Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 May 2003

Vol. 566 No. 2

Athens European Council: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):

Together with the Taoiseach, I attended the informal meeting of the European Council in Athens held on 16 April. We were accompanied by the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche. I would like to pay tribute to the Greek Presidency for its excellent organisation of the informal European Council, the ceremony for the signature of the accession treaty and the European conference that followed.

The declarations adopted by the European Council on 16 April and by the European conference held on 17 April have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, as has the Presidency statement on Iraq. The Greek Presidency set the date of 16 April for the signature of the treaty of accession for the ten accession countries. The ceremony, which took place under the Acropolis, marked a true milestone in European history.

Earlier in the day, the informal meeting of the European Council adopted the Athens declaration, restating the principles on which the European Union was founded. These principles are freedom, democracy and the rule of law, respect for human dignity, liberty and human rights and a Union devoted to the practice of tolerance, justice and solidarity. The declaration was a useful reminder of what the European Union stands for.

The signing of the accession treaty marked the end of a long and bleak chapter in European history. It acknowledged that countries that had been artificially cut off from mainstream Europe had earned the right to membership of the Union based on the principles on which the Union was founded. It reaffirmed, once again, the value and success of the European Union.

Once they have completed their respective ratification procedures, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia are set to become members of the European Union from 1 May next year. These countries attended the informal European Council on 16 April and, henceforth, until the date of their accession, they will attend all EU meetings as observers.

The outcomes of the referenda held to date have been positive. Already three countries, Hungary, Malta and Slovenia, have voted for membership. This represents a strong vote in favour of the European Union by their people. I welcome the fact that our new partners will take their rightful place in the European Union. I am particularly pleased that it will fall to Ireland's Presidency to mark their entry as full members next year. This will be an honour and a privilege. Meanwhile, accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania continue and I look forward to progressing them during our Presidency. The European Council meeting in December 2004 will consider whether negotiations can open with Turkey.

The informal European Council meeting focused on the work of the European Convention. The European Union must be seen by our citizens to work; that is why the work of the convention and the Intergovernmental Conference that will follow, is so important. It is why the Government is taking the work of the convention so seriously.

Prior to the European Council meeting, a group of 17 current and future member states met. The meeting was hosted by Prime Minister Verhofstadt of Belgium in the absence of the current President of the Benelux countries, Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg. Ireland was represented by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche. The meeting was a follow-on from one which the Taoiseach and I attended in Luxembourg on 1 April.

The 17 countries agreed a number of fundamental principles which we want to see reflected in the outcome of the convention. These principles draw largely on the Benelux memorandum of last December and on a paper drawn up over recent months by many like-minded states at the convention, in the drafting of which Ireland played a major role.

The group of 17 set out its strong support for a European Union that will work in the future at least as effectively and democratically as in the past. The principles that we reconfirmed are the need to ensure the equality of member states and to retain the balance between the institutions, without creating new institutions.

At the European Council meeting we set out our views as to how these principles could be preserved and strengthened. While there are some differences among us on points of detail, we shared a wish to see the following: a strengthening of the Community method and of the Commission; a more open and transparent process of election for the Commission President; the retention of the formula agreed at Nice, especially the requirement for equality as between member states, for the membership of the commission; and a single external relations representative, with Council and Commission membership.

The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox, addressed the members of the European Council at the outset of the meeting. His presentation focused on the work of the convention from the point of view of the European Parliament. An exchange with the President of the European Convention, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, followed. President Giscard outlined his plans for the European Convention and the drafting of the constitutional treaty. He confirmed that he would present the final report of the convention to the European Council in Thessaloniki, Greece, on 20 June.

The session with President Giscard focused on key institutional issues. Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg spoke on behalf of all who attended the breakfast meeting earlier. He set out the principles which we want to see reflected in the outcome of the convention.

Along with many others, the Taoiseach underlined Ireland's support for these principles. He said, as did others, that he hoped as much consensus as possible would be reached but where this was not possible, the convention should set out options. Those of us who wish to see a strengthening of the Community method are aware that there are other points of view. These points of view were also put at our meeting in Athens.

It is important that due weight and attention are given to all perspectives by President Giscard and by the convention's presidium, in particular to the strong message conveyed by the group of 17. We will continue our efforts along with others, therefore, to ensure that the fundamental principles on which the Union was founded and on which the Union's success has been built, are reflected in the text that will be presented to us next month.

As the convention enters the final and decisive phase, intensive work is continuing across the range of issues it is addressing. Next week's plenary session will debate the vital issues of the Union's institutional arrangements, foreign policy and defence. The Government's representative at the convention has submitted extensive proposals in response to texts published by the presidium in these areas. We will continue to work extremely closely with like-minded countries – and, of course, our allies vary from issue to issue – to ensure that the outcome of the convention is a balanced and appropriate one.

On 17 April a meeting of the enlarged European Conference, which took the new neighbours initiative as its theme, was held in Athens. Ireland was represented by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. That meeting involved all the countries associated with the new neighbours initiative, both from eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. Member states, the candidate and accession countries and Russia also attended. In all, some 40 countries were represented at the conference.

The European Conference recognised that the countries and peoples of Europe have come a long way towards forging a Community of values based on democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. It underlined the importance of preventing and combating common security threats, including organised and transnational crime, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and communicable diseases. This is an initiative that Ireland welcomes.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, addressed the European Conference on the subject of Iraq. The Presidency had earlier issued a statement which set out the European Union's views on the responsibilities of the coalition, the opportunities presented to the people of Iraq and the contribution which the international community can make to the process of shaping the future of Iraq. The European Union reaffirmed its commitment to the need for the United Nations to play a central role in that process, and its own commitment to play a significant role in the political and economic reconstruction of that country.

