Vol. 574 No. 2
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference on a new EU treaty in Rome on 4 October 2003; if he will summarise the position adopted by Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21836/03]
2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with other EU leaders on the margins of the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference in Rome on 4 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21837/03]
3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has been invited to the next G8 Summit to be held in the United States in 2004. [22000/03]
4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the opening session of the Intergovernmental Conference to consider the proposed new EU Constitutional Treaty. [22156/03]
5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent summit of European Union Heads of Government in Rome; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22885/03]
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the prime minister of Bahrain on 3 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22886/03]
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the October 2003 EU Summit in Rome; the issues discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22953/03]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any bilateral meetings held on the fringe of the Rome Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22954/03]
9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 17 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23827/03]
10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings on the margins of the European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23828/03]
11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if a meeting of the European Council will be held in Ireland during the forthcoming EU Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23830/03]
12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU summit in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003. [23908/03]
13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he had with other EU leaders on the margins of the EU summit in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23909/03]
14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the October 2003 EU Brussels Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24763/03]
15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the bilateral discussions he had on the fringe of the October 2003 EU Brussels Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24764/03]
16 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the key tasks of Ireland's EU Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24767/03]
17 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the European Commission on 22 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24773/03]
18 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24779/03]
19 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his bilateral meetings during his attendance at the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24780/03]
20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on preparations for Ireland's assuming the Presidency of the European Union in January 2004. [24873/03]
21 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his priorities for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union. [24874/03]
22 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance in Rome on 4 October 2003 at the Intergovernmental Conference on a new EU Treaty. [24887/03]
23 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meetings he attended on the margins of the Intergovernmental Conference in Rome on 4 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24888/03]
24 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the summit of EU leaders in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003. [24991/03]
25 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with other EU leaders on the margins of the summit in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24992/03]
26 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 22 October 2003 with the President of the EU Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi. [25112/03]
27 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin with the EU Commission President, Mr. Prodi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25273/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos.1 to 27, inclusive, together.
I met with the Prime Minister of Bahrain, Shaikh Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa, at a working lunch in Government Buildings on Friday, 3 October 2003. Our discussions covered a broad range of issues including bilateral trade relations between our two countries, the Middle East peace process, EU Gulf Co-operation Council relations and Iraq. The discussions were mutually informative and helpful. During the prime minister's two-day visit to Ireland, he also met with President McAleese, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, and the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan and Bahrain's deputy prime minister, signed an air transport agreement, strengthening the links between our two countries.
On 4 October, I attended the meeting of Heads of State or Government in Rome to formally launch the Intergovernmental Conference. At that meeting, I made it clear to my colleagues that the draft treaty prepared by the Convention offered a good basis for the work of the Intergovermental Conference. I also expressed my strong support for the Italian Presidency in its efforts to steer the Intergovernmental Conference to a successful and early conclusion.
Ireland has a number of key concerns which I outlined at the meeting. On taxation, we strongly believe that unanimity should continue to apply, as in the present treaties. Tax decisions are fundamental to the relationship between citizens and their elected national governments.
On Justice and Home Affairs, we want to ensure that the distinctive legal traditions of member states are fully respected, above all in the area of criminal procedure. It is also important that the Intergovernmental Conference has a thorough discussion of security and defence issues. These issues are sensitive and important and were not considered in enough detail by the Convention. Only when there is a shared understanding among all the 25 member states of what they entail can proper consideration be given to their place in the draft treaty. There are other matters on which we are making a contribution as they arise.
Following the meeting of Heads of State or Government, I attended a lunch hosted by the Italian President, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi. While in Rome, I had the opportunity to discuss the ongoing political situation in Northern Ireland with Prime Minister Blair on the margins of the summit.
Later that day, I met the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende. This meeting was part of a series of bilateral contacts with my counterparts in advance of Ireland's Presidency next year. Our discussions focused on a range of European and international issues of mutual concern. We also had a very useful discussion on Presidency issues, and in particular on co-operation between the Irish and the Dutch Presidencies next year.
On 16 and 17 October, I attended the European Council meeting in Brussels. I was accompanied by my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Roche.
