Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the forthcoming European Council meeting in Thessalonika, Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11457/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will hold in advance of the next European Council meeting in Thessalonika; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11458/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he intends holding on the margins of the forthcoming European Summit in Thessalonika; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11459/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent signing of the EU accession treaties in Athens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11460/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans undertaking during the remainder of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11465/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the EU Summit in Athens on 16 April 2003. [11528/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the Athens EU Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11572/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he attended on the margins of the Athens EU Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11573/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he plans to make during the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11581/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Summit in Athens on 15-16 April 2003. [11596/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with other EU leaders and leaders from applicant countries during the recent EU Summit in Athens. [11598/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, during the recent EU Summit in Athens. [11767/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his proposals for official trips abroad until the end of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11770/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:16 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached during his recent contacts with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11972/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:17 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meeting of EU leaders in Athens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11979/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:18 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Athens on 16 April 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12677/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:19 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his bilateral meetings during his attendance at the recent European Council meeting in Athens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12678/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:20 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the European Council meeting in Thessalonika; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12782/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the other EU leaders he expects to meet as part of the preparations for the European Council meeting in Thessalonika; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12783/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:22 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues which will be addressed at the forthcoming European Council meeting in Thessalonika; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12862/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:23 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the April 2003 EU Summit in Athens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12863/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:24 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting he had with the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, at the recent EU Summit in Athens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12864/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:25 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the official trips abroad he intends to take in the remainder of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12865/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:26 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the forthcoming European Council meeting in Thessalonika, Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12882/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:27 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Sweden on 8 May 2003 and his discussion with Swedish political leaders. [12943/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:28 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he intends holding at the forthcoming European Council meeting in Thessalonika, Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13025/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:29 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Stockholm on 8 May 2003 with the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Persson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13329/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:30 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the EU-Russia Summit in St. Petersburg on 30 May 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13489/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:31 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the European Council meeting in Thessalonika. [13544/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:32 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the details of the report recently published by his Department, Ireland and the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13616/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:33 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14223/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:34 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he plans to meet with the Italian Prime Minister to discuss the forthcoming Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14224/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:35 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the EU-Russian Summit in St. Petersburg. [14474/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:36 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the EU's High Representative, Javier Solana; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14722/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 36, inclusive, together.
I attended the informal meeting of the European Council in Athens held on 16 April. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, also attended. The declarations adopted by the European Council on 16 Labour, or I should say April, and by the European Conference held the following day have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, as has the Presidency statement on Iraq.
The signature of the Treaty of Accession for the ten accession countries also took place in Athens on 16 April. The ceremony marked a true milestone in European history. Earlier in the day, an informal meeting of the European Council adopted the Athens Declaration. In this declaration, the European Council set out the principles on which the European Union is 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.
It is useful to be reminded of these principles from time to time. The signing of the Accession Treaty marked the end of a long and bleak chapter in European history. It acknowledged that countries which had been artificially cut off from mainstream Europe had earned the right to membership based on the principles on which the Union is founded. It reaffirmed, once again, the value and success of the European Union.
The informal European Council meeting focused on the work of the European Convention. The European Union must be seen to work by our citizens. 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, 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, Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg. Ireland was represented by Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche. The meeting was a follow-on from a meeting of seven member states which I attended in Luxembourg. The 17 countries agreed a number of fundamental principles which we want to see reflected in the outcome of the convention. 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. The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox MEP, addressed the members of the European Council. 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, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing followed. President d'Estaing 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 Greece on 20 June. The session with President d'Estaing focused on key institutional issues. Along with very many others, I underlined my support for the principles of equality and institutional balance. I said, as did others, that I hoped as much consensus as possible would be reached, but where this was not possible, the convention should set out options.
I had a bilateral meeting with Kofi Annan on 16 April at which I underlined the principles on which our policy on Iraq 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. I assured the Secretary General of Ireland's readiness to assist.
As regards the longer-term reconstruction and administration of Iraq, I welcome last week's adoption of the resolution by the Security Council on the comprehensive range of issues which need to be addressed in post-war Iraq.
I also met Prime Minister Racan of Croatia. Croatia submitted its application for membership of the European Union in February. It is likely that the application will come up for consideration by the Council following completion of the Commission's opinion towards the end of the Irish Presidency of the European Union next year.
