I am pleased, in the unavoidable absence of the Taoiseach, to have the opportunity to open what is a timely and important debate. At the conclusion of the Convention we undertook to make time available for this purpose. The Intergovernmental Conference began in Rome on 1 October and we are, therefore, at an early stage in proceedings. The Government is committed to keeping the House, the relevant Oireachtas committees and the public fully informed of developments. Following the Intergovernmental Conference and European Council meeting this week, the Taoiseach will report to the Dáil on the outcome. In addition, the National Forum on Europe will hold a plenary session on 23 October on the outcome of the Convention which he will address.
Over the past two years there has been a major improvement in the intensity and quality of our national debate on Europe, inside and outside the House. I congratulate Deputy Gay Mitchell and his colleagues on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. They are vigorously using the new scrutiny procedures to examine the Government's approach to issues on the European agenda. I also pay tribute to the outstanding work of the forum. The forum has already produced a valuable account of the Convention text. The short explanatory guide that my own Department has circulated to all Members is also intended to serve as a reference point. It is intended to be clear and succinct, though not fully comprehensive, and I hope it is useful.
The more thoroughly we discuss issues nationally, the better prepared we are to take part in debate at Union level. However, the greatest challenge we face is to widen the discussion beyond that initiated to ensure the public understand and support what is happening in its name. The Taoiseach made the point at Rome that the Intergovernmental Conference as a whole needed a proper communications strategy.
This time last year we were on the eve of the second Nice referendum. A highly positive aspect of the process was that it kindled a national debate about Europe. The people broadly endorsed not only the Nice treaty and enlargement in the referendum but also Ireland's place in the Union 30 years on. The verdict was the Union has been instrumental in creating a peaceful and prosperous Europe, which has been good for Ireland and in which Ireland has played its own distinctive part.
The Union has expanded and changed immensely in the 30 years since Ireland joined. Ireland has also changed and developed, in some ways almost out of all recognition, but the fundamental points remain. Europe remains vital to our prosperity as a small, outward looking economy. It has encouraged the modernisation of our society and its values of tolerance and respect for human rights and the rule of law are our values. They are relevant both in Europe and throughout the world. The Irish people are not naive or starry eyed about Europe as they recognise its shortcomings but they have a basic sense of its enduring promise and of its practical benefits.
That is the context in which the proposed constitutional treaty should be analysed. It is highly significant but, as is inevitable in a negotiation, it is possible to get too close to the detail. Standing back, the Convention draft does not fundamentally alter the nature of the Union as a unique experiment in the voluntary sharing of sovereignty by independent states. It does not fundamentally alter the Union's powers or its relationship with member states, the mix of policies that has worked so effectively for Ireland or the balances between the institutions and among member states. If the people support the Union and our membership of it – and I am sure they do – then they can be broadly happy with the Convention outcome.
The Convention itself was an innovative approach to treaty change. A body representative of the peoples, states and institutions of Europe was established rather than having the preparatory work carried out by anonymous officials behind closed doors. All the member and applicant states were represented at both Government and parliamentary level and the European Parliament and the Commission were also present. All had their say. Thousands of pages of draft texts and amendments were considered and finally a single text was produced. It is right that the Convention approach has won widespread approval. I am pleased that the draft constitutional treaty recommends that it continue to be used in the future. I do not believe there can be a return to the old ways. The Intergovernmental Conference has its own role to play. It cannot be a rubber stamp, but the great bulk of the Convention's work should stand.
Ireland's team at the Convention has been thanked for its work by the Taoiseach in the House. It is fair to say that Ireland was most ably represented and our representatives from the Government and Opposition benches made a positive contribution to the debate in the European Convention and to the Convention's outcome. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, preceded by Ray MacSharry and Bobby McDonagh for the Government, as well as Deputies John Bruton, Carey and Gormley and Proinsias De Rossa MEP, were active and positive. This positive engagement enabled Ireland to bring to the table its values and interests and to have them reflected in the text.
The Convention allowed a broad consensus to emerge on a range of hitherto difficult issues. The consensus covered the legal personality of the Union, a simplified and comprehensible legislative framework, a clear delineation of the roles of the union and member states, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the draft constitutional treaty without expanding the EU's area of competence and the consolidation of the existing treaties in a coherent and comprehensible way.