The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and, as Deputies are aware, on Thursday, 23 October, the earliest opportunity following the meeting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on my behalf, made a comprehensive statement on the outcome of the Council. I do not, therefore, propose to go into too much detail again today.
In brief, the European Council allowed the Heads of State or Government of the European Union to take stock of developments in the Intergovernmental Conference; review trends in the European economy and appoint a new Governor of the European Central Bank; take steps to ensure that our borders are not exploited by traffickers; and review a range of external relations issues. The meeting was a success and I am satisfied that the groundwork being laid by the Italian Presidency, will enable us to further advance the agenda of the European Union during our Presidency in the first half of next year.
In terms of my bilateral contacts on the margins of the European Council, I once again had the opportunity to meet with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to discuss the latest political developments in Northern Ireland. Also as part of the ongoing series of Pre-Presidency bilateral contacts with my counterparts, I met with Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg. Our discussions covered a range of issues including the Irish Presidency and the Lisbon Agenda.
I met with the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, in Government Buildings on 22 October. I took the opportunity to brief the President on the current state of Ireland's Presidency preparations. We had a very useful exchange of views on the Lisbon Agenda, which will be a major priority for us during our Presidency, and we also touched on a range of other issues in the European context, including future financial perspectives and the Intergovernmental Conference.
In relation to the location of the European Council meetings scheduled during Ireland's Presidency, it was agreed at Nice that once the European Union included more than 18 member states, all future European Councils would be held in Brussels. The Italian Presidency is holding its European Council meetings in Brussels and, as the first country to preside over the newly enlarged Union, we will do likewise. I have, however, invited the other Heads of State or Government to Dublin for a ceremonial event to celebrate enlargement on 1 May 2004.
If the Italian Presidency manages, as we hope, to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations, the key priorities of the Presidency agenda will be to ensure a successful transition from a Union of 15 to one of 25, including the effective and efficient conduct of the business of the enlarged Union and to carry forward the enlargement process more generally; to give additional impetus to the 10-year reform goal set out at Lisbon in March 2000 – the primary forum for discussion of the Lisbon Agenda is the Spring European Council; to take forward commitments in the Justice and Home Affairs area by focusing on the delivery of agreed commitments in terms of the requirements under the Amsterdam Treaty which remain outstanding and the broader Tampere programme; and in the external relations arena, to continue and deepen dialogue in the search for mutual solutions to the many difficult issues confronting us on the world stage.
In my capacity as President of the European Council, I have been invited by President Bush to attend the G8 Summit in Georgia in the United States next May. The agenda for the summit is in the process of development.
Does the Taoiseach expect the Intergovernmental Conference to conclude before the Irish Presidency? With specific regard to the reference he made to tax harmonisation, is he satisfied that the Irish position will prevail? Do I get the impression that the British Government is moderating its position on this critical issue?
On the first question, I just do not know. The Italians are making a determined effort to progress the work on the Intergovernmental Conference. There was a two-day meeting of foreign affairs ministers on Monday and Tuesday of this week. It made progress, but it is slow. I am meeting Silvio Berlusconi tonight for two hours. At least I will get an overview of how he sees the various parts falling into place. By that I mean the ECOFIN Council has taken forward its work and made a presentation to the Italians as to what it believes should be in the Intergovernmental Conference. Not exactly the same but a similar exercise is entailed in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, which has been coming forward. Then there is the overall issue across a range of areas. Throughout a number of meetings on Europe, people have been coming to Mr. Berlusconi, who has been trying to make that assessment. I will be in a better position tonight to find out what he believes.
The plan, as of now, is that the bilateral meetings with foreign affairs ministers will continue. They are now on a daily and weekend basis. On 28 and 29 November, a little over a fortnight from now, there will be a final meeting of that process to see where they are at. That will still be two weeks before the Council. There is a view that the Italians – and I would be surprised if this is not the case – will not conclude it, but at least it will be well advanced. They will probably do a composite constitutional treaty at that stage and then bring it to the summit meeting. Then it is a question of whether the summit will attempt to finalise it or not.
