr. dEstaing, is supposed to address instead of passing superior racial and religious judgment on the Turks.

A few months ago, after the Brussels Council, I remarked on how Europe has changed and how we are today confronted with the question, "What kind of Europe?", or alternatively, "Which Europe?".

Last weekend, terms of accession were nego tiated for ten new member states which, if accepted by the citizens of those states in referenda over the coming year, will lead to the most enormous change in the shape of the EU. The geographical balance will change, as will the centre of gravity. Income and development disparities will be more acute and the pressures for assistance and transfers are bound to increase. There are likely to be new issues as yet unforeseen. There will, of course, be new opportunities, whether in trade and commerce, social intercourse and cultural exchange, in this vast expansion. There is also the gain of stabilisation and peace. That is the point of it all.

However, despite the lessons of the Nice debates, I detect a real sense among people in this country at least, and certainly within the Government, of things being unchanged. The failure of the Government to engage properly with the convention and the reported views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, effectively that it will be all right on the night and will be done in the traditional way, is somewhat worrying. To the extent that there are straws in the wind they seem to be little appreciated or understood in Ireland. Again, I single out the Government in this regard. Some might also say of certain proposals that they seem to indicate grand designs by unknown bureaucrats as opposed to any real attempt to grapple with democratic deficits, the impression conveyed by infighting and squabbling, remoteness and removal from real issues. To allow this to continue is to invite a replay of the Nice fiasco.

I note the Council found time to discuss Alpine transit, that is, long distance lorries travelling through Austria. I am sure that for many Austrians, lorries trundling down their roads on the way from somewhere to elsewhere, but not Austria, is a pressing problem. No doubt Austrians look to the promised new Eurovignette directive, whatever that is, with some hope. Would that we could say the same about the Common Fisheries Policy and that the fishing communities of Ireland and elsewhere could look to a sensible and sustainable policy.

The Council flunked the one thing it might have done about Giscard d'Estaing. It might have confronted the implications implicit in his remarks about the Turks. Turkey represented "a different culture" and its admission would be the "end of the EU". This was not a reference to human rights or the record of past Turkish governments. What is this "different culture" that apparently worries Mr. d'Estaing and what is the culture he defends in the context of the current culture of the Council and Commission in relation to, for example, the shambles of the fishing issue? Where is the concern for people, for communities, for a people's Europe in the reality that is now being wrought on coastal communities by the failed fisheries policy? The Council might have censured Giscard d'Estaing. When one recalls what was done to the Austrians after they voted Jorg Haider to power, one must ask whether dual standards apply and whether, unfor tunately, the EU can be portrayed by sceptics as an alliance of convenience for a number of bigger member states that always escape censure.

How the citizens of the candidate states vote in their forthcoming referenda is now a matter for them. What is a matter of some consequence for all of us is the kind of EU they will join and the kind of EU that has evolved. The next two years will decide that. Some of the design for the Union is becoming apparent. We are familiar with a certain amount of it, more Commissioners – eventually not one for everyone but always at least one for the big member states, more MEPs and changes in the composition of Parliament, more talk of openness, transparency, the role of Parliament and the Presidency as well as the status of the president of the Commission and so on.

There is much more to the design for the future of Europe than these features. At the beginning of December, for example, the Commission published two documents on the future. It adopted a communication on the future architecture of the Union, "For the European Union – Peace, Freedom, Solidarity". The second document is a rather strange work of 178 pages titled "Contribution to a preliminary draft Constitution of the European Union". It is said of it that it "is a working document prepared by a group of experts at the request of the President and Commissioners Barnier and Vitorino". It is described as a "working draft which does not in any way commit the Commission". It is an enormously radical document drawn up by six people. It fleshes out the draft constitution of the EU prepared earlier by the convention chaired by Giscard d'Estaing. That document is really no more than a bare bones, a series of chapter headings and sub-headings.