The Taoiseach and I had a bilateral meeting with Kofi Annan on 16 April. During the meeting the Taoiseach underlined the principles on which our policy is based. We agreed that the first concern must be the well-being of the Iraqi people. They have suffered greatly and deserve a better future. The Taoiseach assured the Secretary General of Ireland's readiness to assist.

On 16 April, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, provided the Dáil with a comprehensive statement of our efforts to assist the humanitarian situation in Iraq. There is no need, therefore, to go into detail about that now. I will say only that as regards the longer term reconstruction and administration of Iraq, the precise nature and timing of UN involvement is a matter which must be considered by the Security Council and other competent UN organs. The Government's concern is that the needs and interests of the Iraqi people must be paramount.

As the European Union undertakes its largest expansion ever and as it prepares for the future, we must ensure that the Union will work well. The enlarged Union of the future must work at least as effectively and democratically as it has in the past. This will require give and take by everyone. The European Union has a track record of success. We will have to enhance our own long- term national interests, as well as the interests of the Union, by crafting compromises and structures that will ensure that the European Union continues to succeed. In this context the outcome of the European Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference will be of the greatest importance for Europe and for Ireland. I can assure Members of the House that the Government will grasp the opportunity of enlargement to deepen our national engagement with the European Union.

On the margins of the informal European Council, the Taoiseach and I met Prime Minister Blair and Foreign Secretary Straw. We discussed developments in the peace process at that time.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The Italian Presidency of the European Union will commence in 24 days' time. We have been given to understand that the report of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the Convention on the Future of Europe, to be produced at Thessaloniki, will address many issues, but not all of them. Some of the policy issues may not be ready for the Thessaloniki meeting. There is a proposal for a gap in proceedings between the end of the convention and the commencement of the intergovernmental conference. It has been suggested that the Intergovernmental Conference will deal with the next stage of European integration and the updating of the treaties, perhaps by means of a constitutional treaty unlike any we have seen heretofore, which could be concluded during the Italian Presidency. It seems that there will be a very tight timeframe, but I do not underestimate the Italians as they have a great capacity to deliver on the day. I advise the Minister, however, that we should make haste slowly if we want to have a proper and adequate debate in this area.

It is time for us to be upfront with the public in relation to the issues. I refer not only to those issues that have been put forward by other member states, but also to the issues that we face as a Government and a Parliament. There are differing views in this Parliament about the future role of Ireland in Europe.

Mr. F. McGrath:

That is for sure.

Mr. Gormley:

I did not say that.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

I know. I favour challenging the hypocrites in this House who think they have a God-given right to be bigots. They feel they have the right to decide what is right for Ireland and for themselves. They place their own electoral advantage and publicity-seeking before the interests of Europe or Ireland. Some 60 million Europeans died in two world wars in the first half of the last century and the concept behind the EU is to ensure that never happens again. The EU is about peace and stability, which are the prerequisites to prosperity. Certain people in this House, who are not prepared to open their minds to other arguments, make exaggerated and bigoted claims. They will not put forward their own arguments but prefer to depend on—

Mr. Quinn:

Name them.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

I am working up to it.

Mr. F. McGrath:

The Deputy is using very dangerous language.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

They prefer to use name-calling, sloganeering and phrases like "politicians' children will not be on the front line." This seems to suggest that there will be a front line straight away and that the children of politicians will not be there. Such bigoted, closed-minded nonsense, which has passed here for too long, is comparable to that heard in Northern Ireland which we in the Republic have condemned for the past 75 years. It is time for Members of this House to open up their minds to new issues and ideas and to consider the viewpoints of others. If an argument does not stand up to scrutiny, we should hear the argument against it. I would like to raise a particular point in that context. I believe that the time for a comprehensive debate on Irish neutrality and defence issues has long since passed.

Mr. Gormley:

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

A common EU defence is on the agenda for the first time at the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Mr. Gormley:

That is absolutely right.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

It is not only unrealistic but unhealthy and unwise for Irish politicians to have eulogised neutrality and elevated it to a tenet which cannot be questioned or debated. I am waiting for an echo of "absolutely right", but I cannot hear it on this occasion.

Mr. Gormley:

Sorry, I was not listening.

Mr. Quinn:

Does Deputy Mitchell want to take us to the front line?

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The Government has presided over a form of political lockjaw, which it calls a "triple lock", on defence and security issues. This alleged policy is so pure that it means that Ireland will not participate in peacekeeping exercises that have the support of the United Nations if they are not sanctioned by a UN resolution. We are disabled and not facilitated by this triple lock of Government approval, Dáil sanction and UN sanction. We were unable to participate in an EU peacekeeping force that was sent recently to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is probably a future EU member, despite the fact that the force replaces NATO. The force is supported by the European Union and the United Nations, although the UN's support is not based on a formal resolution. It is nonsense. As a sovereign state, we should decide these matters for ourselves, based on the merits of each individual case. We should not have bound our hands in this way. It is time to end this sham and the Defence Acts should be amended accordingly.

It is time to end Ireland's pretend neutrality and to do so in the context of a European entity. Not only should Ireland be part of a European security architecture, but it should be one of its architects, helping to design a security and defence system that suits our view of what Europe and Ireland need. We cannot do this without an open and healthy debate. If we do not participate in designing a common European defence, the rules will be made by others. Those joining later will take on responsibilities based on the rules made by others. Similarly, those who participate in economic and monetary union are setting the rules and those who join later will do so under the rules made by others. The current convention document, to which the Minister referred, proposes a similar process. The document says that there will be a common defence.

Mr. Gormley:

Yes.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

For the first time ever, it has been made clear that there will be a common defence.

Mr. Gormley:

That is right.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Furthermore, the document says that those who wish to participate in the common defence should sign a declaration of their intent to do so. Anybody who wants to join later will have to sign the declaration. These issues are set out in the document which was circulated to the convention by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. They are being discussed by member states and by EU institutions, including the European Council, but they are taboo here. I saw no reference to the issues in the Minister's speech. Why are they taboo? Why are we not discussing them? Parliament is supposed to be about putting forward different points of view.