Deputy Rabbitte will recall that the French endeavoured to make that same arrangement at Nice. Nice did reach a conclusion, but it was difficult and rancorous. I am not too sure of the best way of doing things, but perhaps there is not an alternative. That meeting went on for 96 hours, more or less non-stop, which certainly was not a good idea. There was very little time for a break. I am not sure whether that is the Italian agenda, but I should have a better assessment tonight.
On the second issue, I do not think the British have switched their position. I know there was a report some weeks ago that Chancellor Gordon Brown had changed his position, but he has made strong statements on a number of occasions since. We were told that the report was a misrepresentation and that the British position is extremely strong. Not many other countries share our position. There are a few. The Swedes take a line similar to Ireland's, but not as strong. I had the experience at Nice that when it came to the crunch it was ourselves and the British. Luxembourg takes it from a different perspective.
On my tour in recent months I noted that a number of countries, especially accession countries, take a strong position and believe that taxation should be dealt with only by unanimity. Many of them have changed their systems in recent years or are restructuring their economies and do not want to see a change in the position. As I forecast in the Dáil a few weeks ago, this will once again be a fight because those countries that do not share our view are very determined on this, as they were on the previous occasion and have been since Maastricht. They have not changed their position. Even in countries where the Prime Minister has changed – and that has been in many countries – the system has not changed. The same line has been raised since I was Minister for Finance ten years ago.
It goes without saying that the implications for our industrial strategy of a change in this area in the medium-term would be serious. Will the Taoiseach list the principal issues on which the Government has concerns in respect of the draft constitution arising from the Convention?
Taxation is one issue and it has been discussed. In the area of justice and home affairs a number of issues arise because our legal system is different. It is, by and large, the same as that in Cyprus, Malta and the UK. It is different from the other European countries, especially in terms of criminal law. We have difficulties in many justice and home affairs areas. As I stated earlier, these discussions are ongoing. The Justice and Home Affairs Ministers do not have the same united position as ECOFIN but are trying to make a presentation on this issue.
On institutional issues, we have an open mind as the discussions continue provided that there is equality of treatment for member states. There are many arguments and debates about the type of institutional change that could happen. I was happy with the Nice treaty and am also happy with the provisions of the Convention provided there are no inbuilt changes to make either a two-tier Commission or to move away from equality of treatment.
I fear that, if the large countries move on the issue of one commissioner per member state, they will then argue for a return to their having two commissioners each. There is a real fear of that. I have endeavoured to explain to smaller countries that it is not in their interest to support this position because the argument in Nice was about obtaining equity of treatment. I think they understand the argument but many of them, especially the newer accession countries, see having their own commissioner as being more important.
I do not see it that way. While I believe having a commissioner is achievable and that France, Germany and other countries would be happy enough to achieve it, they would quickly try to arrange a return to having a small central group of which the large countries would be part and the other countries would have rotatating membership but without equality of treatment. We successfully fought that in discussions on the Nice treaty and in the Convention, but it is a fight and a considerable one that is still to happen.
Even though it was not our proposal, the Presidency of the European Council is something with which we are broadly happy. Some issues around it have still to be worked out but they are only details.
The same is true of the Union Foreign Minister. While I do not have a difficulty with the principle, I do not see the sense in the Union Foreign Minister chairing and having responsibility for the General Affairs Council because he is answerable to it. We believe that a member state should continue to do that. This makes more sense for the simple reason that to have the Union Foreign Minister chairing the committee to which he is answerable does not seem to be an accountable way of operating. There is support for our position but we are in the minority. The larger countries do not see a difficulty with the proposal. I have my own suspicions, which I will not air, on why that is the position. I do not agree with the stance because it is not a logical way of conducting business.
These are the central issues. There are many other detailed issues on which we are involved in discussions but I do not think they will be major. The major issues will concern matters such as taxation and justice and home affairs which is increasingly becoming a significant issue. Five years ago justice and home affairs issues did not take up half an hour of a meeting, of which the Deputy will be aware from his group. They are increasingly taking up a large part of the agenda and will take up an enormous part of our Presidency because of the completion of Amsterdam and Tampere and because they form a significant part of the charter. These are the main important issues that remain outstanding.