The Commission's working draft is something else. We do not have the time today to deal with the content of its working paper other than to note that there are aspects of it that will strike those who read it as extremely controversial, for example, in relation to the harmonisation of criminal and civil law, subject to that magic formulation "if necessary". Who will determine necessity? There is mention in the document of the possibility of "community taxes" with another magic proviso, "although these are mentioned only in principle". What in this context is the "tax package" that was the subject of the recent ECOFIN meeting held in Brussels? According to the outgoing Danish Presidency, this will be the subject of a final ECOFIN meeting on 21 January next. What is in the package? I note that it deals apparently with taxation of savings and a "code of conduct on business taxation". What is in the package and what is on the agenda for the January meeting?

While on the subject of ECOFIN, I might also mention the mooted changes in the growth and stability pact. Whatever the merits of the original pact, there is now a recognised need for change and change is coming. Again, however, the Mini ster for Finance, for his own reasons, seems intent on ignoring the welcome and sensible loosening up of the rules of the pact. There are extremely radical proposals in the Commission's draft on ratification and entry into force of the constitution which take account of the possibility that some member states may not manage to ratify the proposed treaty. They might vote "no" in a referendum. As I read it, it would be deemed that a "no" vote would amount to self expulsion from the Union.

I make no judgment at this point on these and other proposals and views on the future, such as, for example, those of the President of Portugal on EU common defence and security and relations with NATO when he spoke at the beginning of the month in Athens. Where is the communication of this to the public? Where are the media? Where is the Government communications programme? My point is no more than it was last October when I spoke on the Brussels Council outcome. The negotiations are proceeding apace. Ideas and proposals are being put forward and yet, as others in this House have also commented, neither the Oireachtas nor the Irish people has got to grips with what is happening. The French have a saying, Les chiens aboient, la caravane passé– the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. In whose interest is that? Who is driving the caravan? It is far from clear.

In the late 1960s the scientist Garrett Hardin penned an essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons", dealing with population growth. However, it was soon recognised to have much wider implications, particularly in relation to the environment, whether in terms of exploitation of a resource such as common grazing land or the ocean, or in terms of uncontrolled or common use of land or the ocean for the deposit of waste. Without ownership or rules that equate in their effect to ownership such activities must eventually lead to ruin – over-grazing, over-fishing and pollution:

Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Hardin contended that the natural response in our culture to such developments was to look for technical solutions, expect scientists to solve our problem. He defined a technical solution as "one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality". His point was that technical solutions do not work in respect of this class of problem. The commons only works under very particular conditions, those of low or extensive exploitation. Once intensive exploitation becomes the norm the result must be eventual disaster.

The Common Fisheries Policy, in effect, constituted the marine resources of the member states of the Community as a Community resource administered and managed by Community institutions on behalf of all citizens. At the margins, national authorities continue to have some role, for example through 12 mile limits and, in our own case, the so-called Irish Box. At the centre, the Community established a set of arrangements that retained the framework of the commons. It encouraged intensive development, institutionalised national rivalries, created a technical-scientific priesthood, and installed the Commission as some kind of referee overseeing a game of chaos.

The result is an annual bun fight, the yearly pre-Christmas scrap over the next year's dwindling available catch. The scientists are wheeled in. The Commissioner blusters and threatens. Ministers jump up and down and on the streets fishermen picket and protest. There are variations from one year to another, usually concerning one or more species. This year it is cod and hake and it is Irish coastal and fishing communities that are most particularly singled out to pay the price for Community failure.

The chaos of the formula and the bankruptcy of the policy is best illustrated by this year's supposed compromise – fleet and catch reductions, in general, and intensification of plundering in the Irish box with, again, Irish fishing communities taking the brunt of adjustment. In due course we can expect another crisis. Shortly, the scientific priests will again be wheeled out, this time to tell us of the disaster in prospect in the Irish Box. The answer at that point will presumably be another round of so-called cuts, factory fishing up to the shore line and the EU equivalent of the Newfoundland crisis. The Common Fisheries Policy is a failure. It has not worked. Irish fishing communities are being told by the Government that they must make sacrifices, that this is a bargaining exercise and that the Minister and the Government will do their utmost to minimise the pain. That is not what is happening, it is predation and the destruction of a natural resource. The emperor has no clothes.