Mr. Quinn:

The Deputy will have us all in uniform yet.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The former leader of the Labour Party might be very interested to know that the Secretary General of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions supports my view. I will not embarrass any other senior trade union officials by naming them. Deputy Quinn should not presume that everybody holds the outmoded view of those in this House who have stuck to outmoded mantras without explaining themselves on the floor of the House.

I have said for a very long time that if the current convention proposals go ahead, there will be a European common defence for those who are willing to join it. Anyone who wishes to join later will have to take it or leave it – they will have to sign the declaration and join on that basis or stay out. That does not suit us and we should be seeking to make the rules in a way that suits us. I am keen to put forward my view on this matter as I have held it for some time. Before the Nice Treaty, the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties contained references to the possibility of the eventual creation of a common defence, if it could be agreed and ratified by all the member states. The treaties genuflected in the direction of the merger of the Western European Union and the EU and, to that end, Javier Solana was secretary general of both the Council of Ministers and the Western European Union, as well as being the EU's high representative for common foreign and security policy.

There was a change of mind in the context of the Nice Treaty and the Western European Union was put on the back burner for some reason. This idea is now coming forward again but it is proposed that this will be undertaken through the European Union treaties. I have no difficulty with that. However, if the Article 5 commitment of the Western European Union were to be a full provision of a future EU treaty, any country signing up for the declaration on common defence would automatically have to come to the defence of another member state if that state were attacked. Perhaps I am foolish, but I believe that if a member state was attacked at present, we would probably voluntarily come to its aid, and I would have no difficulty with that. However, I see a difficulty in any automatic requirement that we would come to the aid of another member state if it is attacked.

If this goes ahead, we will be either within or outside a common defence. It might be all right to say that we would stay outside a common defence but who will defend us if Ireland is attacked? If there was retaliation against Shannon tomorrow morning, we would not be able to defend ourselves because we are not equipped to defend our neutrality.

Mr. Quinn:

Where does the Deputy think the attacks will come from?

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Unlike Austria and Sweden, we are not equipped to defend our neutrality.

Mr. Quinn:

Who would we use such equipment against?

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Those in this House who believe we will never be attacked are just the same as the Americans regarding internal flights prior to 11 September 2001. Who would ever hijack an internal flight in the United States?

Mr. Quinn:

Would we bomb Afghanistan?

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The Americans learned that their cosiness cost them dear.

Mr. Quinn:

Who are we neutral against?

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The self-seeking appeasers in this House, who tell the people what they want to hear, year after year, will wake up some morning to find that we have a crisis on our hands which we have not equipped the Defence Forces to deal with or joined an alliance to protect against. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and the appeasers will very quickly change their tune.

There is nothing wrong with security and defence. The first duty of a Government and a Parliament is to provide for the security and defence of its citizens. We have a duty as a member of the European Union to participate in and provide for the security and defence of other European Union citizens also. My concern is that we do that on terms acceptable to us. We can only do that if we stop burying our heads in the sand, stop the Paisleyite mantras about security, defence and neutrality, and have a proper debate.

There is a way to do this. If there is a merger between the Western European Union treaty and the European Union treaty, or a new treaty which would provide for the contents of both, it is the Article 5 commitment which would create the biggest problem. If we could work to have that as the protocol to a future treaty, we would then have the maximum cover. We would be part of an alliance which would give us defence if we needed it and we could participate, on a case by case basis and by our own decision, in the defence of other member states, if we signed up for everything except the contents of the protocol.

That will not come about unless we seek to bring it about. We are saying no, that we are not going to get involved in this debate and that there will be some continuation of the previous policy, which, as far as I know, is not based on any principle other than that of becoming full charter members of NATO the day after partition ends, as described by Sean McBride when he was Minister for External Affairs in 1949. No other principle has been spelled out although other people, such as Mr. Patrick Keatinge, have analysed how policy has developed since then.

The time has come for us to say in what circumstances we would participate in a common defence of the European Union. We are now making the rules. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, is in Europe as is Deputy John Bruton, with Deputies Gormley and Carey who are there as alternates. They are doing a good job and trying to participate as best they can. The Committee on European Affairs regularly meets them to review developments and make suggestions. However, this Parliament needs to start hearing the case for a common defence. It is unhealthy and wrong not to do so.

I may well be a million miles wrong in my views, and if I am, I would like to hear the arguments against them. However, I am determined to stand up in the House and put those views forward. It is the role of parliamentarians to put the case for and against policy. If my policy is wrong on this, let me be told where it is wrong without being personally abused and told that my children or the Minister's children will not be in the front line, or without the Minister being told that he will have blood on his hands.

We are taking about the safety and security of our citizens and the citizens of Europe, and how we participate in ensuring that security. I am happy to have the opportunity to raise this issue because it is on the agenda – this is the first time it has been on the agenda in such a firm way. The convention states that there will be a common defence. That may or may not remain true at the intergovernmental conference but if it is to remain true, we should seek to bring about a common defence based on rules that suit us. That should be in the context not just of our view of what Ireland needs but Ireland's view of what Europe needs.

Mr. Quinn:

I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and recognise the work he and his colleagues are doing at this extensive period in European history. I acknowledge the burden that is soon to fall on the shoulders of the entire Irish Administration with respect to the EU Presidency. Having regard to the burden that will now encompass 25 countries – in effect 27 or 28 if Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are included – it may be necessary for additional resources to be made available. On behalf of the Labour Party, I would support additional revenue and personnel being made available. I have direct experience of two presidencies and know how enormous the burden is.

I welcome the work undertaken by the group of 17 and acknowledge, however belatedly – let me be generous about this – that the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, has made up for lost time. There was apparent indifference at the beginning of the convention but Ireland is now on board and in line with regard to the protection of the Community method.