It will be possible for the first time for the concerned citizen to see in one place – the opening parts of the draft – a clear description of the Union's values, objectives, powers and institutions. This is an important and welcome step forward. Article 2 of the draft treaty, for example, states that the European Union is founded on human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Article 3 confirms that the EU's aim is to promote peace, freedom, justice, sustainable development and full employment.
I am also pleased the Convention has taken a serious look at the important position that national Parliaments occupy in the democratic life of the Union. A range of measures has been proposed to enhance the role they play. The most significant of these measures involves oversight of the principle of subsidiarity – ensuring that things are done at the most appropriate level and only at Union level when that is the best approach. The Convention recommendations would enhance our own national scrutiny arrangements. When the Commission is thinking of bringing forward proposals in future, it will do so in the knowledge that it will be open to national Parliaments to challenge the proposals for failing to respect subsidiarity. If one third of Parliaments challenge them, they will have to be reconsidered. I hope the brake will not have to be applied too frequently, but its existence should help to ensure that proper thought is given before proposals are made.
At our meeting in Rome on 1 October to open the Intergovernmental Conference, the Heads of State or Government of the member and observer countries, including the Taoiseach, set out their broad negotiating stances. The Taoiseach made clear that Ireland will respect the outcome of the Convention as a good basis for our work. We do not wish to see all the work unravelled, but we have a number of key concerns. These include decision making in taxation matters and in the justice and home affairs area. There will be ongoing political discussion regarding the institutions before we reach a final agreement.
Ireland supports the further extension of qualified majority voting, in general, as well as co-decision by the European Parliament. As the Union becomes larger, the risk of deadlock becomes correspondingly great. We have already benefited from efficient QMV decision making in areas such as the internal market and agriculture. Similarly, the greater involvement of MEPs as directly elected public representatives is also appropriate. It is well known, however, that we believe unanimity should remain in a very small number of areas. One of these is taxation, which is particularly central to the relationship between citizens and their own Governments. I am glad the Convention draft retains the need for unanimous decisions in nearly all areas of taxation. The Government will continue to oppose any departure from this principle and it will want to see a watertight final text.
The Convention has made important advances in recommending enhanced European action against serious cross-border crime. Deputy John Bruton, as chairman of the relevant working group, played a major part in this regard. It is important, however, that the new arrangements do not affect the deeply rooted traditions and practices of member states or the constitutional rights of their people. We will seek to ensure that this is guaranteed.
Security and defence policy is another priority area. The Government would like the European Union to play a greater role for good on the international stage in a way that respects the values of member states. We can welcome many aspects of the Convention proposals. The appointment of a Union Minister for foreign affairs will bring greater coherence and visibility to the EU's external action. The objectives that will shape the EU's external action include, at our suggestion, support for human rights, conflict prevention, sustainable development and the UN Charter. The EU is making an increasing contribution in support of international peace and security. It has undertaken missions this year under the ESDP in the western Balkans and central Africa. Kofi Annan has acknowledged that this growing capability for conflict prevention and crisis management is fully consistent with support for the United Nations.
The Convention made a number of proposals in the security and defence area. Ireland's view is that the proposals, particularly those in respect of structured co-operation and common defence, require further consideration by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government's approach is that new arrangements in this area should be inclusive and accountable to all member states. It is clear, however, that we will retain our right to make our own decisions on whether to participate in EU crisis management operations. I have made clear to the House that this will involve Government decision, Dáil approval and UN authorisation. The proposals drawn up by the Convention do not change the present situation as regards common defence. Our position is clear – while we will not stand in the way of others, Ireland could only participate in an EU common defence with the prior consent of the people in a referendum.
We are working at the Intergovernmental Conference to ensure that these core concerns are reflected in the final text of the constitutional treaty. We think that improvements can be made in respect of a range of other issues without radically changing the draft. We will take the opportunities that will arise to support such improvements without losing sight of the overall balance and coherence of the text. For example, ECOFIN Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, have been developing a consensus on changes to certain economic and budgetary articles. The Government will support a reference to God or Europe's Christian heritage in the preamble of the constitutional treaty, should an agreed wording be possible.