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Gormley agus Harkin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Roimh an reifreann ar chonradh Nice chuir mo phairtí rún ós comhair na Dála ag tacú le leathnú na hEorpa agus ag fáiltiú roimh na tíortha nua a bhí ag iarraidh teacht isteach san Eoraip, ar choinníol go mbeadh seans ag pobaill na dtír sin a dtoil a chur in iúil i reifrinn agus go mbeadh na tíortha féin sásta na critéir a leagadh síos i Copenhagen a chomhlíonadh. Fáiltímid arís roimh na deich thír atá chun teacht isteach sa Chomhaontas, más mian leo, i Mí na Nollag 2004.

I wish to reiterate my party's objections to Turkey being given an accession date at this time. It is not because it is a Muslim nation, which some people appear to find unacceptable, but because it has not yet adequately addressed its domestic human rights issues. This has been confirmed by the European Commission's progress report. It is not just a matter of a few minor abuses or aberrations. Turkey has been a major human rights violator for many years. It has waged a brutal campaign of suppression and torture on its Kurdish population and against many of its prisoners over several decades. If Turkey wishes to join the European Union let it make the necessary reforms. It also needs to build up a track record of respect for human rights, one that indicates lasting and durable change, before it can be admitted.

Another reason it should not be admitted to the EU is it has used the Cypriot conflict as a political football and has held the peace process in that country hostage to demands for an early accession date. Such behaviour should not be rewarded. I welcome the Taoiseach's remark that our preference is for the accession of a united Cyprus.

I wish to highlight some worrying developments at Copenhagen that not only aggravate Sinn Féin's concerns at the direction of the future of Europe but also confirm some of the suspicions and fears raised by us and others during both campaigns on the Nice treaty. I refer to the EU-NATO pact that was finalised at Copenhagen which, for the first time, directly mentions military operation and the consequent expectation of early Rapid Reaction Force deployment in the new year. This is just one in a series of disturbing developments in the militarisation of the EU that needs to be fully debated in this House.

I am also concerned by the Franco-German proposals made at the European convention on the protocol for military harmonisation, a common military procurement policy and the subjection of security and defence matters to qualified majority voting and enhanced co-operation.

I am further concerned by the EU defence zone proposals which were tabled by the working group on defence earlier this month as they do not contain any provision for institutional control of defence expenditure. Another worrying development is the call for higher defence spending fixed at a proportion of GDP. These proposals are indicative of the direction the EU could take if we fail to say "no".

All of these critical debates are happening now, but not in this House. We need to have a proper debate on the future of Europe in regard to military matters and the policy of neutrality. We are due to go into recess, yet we have not had a Dáil debate on the impending war in Iraq and the Government's conduct in regard to these developments. That is outrageous and irresponsible. We are operating under the shadow of a dangerous ambiguity in this regard as both the Government and the EU have failed to unequivocally oppose war on Iraq.

The Sinn Féin Party is disappointed that the Taoiseach failed to make the threat to the fishing industry a crisis issue at Council level, especially considering the Government's past failure. It had one more opportunity which it failed to take. We must ensure that there is no further erosion of the present position in regard to Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry. We should get guaranteed conditions for them.

I welcome many of the outcomes of the Copenhagen Summit, in particular, that significant progress has been made on enlargement and that negotiations with Turkey will begin. It is important that it meets the Copenhagen criteria referred to by the previous speaker.