The Labour Party recognises and endorses the validity of what is known as the Community method. By that, I mean the institutional relationship between the role of the Commission to have the exclusive right to initiate legislative proposals and the consequential responsibility of the Council of Ministers, representing the nation states, and the European Parliament, representing the citizens of Europe, to respond legislatively to those proposals. This is the unique genius of the European Union and is why we have had, among other things, 50 years of peace on the Continent and the outer islands of the Union. It is because of the unique form of non-intragovernmentalism. I urge the Minister to maintain the current stand of the Irish Government and that of the other 16 Governments in that regard.

If there is one glorious, elegant and architecturally famous monument to the failure of intragovernmentalism on the Continent of Europe, it is the Arc de Triomphe. No other piece of archi tecture inscribes in its stone so many failed battles with horrendous casualties on all sides. When the bigger countries, which have lost their memories of real war, start to talk about intragovernmentalism, they should be reminded of that arch of defeat, not triumph. I endorse the Government's current efforts in this regard.

I recognise that the Union is now considering ten new member states and possibly two more. Subject to correction, I think that Ireland only has embassies in five or six of the ten. We have one now in Cyprus but we do not have any in Latvia, Lithuania or Malta. The Minister, in his response, may refer to the Slovak Republic of Slovenia but it is essential that we have full residential embassies in those countries sooner rather than later. Will the Minister, when replying, indicate what the timetable will be to ensure that in the coming years we will have embassies in all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania?

I turn now to the work of the convention. Deputy Mitchell may have been incorrect in his countdown of 24 days. We have the month of June in addition to what is left of May before the Italian Presidency. Whatever about that country's elegance in design and efficiency in automobile engineering, its efficiency in terms of political management is not something I admire.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The Deputy is right, it is 54 days.

Mr. Quinn:

It is a short period of time. The convention should proceed, and I endorse what the Minister said. It should give us as close as 80% of a draft constitutional treaty. I am using the phrase "constitutional treaty" rather than "constitution" because it distinguishes between Bunreacht na hÉireann and the constitutional settlement which will be an amalgamation of the existing treaties. From the point of view of the referendum that will be before us in two years' time, it is important to make that distinction before extreme Nationalists or conservatives on this island say that the Constitution of the Republic has been dismantled by virtue of the proposal for a constitutional treaty. That is a discussion we might have on another day.

In so far as the Irish Government has a role to play in the convention, the Minister should suggest that in those areas where there is not agreement within the convention, the convention should give two or three options to the incoming Intergovernmental Conference so that when it convenes after the period of reflection, some time in the middle of October under the Italian Presidency and, presumably, under the Irish Presidency – we will have a treaty of Dublin – the detailed discussion will have been hammered out in the convention and the net political points presented to the Intergovernmental Conference for political resolution.

In that context, no more than five or six will hit the Minister's table at that time, some more criti cal than others, but one of the most critical is one in which the Irish Government played a creative role, on which I salute the Minister and his colleagues, and that is the proposal for the election of President of the Commission. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, we want the present institutions to remain. We do not like the idea of a president of the Council. It smacks of the intragovernmentalism I condemned earlier. The efficient management of the work of the Council is a separate issue but we are talking about one President and one Commission. How does that presidency, within the triangle of relationships involving the Council, the Parliament and the Commission, become consolidated so that the young people in the Public Gallery, some of whom will probably be voting for the first time in the European elections next year, can have a sense of ownership or participation in the selection of that president.

Earlier this week, on behalf of the convention on Europe, I spoke in Wicklow and described the grubby, smoke-filled rooms in which the deal over the President of the Commission, Mr. Santer, was turned around. The president that everybody wanted was Ruud Lubbers, the Christian Democratic retiring Prime Minister of the Netherlands. He was blocked by Helmut Kohl because the Netherlands, particularly Mr. Lubbers, had some reservations about the precipitous unification of Germany. Anybody living in the Netherlands would have reason for concern about an 80 million population German Federal Republic on their borders. He was blocked, although he was the best choice. John Major decided that he did not like the federalist, integrationist caricature of Jean-Luc Dehaene and they ended up with the man who did not want to be President of the Commission, Mr. Santer. We know what happened to that Commission because Mr. Santer was not the best man for that job.

The Labour Party supports the election of the President, ultimately by direct universal suffrage, but the proposal from Deputy John Bruton is premature. We do not have yet a sense of a European policy that will enable that to happen but we should not, in the constitutional settlement of the convention and the treaty, rule out its possible evolution towards universal suffrage. In the meantime, therefore, the idea of the electoral college put forward by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, now has broad support from most of the 17 that the college would elect the president. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in his reply.

I further propose that the nominations for presidential candidate take the following form. They would have to be nominated by a recognised European political party and, in addition, by at least one third of member state Parliaments and the European Parliament. For example, this Parliament could nominate more than one candidate for president. There would be no limitation, as such, on the number of candidates we would nominate but there would be a threshold of eligi bility to get the nomination so that we would not have one-off, unrepresentative persons putting themselves forward.

In support of what the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, said, the election should take place on the one day across the three time zones that constitute the European Union and the Dáil, meeting in public session, presented with three or four candidates on the electoral board above us, would, like our STV by-election system, vote for the candidate presented. Each national Parliament, irrespective of size, whether it is Estonia or the Federal Republic of Germany, would make the same choice on the same day within the same three or four hours, and the European Parliament would do the same.

There will be 26 units when the next presidential contest takes place – the 25 member state Parliaments and the European Parliament. In the unlikely event of a direct tie, say, 13-13 – the Parliament of Malta would have the same value as the House of Commons in Britain – the deciding vote should be determined by the plurality of the European Parliament. If people make that decision, President Prodi, President Santer, President Jenkins or President Jacques Delors will take on a much greater relevance to the people in the Public Gallery, in the street or those working in this Parliament in that they will be able to say they voted for or against that person. That is what we should do as a first step towards closing the gap in the democratic deficit.