On a day when we discuss the deployment of Irish troops on a peace enforcement mission in Liberia, does the Taoiseach not agree that it is farcical that Ireland cannot participate in the ongoing EU-sponsored mission in Macedonia? Does he have a view on that?
Is the Taoiseach in a position to clear up the confusion that exists about the European Union's policy in regard to the provision of central crash barriers on motorways? Is it the position that the Commission believes that such barriers are right and that they provide the best degree of safety but that this advice is being ignored by the National Roads Authority?
Can the Taoiseach confirm that Irish officials are concerned about Ireland not being able to play its full part in the new EU border agency which was approved yesterday? Will he comment on the implications of this for Ireland? The Taoiseach will be aware that Ireland has not participated in the Schengen agreement of a number of years ago because Britain did not join it as it has implications in terms of passport controls at the Border.
There has been some relaxation on the Schengen agreement. As the British have moved on this position, we have moved as well for the obvious reason and that will continue. The British position is moving on that and, as they move for the obvious and useful reason, we will do the same.
I do not know what is the case in regard to the crash barriers issue. I do not wish to give the Deputy an answer that will mislead him. I am not aware of having been briefed on the European position. The NRA installed a crash barrier on the new motorway that opened in the Glen of the Downs which, in its view, is the one we should use.
On the issue of Liberia and the decision to send troops there in contrast to Macedonia, it was hoped that we would be involved and participate in Macedonia. All these issues have to be examined by the Attorney General because of the constitutional position and the triple lock. His interpretation was that the previous UN mandate was not the same as the subsequent one and he could not state that it was a UN-mandated mission. Had it been, we would have been able to involve ourselves in it. It was unfortunate, as that was a borderline case. However, that is our constitutional position.
I admit that the Defence Act is old and, as the UN looks increasingly to the regions, in this case Europe, to take autonomy for missions and the forces involved in them, this issue will arise more often. This means that, in some cases, we will have to examine the Defence Act, but we must be clear in each case. That would not create an argument with those who have been opposed to the measure. The UN made the decision beforehand and adopted a very clear position. It would have asked us, as Kofi Annan has in the case of Liberia. As the UN asked the EU and the EU asked us, it is a bit much to say we were not asked by the UN. Until we rectify that, we cannot change the position. We will not break away from the triple lock as to do so would open the entire debate again.
Does the Taoiseach agree it was careless to fail to refer the EU proposal to fund human embryo research to the Joint Committee on European Affairs as is required by law? Will the Taoiseach ensure this does not happen again? Will the Taoiseach comment on the likely Government response when the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment attends the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 27 November, given that two Oireachtas committees agreed that Ireland should not support the funding of embryo research on the basis that that sufficient scientific advances are being made in stem cell research from umbilical chords and adult stem cells?
Given daily events in Iraq and the fact that the complex relations between Palestine and Israel is central to the severe difficulties of the region, will the Taoiseach, as incoming President of the European Council, make an issue of this? If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were resolved somewhat, it would have a very beneficial effect on the entire middle eastern region. Given the serious consequences of events in Iraq, the PalestinianIsraeli conflict should be a priority for the Presidency. Will the Taoiseach comment on that?
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will attend the joint committee in the next week or so before the sixth framework directive is discussed. We do not know what the Commission will put forward. There has been a great deal of lobbying and discussion on the matter and the EU Parliament has put forward more liberal views than did the Commission. The provisions of the sixth framework were already law. At issue was the moratorium which was intended to last until the end of this year. We supported the group which wanted to see tighter controls and procedures. If the moratorium runs out at the end of the year, the question is whether another will be introduced or a more liberal position will be adopted. We will just have to await the outcome of the discussions.
Our basic position all year has been that nothing in this affected the Irish stance. We were not involved in this. It was not compatible with anything we would or could do. We were not in the business of coercing others or directing what they did. We held that this kind of research could not happen in our country and while we protected that position, we did not adopt the authoritarian view that we should tell others what to do. We are concerned about what will happen at the end of the year and about the regulations that will be laid down, and that continues to be the position.