The Taoiseach said that this summit has proved that Europe can meet certain challenges. One challenge it failed to meet is that of the democratic deficit. It was significant that, once again, we witnessed pro-democracy demonstrators on the streets of Copenhagen. This has become a feature of so many summits. One of the stated aims of the Laeken declaration was to try to bring Europe closer to the people. That has not happened although it was the purpose of the convention.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the convention has succeeded in introducing more democracy to the European Union and whether it has brought Europe closer to the people. I believe it has not and what we are seeing in the convention is Europe accelerating at quite a rate, but not changing direction. We are seeing strong movement in a certain direction and, in effect, we are being propelled along a "Giscardian" path. We must ask ourselves how the business of the convention is being conducted. We know that Giscard d'Estaing is at the top. We then have the presidium and the various people in the presidium chair the working groups.

A fundamental question is how we move towards decision making within the convention. We do not take votes so it is then a question of consensus but how do we define "consensus" within the convention? I have heard various definitions of "consensus" within the convention. I have been told it is anything above a majority or anything that stops a walk-out but what I know from sitting on the working groups is that the dissent, or other voices, are not being recognised.

I sit on the working group on defence and I can tell the Minister that at the final meeting, to put it in its simplest terms, the doves outnumbered the hawks quite substantially but that is not reflected in the report. The English version of the report is ready today; the Minister may have had an opportunity to read it. I have concerns about the proposals in this report. It is clear, and Copenhagen showed again, the very close relationship between the EU and NATO. We now have access to NATO assets and the question I tried to put to the Minister today was about where we are going. The conflict between autonomous EU defence and NATO has not been fully resolved. There has always been this fudge because we have a situation where the British want us to remain in close proximity to the Americans. The Franco-German Axis wants us to move away from that and as I have said here before, that has significant cost implications.

From our point of view it is clear we have moved away from our traditional neutrality. It is clear when we sit on the working groups because the preferred phrase now is "non-alignment". I have had to work very hard to introduce the phrase "neutrality" in the discussions. It is probably seen now as a redundant phrase but it is clear that we have made what they consider to be significant progress and what we have seen is a clear advance in the working group of the military industrial complex within Europe. What is the Irish position on the question of enhanced co-operation in the area of defence? That is an important question which I would like the Minister to answer. It is clear we will have a referendum on this issue but most people do not even know there is a convention on the future of Europe.

I welcome the remarks by Deputy Rabbitte. It is encouraging to hear him talk about the tragedy of the comments but the one thing that is missing from the convention is a discussion on sustainability. It has not happened and I regret that.

As somebody who voted "Yes" in the Nice referendum and who canvassed for a "Yes" vote, I warmly welcome the decision taken by the European Council at Copenhagen to admit ten new members to the EU. This is a landmark in the evolution of the European Union and the consequences of that decision will profoundly affect the lives of all Europeans for the foreseeable future.

When I speak about the future of the EU, however, I must admit I was a "Yes" voter with some concerns as to the direction of future EU policy and while many have spoken in this House and elsewhere about needing to allay the fears of those who voted "No", they under estimate the genuine concerns of many "Yes" voters. One of my concerns, which I know is shared by many others, is that we are already well advanced on the next stage of European integration, that is, agreement on some form of constitution which will determine the shape of the EU.

In recent weeks there have been a number of meetings of the European movement throughout the country to discuss the future of Europe and consistently at these meetings there has been a strong aversion to the use of the word "constitution". This aversion will be shared by many Irish citizens.

In a world where change pervades almost every aspect of our lives and where the sands appear to constantly shift, many citizens see our Constitution as something to hold on to and while the courts may interpret the Constitution in a certain way, ordinary citizens see it as a constant. There is a sense that it gives us some real measure of control over our own destiny, that we are not subject to others, that we do not lose national power and that national sovereignty remains in the hands of Irish citizens yet the Convention on Europe is leading us in the direction of a European constitution. Where do we stand?

We are moving too fast. I understand it is one of the functions of politicians to lead, inspire, articulate a vision and open up possibilities for the future but equally we must listen and engage our citizens. We cannot set out at speed on a given road and expect our citizens to catch up, and I am concerned that this is happening to some extent. One of the unfortunate consequences of this is that we may jeopardise the very future we all wish to create by moving too fast. In trying to achieve an interconnectedness between Ireland and the EU, we may disconnect from the EU.