I understand and respect the passion and sincerity with which Deputy Mitchell outlines his concern, perhaps his obsession, with mutual defence. Most of the citizens of this country, whether they are from Limerick or Dublin, want mutual defence in Moyross or wherever. They want security on their streets and in their homes. The world has moved on. I cannot conceive of any nation attacking the European Union and I certainly cannot conceive the Government providing the necessary expenditure required to have the sort of army that would enable us to in turn bomb Afghanistan if we were attacked in the way the United States was attacked on 11 September 2001. If Deputy Mitchell is saying we should recognise that Europe has a responsibility to enable itself to provide peace and security out of territory or out of area, to use the NATO phrase, I would say "Yes" to that. This State has been doing that through the United Nations. The fact that the United States has systematically undermined the United Nations by its excessive use of the veto within the Security Council on the one hand and its consistent refusal over time to pay its fair share of financial resources to that institution on the other does not mean that the United Nations has failed as an institution. It simply means that one of the main members of that organisation has consistently undermined it.

In retrospect, the tragedy is that when the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War came to an end, not just was the Warsaw Pact dissolved but NATO was dissolved also.

The world would be a better place if there was no NATO and there was a northern hemisphere defence union in its stead comprising a north American, EU and eastern Asian-CIS pillars, which would not carry the baggage of American imperialism, aggression and exploitation that can be seen in Iraq. Deputy Gay Mitchell is smiling.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

I am smiling at someone in the Gallery.

Mr. Quinn:

I refer the Deputy and others, lest they are under any illusion about America's bona fides, to the company that Vice-President Cheney formerly presided over as chief executive, and from which he made his personal fortune. That company has been given the contract by the US not only to quench the fires in the oil fields in Iraq but to take responsibility for the production and distribution of Iraqi oil. That is imperialism in my lexicon.

The notion that the sovereign republic of the US could give out a contract to exploit the Corrib gas field, take the proceeds, deduct its operating expenses and possibly throw something into the kitty of the Irish people, is as repugnant to me as any form of exploitation or invasion. I will not get into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of that issue and a debate about common defence and security is for another day.

However, Europe must recognise it is confronted by the sole megapower in the world, which feels, according to today's newspaper reports, that it has the right to write the rules as it goes along. I welcome anything that will act as a counterbalance to the US and such a counterbalance should be the EU operating properly and democratically. The real task in places such as Palestine and Iraq is not how the peace is secured but how the prosperity is consolidated. The US and British invasion of Iraq is evidence of a great military capacity to pull down an infrastructure and a great inability to put something in its place.

I ask the Minister to address the questions I put to him and to indicate when the Intergovernmental Conference will conclude.

Mr. Gormley:

My constituency colleague, Deputy Quinn, asked Deputy Gay Mitchell during his contribution to whom he was referring when he talked about Paisleyite bigots. He used the term in reference to me in a interview on Newstalk 106 recently and that is regrettable. The Minister has direct experience of Dr. Paisley and I leave it to others to judge whether I am in the same mould.

Article 2 of the new European constitution refers to European values, which are democracy and tolerance. I hope there will be more tolerance of other Members' points of view in this Chamber.

Mr. F. McGrath:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gormley:

I also hope there will be more democracy within the EU. How democratic is the convention? I compliment my colleagues on the convention who worked hard. We also worked well as a team. However, the majority of the convention's members spoke against the proposal for a president of the Council yet it has been included as an article in the constitution. No one spoke in favour of a congress yet it appears as a proposal.

Kimmo Kiljunen, a Finnish socialist, when referring to democracy in the Union said we have borrowed from other constitutions and concepts and the new Europe comprises the presidency of the US, the congress of the People's Republic of China and the politburo of the Soviet Union. While that is humorous, there is a certain truth to it because there will be further centralisation and less democracy as the Union moves away from its people.

The Laaken Summit was about bringing people closer to the Union but that is not happening in the convention. I applaud the work of the so-called "17 dwarves" but I wonder how much headway they will make because they are functioning as a big boys' club and an old boys' network. The presidium was formed and Giscard d'Estaing told the convention he was listening. I stated in my contribution, "You say you are listening, but have you heard us?" That is not the case.

There is an issue regarding the president of the Council. Deputy John Bruton has put forward a sensible solution but my amendment supports the Government position of an electoral college. It makes perfect sense, as Deputy Quinn said, but let us see how far we get.

There is also an issue relating to the Commission. The attitude of Giscard d'Estaing and a number of my German colleagues is that they do not want a Commission in which 80% of the commissioners represent 20% of the population. They do not understand where we are coming from on this issue and that is why there is an article in the constitution which reduces the Commission to 14. I predicted this would happen during the Nice treaty debate. I could see this coming because I knew where the Commission was headed. The Government's position is that it will give in on many issues but it will try to maintain the Commission's current composition.

Ireland will also give in on defence. I agree with Deputy Gay Mitchell that we are going down the road of a common defence. It has been inserted in the constitution in many different guises. I tabled amendments and I take it the Government has also done so. Article 30.2 states, "This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides." However, Article 30.7 states, "Until such time as the European Council has acted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer co-operation shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards as mutual defence." I asked the Minister at the Forum on Europe about his attitude to this and he indicated it was acceptable.

Article X is the solidarity clause. I was a member of the defence working group and I was under the impression, as were many others, that this clause was supposed to be about humanitarian aid in times of crisis. However, the article is intended, "to prevent a terrorist threat." That is what the Americans were trying to do in Iraq through their pre-emptive strike. Is the Minister concerned that Ireland will be a party to the clause?

The same issue is raised in the article relating to a European arms agency, as another mutual defence clause is enshrined in it. I assume Ireland will join the agency but the article states, "A participating Member State, which is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, shall inform the other participating States of the situation and may request aid and assistance from them." We are being dragged down the road towards mutual defence in a number of ways.