A great deal of time will be devoted to institutional issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government's view is that the overall balance achieved on institutional issues at the end of the Convention was a reasonable one. The text was greatly improved from the earliest drafts. It is an important priority that the individual interests of member states, particularly smaller member states, are protected. It is true that the current arrangements in terms of the Commission and the Council have suited us, but it is equally legitimate to question whether a system originally designed for an economic community of six is fully adequate for a much wider Union of 25 or more. It makes no sense to be dogmatic or confrontational in relation to these matters. The different and valid perspectives need to be reconciled.
Media coverage has tended to present the issues as being a question of big member states against smaller member states. I do not deny that the small countries tend to have certain interests and objectives in common in relation to the institutions – this is also true of the large countries – but the reality is that the great majority of issues do not break down in this way. There are significant differences among the smaller countries, as there are among the large. Some smaller countries were among the early advocates of a long-term President of the European Council, for example. We did not seek the creation of this post, but we now think it is defined in a way that protects the interests of the Commission and will ensure that its holder is more chairman than chief. We hope the post will, as its supporters argue, bring more coherence and a longer-term perspective to the work of the European Council. Similarly, a small number of member states believe that a restricted Commission is more likely to be collegiate and effective than one in which every member state is represented. The countervailing and increasingly supported argument – that a Commission drawn from the widest possible range of member states is more likely to be aware of and responsive to concerns on the ground and thus more legitimate – is also very strong.
The essence of the Convention compromise, that all member states should be represented at all times, but with a smaller number of voting Commissioners appointed on the basis of strictly equal rotation, is broadly acceptable to us as it builds on what was agreed at Nice. Aspects of the arrangement need to be teased out, however. For example, what would be the precise roles of the voting and non-voting Commissioners? On the other hand, many countries are arguing strongly for one voting Commissioner per member state. If this can be achieved on terms which protect the genuine equality of all Commissioners and all member states, as was agreed at Nice, we would very much welcome it. At the end of this process, we want an effective Commission which embraces genuine equality and serves and reflects the interests of all member states, big and small.
The question of how a qualified majority is defined is shaping up to be crucial at the Intergovernmental Conference. We recognise that the proposed new dual majority system would be simpler to understand and more efficient in terms of decision making. We would be quite happy to stick with the more complex Nice formula, but are prepared to accept the Convention's proposal. Our influence will always depend more on our capacity to network and on the effectiveness of our arguments than on any arithmetical formula. In practice, votes are rare.
Our overall approach, therefore, is pragmatic and reasonable. We do not want the Convention text to be dismantled, nor is it holy writ. Improvements and clarifications are possible. If alternative wordings attract more support that can be welcomed, but what is most needed is a sense of proportion. Each of us needs to rise from the table having secured key national interests but must also recall that the common European interest is also significant. We have a shared stake, not just in a successful outcome but in an outcome achieved in the right spirit. We do not need prolonged stand-offs and unnecessary acrimony. To date, the mood of the Intergovernmental Conference has been positive in that regard.
The discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference will be intense and concentrated over the next two months. It is the ambition of the Italian Presidency to complete the Intergovernmental Conference in December. We fully support Italy in this. We believe that if the Intergovernmental Conference focuses on the main concerns of the member states, the negotiations can be completed within the proposed timeframe. If, however, the conference runs into our Presidency, we are fully prepared to take on the task.
Each participant must be able to see its concerns reflected in the outcome. This will be important for the member states when they come to ratify the constitutional treaty that is likely to emerge. A significant number of states have indicated that they may hold referendums. Whatever the system of ratification, it is important that the constitutional treaty that emerges serves to unite the member states and the citizens across the European Union.
What matters most is that the final outcome is a constitutional treaty which equips the Union to be as successful and effective in the future as it has been for almost 50 years. We are on the right track. We are approaching this Intergovernmental Conference in the same way that we approach all our interaction with the European Union – positively and with a view to finding solutions. Our past experience will inform our future practice.