In the margins of the European Council, I met Prime Minister Blair and we discussed developments in the peace process at that time.
While the agenda for the European Council which I will attend has not as yet been finalised, a draft annotated agenda has been circulated by the Presidency. I had the opportunity to discuss the agenda with Prime Minister Simitis when he visited Dublin on Friday last as part of his tour of capitals in advance of the Council. The main item on the agenda will be the European Convention and the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. Other issues which will be discussed are asylum and immigration and a number of external relations issues, notably Iraq and the Middle East peace process.
Other meetings in preparation for the Council and any bilateral meetings at the Council will be planned in light of the agenda and the circumstances prevailing at the time. While I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister of Italy to discuss its Presidency of the Council, I will encounter the Prime Minister at the June Council. There is ongoing contact between officials involved in the preparations for our Presidency with their Italian counterparts. I hope to visit Italy before the end of the year, most likely in October, to deepen these contacts.
I have ongoing contacts with the President of the European Commission, both at European Councils and as required. The need for a bilateral meeting is kept under constant review.
On Thursday, 8 May, I visited Stockholm for talks with Prime Minister Persson. The focus of our discussions was on issues of concern regarding both the European Union and international matters. I informed the Prime Minister that the effective conduct of the Union's business is the overriding priority and focus of our preparations for our Presidency next year. I stated that work on the development of our Presidency programme is ongoing and that I was anxious to hear his views and to have an understanding of Swedish concerns as we identified and developed priorities. I informed him that the Lisbon strategy would be a priority for our Presidency and we exchanged views on how best to advance the agenda, despite the challenges of economic slowdown, global uncertainty and in the context of an enlarged Union. Progress at the European convention, where we share many interests and concerns, was a major focus for our discussions. Naturally, Iraq was also discussed.
In relation to my travel plans for the remainder of the year, I will continue my structured series of engagements with member and accession states in the context of the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union and the ongoing business of the Union on the lines of my recent visits to the Czech Republic, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Visits have been arranged to Finland and Estonia on 12 June, Turkey on 17 July, Austria and Slovenia on 24 July and France on 12 September. Arrangements for visits to Spain and Italy before the end of the year are being finalised. I also hope to visit a number of other countries and these visits are at an early stage of planning.
I will travel to St. Petersburg on 30 May for the EU-Russia summit. I will be attending the European Councils in October and December which will be held in Brussels under the Italian Presidency of the Union. I plan to visit the United States of America in September.
Additional InformationThe EU-Russia summit 2003 will take place within a general celebration of the 300th anniversary of the founding of the city of St. Petersburg. The association of the summit meeting with the anniversary programme was an initiative of President Putin. An open agenda has been agreed by the EU Commission with the Russian hosts. Participants will have the opportunity to address any dimension of EU-Russian relations. My interest will be on the closer engagement likely to follow on the expansion eastwards next year of the EU and continuing co-operation in economic matters.
I welcome the opportunity for bilateral contacts that the weekend programme presents. A series of cultural engagements has been arranged to celebrate the city's anniversary at which many countries will be represented. I very much appreciate the opportunity this will provide for informal meetings and discussions.
I met the EU High Representative, Dr. Javier Solana, on 21 May following his working lunch with the Minister, Deputy Cowen. We had a very useful and productive meeting at which we reviewed a wide range of international issues of current concern. We also discussed some of the issues under consideration in the convention and we looked forward to Ireland's forthcoming EU Presidency. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and the importance of making early progress in implementing the road map agreed between the quartet of the EU, US, Russia and the UN. We discussed the situation in Iraq and we both welcomed the progress then being made in the UN Security Council towards restoring international co-operation on the issue, which was reflected in the adoption on 22 May of Resolution 1483 with only one abstention.
Our discussions on European Union issues included the ongoing work of the European convention which is now heading towards the end-game. We discussed European security and defence issues, on which Dr. Solana was well aware of Ireland's approach.
I briefed Dr. Solana on the planning for our EU Presidency and informed him that I am in the course of visiting my colleagues in the European Council in preparation for the Presidency to hear their views and concerns. Dr. Solana's visit was a useful opportunity for us to deepen our co-operation with one of the key figures in the EU, with whom we will have the closest co-operation during our EU Presidency.