The people do not want this. There is still a devotion to neutrality and, while it may be misplaced, as Deputy Gay Mitchell said, if we join the European arms agency, there is no question that our defence spending will increase substantially. Currently, Ireland has the lowest defence spending within the EU at 0.75% of GEP. That will have to be increased to bring it up to the average and to increase what is known as European capability. From my experience on the defence working group this essentially concerns the boosting of the arms trade within Europe. Do we want to be part of that? I say "No".

I hope we can continue our work and wish the Minister and my colleagues well. I hope that in the next few weeks we can concentrate our minds and make the necessary amendments. I hope we are listened to and that we see democracy work within the European Union. I hope too that we can involve more people in the process. The best way to do that is to have a European referendum. We should have referendums and plebiscites throughout the Union to see what European citizens think of this new constitution.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

I wish to share time with Deputy Finian McGrath.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

I acknowledge the work going on in the background in preparation for the constitutional treaty. While I do not necessarily agree with much of its contents there is some good in it. We need to come up with a way to provide that the matters on which there is agreement are not thrown out if it happens that the treaty is not accepted, as would have happened with the Nice treaty if it was rejected in one country. We must ensure that all the good aspects, which have been debated and thrashed out in the convention up to now and which will be debated and thrashed out at the Intergovernmental Conference over the next couple of months, are not lost.

I also acknowledge the work done by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche. He has been involved in trying to create an alliance or meeting of minds of small countries in the European Union, and of small countries which are joining it now that the accession treaty is signed, which have a similar history and background to ours. That is good.

While it is a restatement of much that is already stated, it is good that the Athens declaration was made. It can be referred to and we can, if we want, call the European project to account for not delivering on some of the sentiments within it. These are to be valued but they are not taken seriously by some of our European leaders.

We have an instance already of the Italian Prime Minister saying that he would welcome states with Christian roots to the European Union. That amounts to religious discrimination. Why just Christian values? We know that one of the countries he is talking about is Turkey. We have had many problems with the Turkish regime over the years but the country should not be excluded on the basis of the religious make-up of its people.

The declaration also speaks about the Union continuing to enhance its civilian and military capacities to ensure stability beyond its borders. That is totally contradictory to being the Union of a genuine area of freedom. We, in Ireland, need to set a standard or counterbalance towards a demilitarisation of Europe or the world. We should be looking at the non-proliferation or the non-existence of nuclear weapons. The Athens declaration states that we are determined to work at all levels to tackle global terrorism and stem the weapons of mass destruction. It is hypocritical for countries to declare this when many of our European partners are the makers of these weapons of mass destruction and have more in their possession than Iraq could ever have dreamt of possessing. This needs to be one of the prime focuses as we enlarge. We must get rid of these weapons of mass destruction so that they do not fall into the hands of anybody or—

Mr. Quinn:

Does that include semtex?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

That includes semtex. Demilitarisation needs to happen across the board, including in the countries producing the weapons. There is no comparison between semtex and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will not prevent terrorist attacks in America, Shannon or wherever. The way to prevent attack is to share the wealth we hold in Europe.

Mr. F. McGrath:

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the matter of the European Council meeting in Athens. When one reads and listens to the declaration which refers to ending centuries of conflict, respect for diver sity, mutual understanding, respect for human dignity, liberty, human rights and a Union devoted to the practice of tolerance, justice and solidarity, one gets the impression that the EU is doing a great job and its citizens are all happy with the situation. In reality, for many people, the opposite is the case. When one looks at the recent record of, for example, Britain and Spain on the Iraq issue, and even our own record of privately supporting the war, which meant the death of innocent civilians and 18 year old conscripts with white flags, their statement seems shallow indeed.

I praise France and Germany for their position on the war. I encourage Irish people to ignore the recommendations of President Bush in regard to boycotting French products and urge them to buy French wine.

Before they got down to business at the Council the members breached their own guidelines and vision. This is unacceptable. European Union citizens deserve better.

I welcome the support of our European colleagues for our peace process. I was annoyed yesterday by the spin and comments of the Minister in regard to this process. I have always supported the peace process. Long before there were ceasefires and before it was trendy or fashionable I was directly involved in conflict resolution strategies. I will not accept any lectures from Ministers about my support and defence of the Northern minority.

I am not neutral. I am not an honest broker. I am on the side of the Northern minority. If Cabinet Ministers want to be honest brokers, let them join the UN or the Red Cross. Ministers are elected to represent the interests of the people. The Minister should remind his colleague in Cabinet, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, of that situation.

With regard to the Athens Summit, I welcome the discussion on drugs and immigration. I am concerned about the fortress Europe attitude within the EU which is creeping into our country. We must also be vigilant in regard to racism. We have seen the rise of the BNP in the local council elections in England. This is a major cause of concern. Fortunately, Ireland does not have that type of party or candidate but it is something against which we must be vigilant.

Mr. Quinn:

We have some candidates.

Mr. F. McGrath:

We might have one or two candidates but they have no democratic mandate as far as I know.

With regard to the problem of drugs, which was discussed in Athens, I encourage the Minister to work closely and directly with EU colleagues. Ireland, particularly Dublin, is flooded with heroin and cocaine. We have 14,000 addicts and urgent action must be taken.

An Ceann Comhairle:

We will now have questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

An editorial in today's Financial Times states that if the dollar continues to decline, something that should be expected given the unsustainable US current account deficit of 5% of gross domestic product, the probability of exported disinflation from the US to Europe looms large. Deflation in Germany is becoming more likely every month. Were those issues considered by the European Council in Athens? If so, what strategic consideration was given to them?

Mr. Cowen:

Those issues were not raised in Athens. They are usually raised at the spring Council meeting in regard to the ongoing work on the Lisbon Agenda. I have outlined in my speech that the Athens meeting related primarily to the signature of accession of the ten applicant states and a discussion, about which a statement was issued by the Presidency, in regard to Iraq.