Our Government needs to play a much stronger role in determining outcomes from the Convention on Europe and to be seen to do so. We need to articulate a vision for the future of Europe and outline the role Ireland can play in helping to achieve that vision. The Convention on Europe has been in place for almost nine months, with six or seven months remaining, and as yet we await a clear statement on the future of the EU from our Government.

When Romano Prodi addressed the European Parliament in Brussels on 5 December he stated:

The debate aroused by the convention in recent months has widened our horizons. The national Parliaments and Governments have taken it seriously from the start and sent top-rate personalities to represent them. The goal of the Convention has grown in ambition. It is no longer just a question of ensuring the institutions work properly after enlargement. It must work out the overall shape of the Union for generations to come. And, above all, I am happy this is taking place in the light of day. The next few months will see the advent of a new united Europe, and we can be proud it will have come into being democratically and transparently.

That is a fairly long quote but it clearly indicates the role of the convention as perceived by our European neighbours, yet we have no clear proposals to that convention. The distinct impression from the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is that the convention does not matter all that much and that all decisions of consequence will be taken by the subsequent intergovernmental conference. While in theory this argument may stand up, the reality might not be so. It may be extremely difficult if not impossible to unravel agreed proposals from the convention, and we may find we have much less room to manoeuvre than we expected. We can no longer sit back and let events overtake us. Otherwise, Irish citizens will see a growing distance between themselves and those who are shaping our future because, first, we do not see a transparent, constructive and pro-active input into the decision making process and, second, we see this process as a runaway train not stopping at any station to pick up its passengers.

The Convention on Europe is failing to reach out to ordinary Irish citizens and for that a price will have to be paid. That price might be the undoing of the European project. The earlier Nice referendum outcome was a warning to all of us. It should not go unheeded.

As per the arrangements, we have 20 minutes for questions. That means this item will end at 7 p.m. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

In relation to the presentation made to the European Council by the chairman of the convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, did he indicate to the Council that he expected the work of the convention would in some way overtake or circumvent the work of an intergovernmental conference? Did the Council question him in this regard? Did Ireland, or other member states make clear to Mr. d'Estaing that while the work the convention is conducting is very valuable and important, the ultimate decision is made by an Intergovernmental Conference and ratified by each member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements?

It is clearly understood, and set out in the presidency conclusions, that the work of the convention is to be finalised and reported to the council of the Greek presidency in June 2003. At the informal council in Brussels in March it is expected that some discussion will take place as to what the timing of the Intergovernmental Conference will be in anticipation of the convention completing its work by June.

I understand the Taoiseach met Mr. Erbakan some time before the Copenhagen meeting. What was the reaction of the Turkish people to the timescale of December 2004 for the opening of accession negotiations? Given the increase in trade in recent years between Ireland and Turkey, are any State visits or trade delegations to Turkey envisaged?

The Turkish government indicated it was seeking a decision on the opening of negotiations before the accession of the ten new member states on 1 May 2004. That was not agreed at the council and there was some disappointment among the Turkish public and in Turkish political circles about that. The decision of the council is set out in the conclusions and confirms the need for Turkey to meet the Copenhagen criteria before negotiations can begin. The Turkish prime minister attended the short meeting of the 27 states and confirmed that while Turkey was dissatisfied with the dates it had been given, its commitment to engagement with the EU remains undeterred and will be intensified. He said he recognised the political realities involved in the requirement for membership negotiations to begin.

Were the unhelpful remarks on the Middle East made by Javier Solana's staff – when a member of that staff stated that he would understand a physical response by Israel – raised on the margins of the Intergovernmental Conference? In his speech, the Taoiseach suggested that Ireland is becoming one of the richest member states. Did the issue of Ireland being second from last in terms of social protection exercise the Taoiseach's mind? Was the choice between social protection and a deregulated labour market raised in Copenhagen?