The publication Ireland and the European Union – Identifying Priorities and Pursuing Goals is a revised and updated edition of the original paper which was published in April 2002. The publication is part of the Government's efforts to better inform the public of Ireland's policy in relation to the European Union. It sets out our key national objectives across the full range of our involvement in the Union. Copies of the paper were laid before both Houses on publication and it is also available on the Government website
What is the Taoiseach's and the Government's response to the draft constitution published yesterday by the convention? Does the Taoiseach agree with Deputy John Bruton that the next three weeks will be crucial in shaping the document on the future constitution of Europe? Will he outline for the House the strategy the Government intends to adopt for the next three weeks in terms of putting forward proposals, negotiations with other leaders and the discussions he or his Minister intend to have in regard to shaping the document as it will emerge over the three weeks before final presentation to the Heads of Government? Will he give his reaction to the convention document published yesterday and outline the strategy for the next three weeks?
The part of my reply relating to my meeting with the EU High Representative, Dr. Javier Solana, on 21 May is included in the reply. I do not think anything in particular was discussed. It was mainly about his meetings on the Middle East, including a discussion about Ireland and the European Union, identifying priorities and pursuing goals. This paper was published approximately two months ago and put before the General Affairs Council.
Yesterday's document was the first of a three part document. The convention report is being produced in three sections. Yesterday's document did not include the whole of section 1. The institutional part, which will be very important was omitted. I have strong views about many aspects of that section but it was not included in yesterday's document. It is in line with what I have said here and agreed with most people. I had an opportunity to meet the convention members, from all parties in the House. We have an agreed line and we have not changed from that line. It has also been discussed by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, at the European affairs committee so our position on that has not changed.
On the work that was done yesterday, namely, setting out the principles, simplifying the treaties and setting out the objectives and values of the Union, which I touched on in my reply, what was stated in Athens was good work. It is fulfilling the line that they said, it is simplifying matters and it is easily read. It is easier for people who are not dealing with European business every day of the week, or are not involved in the system, to read. While there are many aspects of it that have not been finalised it is a good document.
I have to quickly add that Part One sets out the basis, the principles and the objectives. Part Three mainly will set out the detail of how these are worked out and whether we have achieved the two key issues for this country and the group of 16 countries that has been working on this, namely, that we have balance within the institutions and equality among member states. That has been the framework on which we have worked since February last year and that is the framework within which we want to stay. As we stated in February, and at every opportunity since, if those two issues are maintained – balance of institutions and equality of member states – we are prepared to negotiate on everything else and that is where the institutional part, which is left out of Part One, is very important.
Deputy John Bruton is right and I acknowledge the amount of work and effort he has put in to the praesidium, and his close contact throughout with the Government and officials. He has been extremely helpful to the Irish delegation continuing up to the work on these papers over the last few days. It was extremely helpful to have the input of somebody from the praesidium.
The next three weeks are crucial as a wide range of meetings is scheduled. I went through our position point by point in a three-hour session with the Greek Presidency recently because it is endeavouring to get everyone's views on the institutional questions and on other key issues. It is not trying to cover every point. The majority of the three parts of this document are not contentious. There are around 30 questions and the Greek Presidency is trying to develop a questionnaire to establish where everybody stands on those questions. We went through our position. The answers to many of these questions are not a clear "yes" or "no" because of the way one area relates to another.
The Government has tried to make its mind up as tightly as possible so that there is no question of having five or six positions. Some countries have said they want to go back to the Laeken Declaration and presented six alternatives. I tried to get them down to one or two, and none, in as many cases as possible, because it is an unfair position into which to put the Presidency if it is trying to negotiate across 25 countries with that range of positions. We have tried to narrow down our position, including through the various groups in which Deputy Roche is actively engaged, one of 16 and another of seven, mainly the Benelux countries, with which we have been playing a part. There is another wider group including a number of countries of accession. Ours is the majority view but as with all such issues we have to negotiate our position on it.