Mr. Quinn:

In response to remarks by colleagues – I have already put questions on the agenda, so to speak – when will the embassy programme be completed? What is the Minister's view of the forthcoming Irish Presidency? Does he believe the next treaty will be known as the treaty of Dublin? At this, admittedly, early stage what, in his estimation, will be the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference?

Mr. Cowen:

In relation to the embassy programme, as the Deputy will be aware, we have set an objective of making sure we have formal residential accreditation in the applicant states as soon as possible and have started the process. As we want to make sure we discharge our obligations to the applicant states, they remain at the top of the list in respect of the potential extension of the embassy network. We first have Cyprus, Slovenia and other countries to which to attend. The objective is to have full coverage in the next two to three years.

In relation to when the Intergovernmental Conference might start and finish, this will become more clear at Thessalonika. We will see what convention report emanates from the meeting, what level of consensus emerges and what particular problems remain for further discussion at political level at the Intergovernmental Conference.

In relation to procedure, the indications are that we will have the report on 20 June, after which there will be a period of reflection. In some Nordic countries the Government is required to receive certain legislative approvals before obtaining a mandate to take part in an Intergovernmental Conference. The Italian Government appeared to indicate that a working group would continue to work on the text of the treaty after the report is submitted to the convention and pending completion of the period of reflection.

Mr. Quinn:

In the interim.

Mr. Cowen:

Yes. There is a possibility of a summit being called in early October to begin the Intergovernmental Conference. The question of whether it will be completed during the Italian Presidency or continue to our Presidency depends on the level of consensus which can be reached on the content and issues to be addressed. The proposal is to complete the Intergovernmental Conference prior to the accession date of 1 May 2004 as this would feed into the parliamentary elections and the appointment of the Commission and allow everything to come on stream under the new arrangements thereafter. While it is a little early to say what will be the timescale, that is the general plan envisaged.

The question of what the treaty will be called is a matter for the Council to decide. As the Deputy will be aware, there is, due to the seminal nature of the treaty, a strong belief among many member states in the Rome to Rome cycle. We take a pragmatic approach. We will take up the obligations of trying to complete the treaty if it passes on to our Presidency and simply concentrate on the need to find a genuine consensus that will meet the requirements of the circumstances, rather than worrying about whether the treaty is concluded during our term.

Mr. F. McGrath:

During the meeting between the Minister and the Taoiseach and Kofi Annan on 16 April, at which the well-being of the Iraqi people who have suffered greatly and deserve a better future was discussed, did the Minister outline our position on the war? The Minister referred to aid. Apart from the €5 million in aid allocated by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, has the Government provided any other form of assistance to the Iraqi people?

Mr. Cowen:

The UN Secretary General was well aware and appreciative of our consistent position on the war, which we explained. We also explained our vote on Resolution 1441 in October, on which we followed through. The Taoiseach obviously spoke to the Secretary General prior to the meeting in Hillsborough with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at which he had an opportunity to discuss with them the broad UN position on these matters.

The focus of our discussion at the meeting with the Secretary General was not arguments about the rights or wrongs of the war. The Secretary General was strongly focused on the reconstruction effort and the provision of a stable environment in which this could take place. He emphasised to us that he was not seeking that the UN enter Iraq in place of the occupying forces, whom he regarded as the people in situ to secure the environment and who have obligations under the Geneva Conventions of which they are cognisant.

He was also focused on discussions with the United States, Britain and coalition forces on how the UN agencies could enter Iraq in the short-term to undertake humanitarian efforts and the longer-term UN role both in terms of interim administration arrangements which would be endorsed by the UN and the question of the international legitimacy of any subsequent Government which may emerge in the longer term. We were totally ad idem with the Secretary General and very supportive of the manner in which he envisaged this evolving process proceeding. The roll-over of the oil for food programme will come up in June or July and discussions are currently feeding into the Security Council on all the relevant issues.

At the informal Council meeting in Rhodes last weekend, I strongly emphasised our hope that the Security Council will discharge its responsibilities, achieve a consensus on all these issues and make sure its role is provided for. Secretary General Kofi Annan has an action orientated programme in mind to ensure this final objective is achieved.

Apart from being required for the release of funds under the oil for food programme, UN approval is also required before international financial institutions can get involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and, in so far as the European Union is concerned, for Commissioner Patten's proposals for providing aid. From memory, €700 million will be made available by the EU for a reconstruction programme in Iraq, which roughly corresponds with the moneys being spoken about by the US. These issues are ongoing. Our discussions with the Secretary General were cordial and constructive and we were in full agreement.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Ultimately, what emerges from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the Intergovernmental Conference will be a civilised trade-off in negotiations and discussions between Governments. This is welcome as it is the way business should be done between democratic states. In relation to such trade-offs, the Minister appears to have changed his position in an area of Government policy. On 16 April he stated he would take a constructive view of changing the veto on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Will he inform the House of the reasons for his apparent change of policy and whether it was wise to indicate a possible change in policy, given that the nature of these negotiations is that trade-offs often occur towards the end? What are the principles behind this apparent change in policy?

Mr. Cowen:

In terms of the internal and external coherence of the European Union in the future, particularly after enlargement, the policy triangle which will inform the articulation of the values fundamental to the European Union's work are the three principles of a healthy transatlantic relationship with the United States, commitment to multilateral institutions and common European foreign, security and defence policies.

Given the military preponderance of the United States in terms of its military power – the sole super power in the world – when one looks at how the European Union can bring greater influence in terms of its policies and position to many of the intractable problems of the world, whether it is conflicts, development aid issues, world poverty, globalisation etc., it is clear that the influence of the United States in economic terms vis-à-vis the European Union is based on equal partnership. There is a mutually assured damage issue which regulates that relationship in a way which ensures the type of prosperous peace, stability and democracy that we have secured since the European Union was founded.