I find that culture has been extraordinarily neglected in the convention. Article 128 (4) of the Maastricht treaty is the only reference to culture in the basic treaty documents. Given the issues that will arise with the Turkish application for membership and the diverse sources of European culture influenced from Greek, Abrahamic and other traditions, why is the issue of culture being so neglected? Has the demolition of our own culture Department assisted in this neglect?

Arising from decisions taken in Lisbon, the matters on the agenda are now very tightly arranged and it has led to an improvement in the workings of the European Council. The only issues to be discussed were enlargement, a paper from the presidency on how future presidencies might function on foot of the enlargement and some conclusions on maritime safety. It is not possible for heads of state to call for a discussion on other matters and I welcome that. There is now a greater strategic focus and this reflects well on the reputation of the council, the decisions it makes and the quality of the discussions that take place.

The comments on the Middle East the Deputy referred to were not raised in any meetings I attended. A good statement on the Middle East was drawn up. We insisted that the need for a Palestinian ceasefire to bring a stop to the expansion of Israeli settlements – which is the position of the Israeli government – is a non-starter. Expansion must stop in any event because it is illegal. The Irish contribution insisted that the settlements issue be highlighted as an illegal activity and should not be tied to the issue of a ceasefire.

A very good discussion took place between foreign ministers on neighbourhood policy. We tried to outline how the EU will be shaped in the future. The question of the Maghreb group, the Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus and even Russia joining the union is now coming to the top of the agenda. There is a need for people to know where we expect the borders of the EU to finally arrive at. Some of the arguments would suggest that it would end up on the far side of Singapore. A Commission paper on a neighbourhood policy is due in March. It is to be drafted by Mr. Chris Patten's department.

This takes up the question of the boundary of European culture. One could argue that it is not restricted to what are regarded as the physical geographical boundaries of Europe. As the EU expands, the question of sharing values without sharing membership of the institutions will arise in terms of how the Union will proceed. We need an efficient and effective Union. We know that an increasing number of member states brings great pressure to bear on the decision-making processes that are both representative and effective at the same time.

These issues will find articulation in neighbourhood policy and in the context of the espousal and propagation of values in the interests of extending the zone of peace, security and stability not only within Europe but further afield. This issue is arising and there was an interesting preliminary discussion on it. Further working groups have been set up under the convention in relation to a social Europe which, it is hoped, will start to address some of the issues the Deputy mentioned, the scope of which extends beyond mere economic issues.

What nuances did the Minister glean in regard to renationalisation, a much discussed subject in recent years, from the summit? Some countries tend to wish to retain more power in their national parliaments and to exert such power. To what extent was that visible during the course of the summit and how has that been measured in the course of the convention? To what extent does the Minister consider this will affect Ireland's position and that of countries of a similar size within the European Union, having regard to the fact that by retaining a greater share of power in a national parliament, the bigger the country, the more powerful the country and, consequently, the greater the amount of power that will reside with such a national parliament?

It is vital for the preservation of common policy that the idea of renationalisation does not resurface as a means of a co-funding mechanism for common policies on agriculture, fisheries or any other area because it is important that the financing mechanism for common policies remains with the European institutions. The final compromise provides for a top-up arrangement from national resources for accession countries in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2006, as a means of trying to bridge the gap between that which they would like to have and that which was available from the Danish Presidency as the final negotiating position.

When the Prime Minister of Denmark, in his position as President of the Council, visited us here to discuss the upcoming Council, the Taoiseach and I made it clear that it was very important in the conclusions that there should be a reference to the fact if this top-up arrangement was to be a part of the final package in order to get agreement, it would be generous in terms of getting an accession agreement for the ten applicant countries but would not be regarded in the future as setting a precedent for any renationalisation argument to be used again, particularly regarding the Common Agricultural Policy reform in the future. That explicit reference and those specific words were taken up by the Danish Presidency as a result of our discussions with the Danish Prime Minister. We were happy to see that reflected in the conclusions because it is an important point in strategic terms for the future.