When the Presidency finishes its work in about ten days' time it will then go to the chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who will give his views and try to reach as complete a document as possible when we get to Thessaloniki. Then we will see how much is in square brackets, how many options there are, and how it goes into the Intergovernmental Conference. I might as well be totally honest about this as I can see that it could come into the Irish Presidency. I am endeavouring to be as helpful as I can to the Greeks and getting everyone I can to narrow down their positions so that we do not end up like the justice and home affairs area, where there are 700 amendments to one section. I would like it to be finished in this Irish Presidency not the next one. People have to get into their—
That sounds like a job for Deputy Roche.
He would have to be around for about 15 years. We must narrow things down and be reasonable. It comes back to the Deputy's question about the strategy. The next three weeks are crucial. As with all such issues, it is a pity that the time period involved is so tight. Everything must happen between Thursday, 29 May and 18 June. It is a very tight time period. If the convention document is as detailed as possible, with the minimum of square brackets and without hundreds of options – obviously there will be some, but not in an unco-ordinated way – we will be able to move successfully to the Intergovernmental Conference in October. People may stick to an enormous range of options, but I will be involved trying to help the Presidency's efforts in that work over the next fortnight. We have a role to play from now on, and we will try to do that. The next few weeks are crucial to avoiding a very difficult Intergovernmental Conference.
At the Athens Summit, EU leaders called for the United Nations to be given a central role in Iraq. Does the Taoiseach believe that the United Nations has now been given such a central role in line with their request? Does he agree that the UN arms inspectors should now return to Iraq?
Before the US and British-led war on Iraq we, in this country, and many others were given to believe that the act of aggression against Iraq was all about weapons of mass destruction, but they have not been found. What is the Taoiseach's view on that now? Does he not regret the support that he offered the United States and Britain in their attack on Iraq on the basis that it was all about weapons of mass destruction, a clearly misleading position presented by those two countries? In the same vein, does the Taoiseach agree with his Minister for Defence, who has just left his side, when he calls for the lifting of restrictions on the Defence Forces serving abroad without a UN mandate to allow them to participate in future EU army activities?
Will the Taoiseach confirm that if EU leaders agree a draft constitution, it must go before the Irish people in a referendum? What are his current plans for such a referendum? Will he be as specific as possible on when it would be held? Since the timescale that the EU has imposed on itself is now so short, how can the Taoiseach possibly think agreement can be reached on issues of fundamental concern to the Irish people? Specifically, how does he react to the fact that, enshrined in the proposed EU constitution, is the creation of a European armaments industry and a call for an increase in armaments spending in the EU? It is down in black and white. Does the Taoiseach not consider it obscene that further resources should be wasted on military research to incinerate and destroy more people more effectively and that there is the prospect of a new arms race of a different kind between the premier imperial power, the United States, and the EU?
When the Taoiseach had discussions with Mr. Kofi Annan and Mr. Richard Haass in recent weeks, did they throw any light on the total absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? During the last Question Time I asked the Taoiseach to ask Mr. Haass and to report back to the Dáil. I ask him to report now on what excuse the United States is giving for the lies they told justifying the criminal invasion of Iraq.
The use of the word "lie" is not appropriate in this House.
It is glaringly clear, is it not? I will call it a fabrication.
Members cannot insinuate motives to people either inside or outside this House. The use of the word "lie" is unparliamentary and should not be used in this House.
I was not referring to anybody in this Chamber.
This applies equally to anybody outside this House. The use of the word "lie" is unparliamentary.
Did the Taoiseach get an explanation for the fabrication of a justification for the criminal invasion of Iraq and will he return to the Dáil to explain why he was taken in by that fabrication?
I will answer Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions first. On the matter of the UN resolution of last week, we welcome the adoption of the new Security Council resolution on what is a comprehensive range of issues which need to be addressed in post-war Iraq. The achievement of a consensus on this at the Security Council is to be welcomed and it goes a long way to restoring its unity. There is a sense of relief and achievement across the Union on that issue, as was relayed to me by the Greek Presidency which had been talking to individuals around the system last week. We have always supported the view that the UN should play a key role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
With regard to the Deputy's second question, we are pleased in that regard. We particularly welcome the fact that the Secretary General's special representative has been given a clear mandate and we hope it will prove to be an effective one. Deputies will recall that when I spoke to Kofi Annan and I reported on that here previously, I stated that is what he wanted. He did not want to get into a position where he did not have a very clear mandate. He has that now and he is pleased with that position. That will be important in winning international acceptance for the legitimacy of Iraq's future political structures and the UN should be an equal partner to the greatest extent possible. That is what we have stated all along. It is what the European Union has said, and that has now happened.