However, in the political and security area the European Union is not making sufficient impact in terms of espousing its values and ensuring that they are respected throughout the world in areas where we can influence issues, such as the Middle East etc. There is a need, therefore, to strengthen the common foreign and security policy if we want to improve the external coherence of the European Union. I cannot think of any issue where our essential national interests are put at stake by ensuring that there is sufficient content and purpose in our common foreign and security policy which is not weakened by the prospect of a veto being available from any one of the 25 member states. These issues must be taken into account as we move from 15 to 25 member states where there are different stages of development. It is not a homogenous Union in terms of its economic status and development. A more diverse and challenging set of proposals and policy issues face the enlarged Union as we move forward.

If we want to have influence, if we want the European Union to be an equal partner in the quartet in relation to Middle East policy, if we want our proposals in relation to upholding multilateral institutions as part of regulating the international order, if we want to see what we can do in relation to development aid issues and if we want to make an impact, it is clear that the common foreign and security policy must be strengthened and the veto must be avoided in relation to the establishment of that policy, with the one proviso that if an essential national interest can be identified as being at stake, one would be allowed to be apart from that policy position. It is a matter of procedure as to how that can be done. However, as a matter of principle, I do not see what we have to fear from that. If we want our positions to be advanced around the world, having them as part of a common policy regime of the European Union, not a unified policy to fit all situations, which sets out in substance common principles that inform our policy in any area would greatly enhance Ireland's influence. It would be better than being on our own. We could not do as well in the WTO on our own as under the European Union umbrella. We could not do as well in working with common partners in developing our development aid policies in Africa, for example. It would be splendid isolation.

We should be part of that debate and we should be open to matters. We should rationally and intellectually contribute and be constructive. We should be comfortable with that policy direction. The Iraqi situation was the exception rather than the rule. We agree in the European Union on many of the main policy issues in the common foreign and security policy debate. We agree about many of the world's problems. Iraq was an exception. People then tried to draw from that a unifying theory to suggest that the common foreign and security policy had been destroyed and that there was no prospect of re-establishing consensus or unity again. That is an exaggerated view taken from the general proposition which the empirical evidence is against.

Mr. Quinn:

I welcome what the Minister said. Do I take it that the formal position of the Government is to cede the Irish veto in respect of a common foreign and security policy if that was the ultimate outcome and that it would be decided by QMV? Has the General Affairs Council discussed the question of the European Union taking up a post on the Security Council? As regards reform of the Security Council, will there be a European Union seat and perhaps a Japanese, Brazilian and Indian seat as well? Has that matter been formally or informally discussed?

Mr. Gormley:

What is the bottom line, as far as the Government is concerned, on the Commission? Is it the case that we must retain the agreement reached at Nice or is the Minister prepared to give way on that as well? Does he agree with the assessment of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, that the president of the convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has an autocratic approach? Does he also agree that defining consensus in terms of demographics or population is completely unacceptable?

Mr. Durkan:

As the Minister knows, I strongly support Deputy Gay Mitchell's principles in relation to European defence and security. We accept the Minister's bona fides in that area. What impact are recent events in the European Union, whereby a number of states decided to form an alliance in relation to defence and security matters, likely to have on the treaty? To what extent did they influence the discussions which took place in Athens? What role, purpose and function will the alliance have in the future? Would it intervene in a situation similar to that in Bosnia or the former Yugoslavia where all the principal players were still available? Will the new alliance be prepared to intervene? Have questions been raised about that issue?

Mr. Cowen:

As regards our position, we are favourably disposed to considering the suggestion of QMV in the common foreign and security pol icy area. We must look at the text, but we are not shying away from it.

As regards reform of the Security Council, that question has been with us for a long time. I do not see many of the permanent incumbents on the Security Council changing their position. They are probably open to additions, but I do not think they will withdraw their own positions. Some of the problems with the common foreign and security policy at European Union level arise when the two permanent EU members disagree. Sometimes the sum total of our policy cannot get beyond that threshold. That is a real concern. That is why it is important that we devise a way through an early warning mechanism to discuss these issues in advance of them arising. They have an impact in terms of how the European Union is viewed and they also have an impact on our coherence and on the spirit of the Union which is about trying to achieve consensus through the Community method on such difficult issues.

As regards the Commission, it is important that we do not look at this negotiation on the basis of each individual issue. We want a broad institutional balance. We are trying to achieve consensus. We have preferred positions. As regards the Commission, for example, we believe that equality is an important aspect of the Commission. We believe that having dealt with it at Nice, it would be best to leave it. However, we must consider the consensus. We are in the process of negotiation. We cannot negotiate on the basis of saying that we will not accept anything other than this. We must enter into the spirit of negotiation on the basis that we want to maintain the institutional balance because that is at the heart of the workability and efficiency of the Union.

There are issues regarding the continuity and efficiency of an enlarged entity. It is in our interests to have an effective European Union which works and a globalised open economy like ours needs a Union with the best prospects of effective decision making. That is important to us. It does not mean that we do not regard the question of institutional balance as being important – we do. It is a matter of getting the perspective and context of these issues together so that we have a negotiated outcome which, as in every negotiation, will probably have pluses and minuses. No-one will be totally satisfied with everything, as there are 25 members trying to reach consensus, but on the balance of convenience or any objective analysis we will want something far more in our favour than against us. That is what we must achieve in any negotiation and it is what I would regard as success.

As regards the group of four meeting, the important point is that no group of states try to take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the Union. By the same token we do not want a form of censorship whereby people do not sit down and discuss things. Governments discuss issues of mutual concern and common perspective all the time. The important point is that it is brought into the Community framework to add value to the discussion so that again, through the Community method, we obtain outcomes which are consistent with treaty provisions.

Regarding security and defence matters, because there are sensitivity issues for us, the retention of sovereign decisions in terms of our participation is a critical factor. That is an important discretion and manoeuvre we retain and it is something we would like to continue to achieve in these negotiations.