The question of the role of national parliaments being increased is based on trying to give some flesh and meaning to the subsidiarity argument. I am more than happy to go before committees to explain precisely the contributions we have been making to the convention. They have been far more fulsome and involved than perhaps people have been given to believe from listening to the media. The reply I gave to a specific question seems to have permeated a perception about our position in relation to the convention. When asked a question as to whether the convention would want to make a proposition in relation to tax harmonisation, I said in direct reply, "Yes, I would not be surprised what they would propose in that respect." That should not be taken as our demeanour in relation to the process. It would be an inaccurate and unfair reflection on the Government position if that particular, perhaps rather flippant, remark in response to the ongoing question I have been asked regarding tax harmonisation should be regarded by anyone in the body politic as setting out our position. We have made significant contributions in relation to the question of the charter, the simplification agenda, subsidiarity and the future work of the Presidency.

Deputy Harkin suggested that we have not set out a position. This is an evolving debate in which we are involved. As the Deputy said, the Commission only produced its considered position on 5 December. It is important for a member state such as Ireland, which is very supportive of a strong Commission, to obtain, in the first instance, the Commission's position on these matters before we start to stake out a negotiating position.

Being engaged in the convention process, we will take an overview of the position, as we prepare for the Intergovernmental Conference. Parliamentary representatives present who are on working groups will know there is a number of working groups engaged in this. We have to make sure that we make our positions clear, make an input and try to be part of the consensus if we can, but as in the case of the Nice treaty there were certain areas in respect of which we could not be involved in a consensus and we successfully negotiated our position from that point.

Does the Minister agree with the assessment of his Italian counterpart who said that the agreement concluded between NATO and the EU was a great step forward and that it has moved the EU closer to NATO? Has the Minister had an opportunity to talk to his German and French counterparts about their involvement in the convention? They have chosen to become full members. Was the Minister encouraged by them to send out a positive signal about becoming a full member of the convention?

I will deal with the Deputy's second point first. I am satisfied with the current arrangements whereby the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, has been given the job of Government representative. I know what the French and Germans have done. They are in a minority on that in terms of all the member states. This is a matter for each Government to decide. With those representatives' busy portfolios, I am not sure if they are able to attend the working groups. Perhaps they might attend a plenary session now and again.

We should consider the substance of the work being done by our Government. I do not want to reflect or comment on the quality of work those representatives are doing for their Governments – it is a matter for them. I am satisfied with the work the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is doing. Other colleagues, parliamentary and otherwise, are also putting in a good effort and are making sure that we are in attendance, prepared, pro-active and working and networking behind the scenes with different states on different issues. The idea that this Parliament is not engaged is not a reflection of reality, as is recognised by Members who are on those groups.

With regard to the basic point on ESDP, it is an important decision for EU capability. The development of permanent arrangements between the EU and NATO has been envisaged since the early evolution of ESDP, as has been outlined in the conclusions of successive European Councils. A role for NATO in relation to ESDP arises from the need for the European Union, which is not a military organisation, to have access to certain capabilities and resources such as transportation, headquarters and planning facilities, which will be required for substantial crisis management missions. Discussions had effectively stalled on the issue of participation of non-EU European members of NATO in ESDP.

At the European Council held in Brussels in October and on the basis of conclusions drawn at the previous Nice European Council, EU heads of State and Government agreed on modalities in this regard. At Copenhagen further negotiations took place in the context of general discussions on enlargement, particularly with regard to Turkey. EU heads of State and Government concluded that agreement could be finalised and that necessary follow up, including on arrangements for secure exchange of relevant information between the two organisations, can now proceed.

I want to be clear that our participation in ESDP is not automatic. We have the triplelock arrangements, we have retained sovereignty in this area and we successfully negotiated in the Treaty of Nice the requirement for unanimity in relation to ESDP. The Deputy raised a fair question about the working group on defence. This development has only emerged in recent days and we have to examine and study it. Certain clarifications will be sought by us and we will have to make sure that, from our perspective, we will retain our position going forward. We set out our position on ESDP in the Seville Declaration and we are not going beyond that.

Top
Share