We also welcome the fact that the resolution lays emphasis on the processes required to bring representative government to Iraq as soon as possible and that the Iraqi people will be in charge of their own destiny as soon as possible. That is equally important.
Decisions will have to be taken about the future role of UNMOVIC, the IAEA and arms and what will happen in that regard. Those decisions have not been made yet but, as I understand it, they will be made in the immediate future, and then, hopefully, the IAEA and UNMOVIC will get back in. That is what should happen. That is the only way we will get to the end of weapons of mass destruction. That also relates to Deputy Joe Higgins's questions. It is necessary to get the IAEA and the UNMOVIC back into Iraq and, hopefully, decisions on that will be made shortly.
The majority of EU partners are committed to reopening their offices in Baghdad. The Government is also keeping the question under active review and any such decision will be influenced by the security situation on the ground and the expected benefits for Ireland's interests and the availability of resources, but no decision has been made on that yet. Matters are returning to normal. There are still difficulties on the ground in terms of looting and other issues, but hopefully the UN will be able to play a constructive role in that regard.
Deputy Joe Higgins asked me about the referendum. The position on such a referendum is that it would normally be held two years after the Intergovernmental Conference would conclude. At this stage I do not know when the Intergovernmental Conference will start its work, but I expect that will happen in October. That is not agreed, but I do not envisage it starting before October. When I previously discussed this, I gathered that the Italian Presidency would want this process to start in October. The length of time it takes is a case of how efficiently the work can be dealt with. The normal legal and statutory position is that it will be two years from whenever the Intergovernmental Conference concludes.
On armaments and the arms agency, the proposals are in draft form and are up for negotiation. People will get to air their views on them. Deputy Joe Higgins will be aware that a number of European countries took the opposite view to the United States and believed that Europe should spend more of its budget on and devote a much higher percentage of its resources to arms. Four countries that met recently – Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France – take the view that there should be a counterbalance. They are committed to proceeding with mutual defence. We are opposed to it and will not be part of whatever happens in this regard.
I call Deputy Rabbitte, followed by Deputies Sargent and Kenny.
Will the Taoiseach address the statement of the Minister for Defence following Athens regarding the Defence Forces?
I would prefer if the Taoiseach did not answer questions that come by way of interruption.
Will the Taoiseach indicate—
We are running out of time, Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I wish to go back to the meeting with Kofi Annan which the Taoiseach said took place on the 16th of Labour. For some reason, the Taoiseach seems to have Labour on the brain these days. Can I take from his reply that the Taoiseach is satisfied with the arrangements made for the United Nations in terms of govern ing the interim situation in Iraq? Did I read correctly in one of this morning's newspapers that our ambassador is about to depart again for Baghdad? To whom is he accredited in those circumstances? Does it mean we recognise the interim arrangement as the Government of Iraq? Will the Taoiseach clarify this?
In respect of the draft treaty, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House whether there are specific changes he considers to be of importance that would be at the top of his agenda in the discussions between now and the Intergovernmental Conference? Has the Taoiseach any plans for a public awareness campaign on the treaty to take place as soon as possible?
Does the Taoiseach accept that the Government will have quite a task in putting the message across to the people that this draft constitution is in line with and an improvement on the Nice treaty given that the issue of the Commissioner, which was a major one in the Nice treaty, seems not to be a case of almost always having a Commissioner but of maybe having one? It seems to be watered down from what we were led to believe during the Nice treaty, and likewise with the principle of equality among all nations, large and small, which is not, according to Giscard d'Estaing, to be taken for granted.
Will the Government stand firm on the concern it has about the manner in which a President of the European Council is to be elected? Regarding the solidarity clause, apart from the inclusion of NATO which seems to have been introduced quietly in a latter draft, and while I am glad for the Government's sake that there is the issue of national disasters, there is the issue of the terrorist threat. Will the Taoiseach stand firm on this because this idea of a terrorist threat is what resulted in the mayhem in Iraq?
The Deputy is using the Taoiseach's time for reply.
I want to ensure the Taoiseach understands that this will be an issue of grave concern and that, if we go to war on the basis of a terrorist threat, we could go to war every day.
Before the Taoiseach replies, I will take a final question from Deputy Kenny.
The Taoiseach will not have time to answer all of these questions. Can he give a guarantee that we will not put a treaty to the people that does not reflect the fact that Ireland should have a Commissioner on a full-time basis – in other words, that Ireland will continue to have its Commissioner and the Taoiseach will argue for that within the Intergovernmental Conference and treaty negotiations? In view of the document released yesterday, will the Taoiseach outline the Government's view on common defence and security?
I will try to try take in all the questions. In answer to Deputy Rabbitte, I should have said 16 April – May Day was weighing heavily on my mind. While the majority of EU partners are now reopening their offices in Baghdad, we have not made a decision on this. It seems that practically all EU embassies will open there over the summer months. Nobody will move until the UN is in on the ground. That the UN is now there, effectively as equal partners, gives it the mandate to open embassies. We closed our embassy in 1990 and will have to revisit the issue. I do not see this happening immediately as there are issues of resources etc. We will see the embassies opening up quickly.
Will the ambassador present his credentials to Washington?
We are at the end of Taoiseach's questions.
Deputy Rabbitte also asked about the Intergovernmental Conference. The convention will conclude and then we will move on to an Intergovernmental Conference fairly quickly. The key areas for us are the institutional issues and these are in part 3. We will seek to establish if there is balance in the institutions. If there is a president of the European Council, we must ask how this will operate vis-à-vis the other positions. I am a member of the group that is sceptical about this. The present rotational system works well. Many people downplay it in a way that is unfair given its advantages. At the same time, I recognise that as we are moving towards 25 members states, and as many as 30, that it is not manageable. When this happens I would prefer to look at the issue of team presidencies. I feel that team presidencies, perhaps four, could be rotated over six or seven years. This would not involve six-month presidencies, rather it would last for a year or 18 months. The Councils could then be divided. For example, Ireland would chair ECOFIN while Luxembourg might chair social affairs. I feel this can be done.
If there is a president of the European Council, he or she will immediately set up an alternative bureaucracy. While this may not happen overnight, it will happen over a number of years. They will not use the Commission and there will be a clash between the president of the Council and the president of the Commission. Both will play to the Parliament and it will break what has been a successful position. I have vehemently argued against this position.
If the Taoiseach has ambitions to be president he would want to make Europe—
Deputy Ó Caoláin, please.
I have no such ambitions. I have been on European Councils for a long time and have seen the advantages of how they work. I do not want to see a future where people here are in a sandwich that is not good for Europe.
My arguments are around the institutional issue and how that works out. Many people that have done much talking about this have not thought it through and I have said that to them. I have had the honour of being a member of the Social Affairs Council for five years, ECOFIN for more than three years and the European Council for six years. While it is easy to expand a theory on these issues, I do not accept some of the arguments and how they were thought out.
Deputy Kenny asked about the position of Commissioner. We have voted on and passed the Nice arrangement. There will be strict rotation so that when Ireland has a Commissioner, for example, Germany has not, or when Germany has a Commissioner Ireland has not. At least it is a fair and balanced system.
In reply to Deputy Sargent's question, it is not that there is a move away from our position during the Nice treaty referendum. Some countries, and the Commission itself, are now arguing in favour of an alternative position: they would like to go back to having a Commissioner per member state. The reason I did not support that at Nice was that I thought it would result in a two-tier or three-tier Commission arrangement with a front bench, second bench and third bench. This arrangement is on the table now, but my fear is that, not tomorrow but in three or four years' time, there will be a hierarchy of Commissioners.
Will the Taoiseach comment on the statement of the Minister for Defence?
What about defence and security?
There is an argument about this issue. We are not in agreement on the issue of mutual defence. If there is to be a decision on anything in the defence area, there will have to be unanimity. If there was enhanced co-operation and groups started making those decisions on their own, that would be a different matter. Our position will remain opposed to those of some of the other member states and we would prefer unanimity on these issues.
Will the Taoiseach not answer the question I asked?