On Iraq, Deputy Kenny is correct. The poisonous element in all the relationships in the region emanates from the Israeli-Palestinian issue. After the Iraqi war commenced there was a great drive by the European Union and many other parts of the world to get the Americans to take an active involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, to be fair, they have. I am on record as having said they should have done so earlier. The road map has been put in place although not much headway has been made and the situation continues to be poisonous. Ireland will continue to be involved. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will visit Israel shortly. He has already been in Palestine. We have made our position clear. We went to President Arafat despite the fact that it incurred wrath from certain quarters, but it had to be done to gain support. It does no good to blame any one faction. One should blame them all, which is fairer. None of the parties is blameless in this, but they definitely need the help of the USA and the European Union.
The issue will continue to be a priority of our external relations agenda during the Presidency. Even in terms of the Troika this year it has continued to be a priority. Many meetings have centred around it. I met all the Arab ambassadors recently and had long discussions about their concerns and perspectives and ways in which we can help. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have met Mr. Javier Solana and we will continue to be actively engaged. Regardless of the difficulty, we must try to keep the road map in play. While the positions that have been adopted by both sides do not help, there is not much point telling the Palestinians they must resolve all the security issues and do everything asked of them by Mr. Sharon before progress can be made. It is simply not possible for the Palestinians to achieve that, though they must, of course, make an effort. We will continue to engage in this right up to Christmas and into our Presidency. I am well briefed by the EU and the UN and I am aware of the positions of America and others. I do not wish to give the impression that much progress is being made because, frankly, that is not the case.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has told the House that the Italian Presidency is drawing together the views of member states on Article 40.7. This article provides for the establishment of mutual defence co-operation within the EU framework, in co-operation with NATO and between individual member states, once the constitution has been adopted and before the EU Council decides to establish EU mutual defence. Has the Irish position on this been developed and made known? Will it be discussed with this House before the Italians are given the information? Can the Taoiseach offer a view at this point as to what is our position?
Is it not the case that the article in question makes nonsense of the constitutional amendment passed in the second referendum on the Nice treaty? The amendment provides that if the EU Council decides to establish a common defence, a referendum will have to take place here. As Article 40.7 puts into effect such an arrangement before the Council makes a decision, is there a constitutional and legal difficulty for the Government? Will the Taoiseach outline the Government position, if one exists, so that Members know what it is before Mr. Berlusconi?
The EURATOM Treaty was removed from the body of the text of the draft constitution, but it is treated as a special case by way of Protocol. Has the Government asked for changes in this regard given the fact that the EURATOM Treaty is the only remaining sector specific treaty in the EU? We need to know what changes the Government has sought in light of the fact that the treaty continues to treat nuclear energy preferentially to the disadvantage of other energy sectors, including the renewable energy sector. What changes is the Government looking for in this regard and is it considering adding any other Irish protocols or EU treaties to the European constitution?
Previous Irish protocols, such as that on abortion, will be re-enacted into the treaty on the constitution.
In regard to EURATOM, the Deputy will recall from discussions I had with his colleague, Deputy Gormley, that we raised and pressed these issues because of its nuclear aspect. There has been discussion on the matter in the Convention on the Future of Europe, with which the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been dealing. However, I have not had a chance to talk to him about it since last Monday or Tuesday. While it is outside of the Convention, the Deputy is correct that it is an issue which must be dealt with although I do not know how precisely it will be done. Together with Deputy Gormley and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, we have been making the case all year that the issue cannot be left aside – we must get a fixed position or some knowledge of it. However, I am not up to date with the position in regard to the discussion and I suggest the Deputy tables a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the matter.
The Taoiseach can come back to me on it.
The Deputy's first point concerned commitments to enhancing military capabilities to ensure that the EU can effectively undertake humanitarian and crisis management operations. As it stands, the EU's operational capability is constrained by certain shortfalls which must be rectified. Provision for an possible EU common defence is already contained in the current EU treaty, which is for decision by the EU Council, acting unanimously among member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Ireland's position on such an arrangement is that, in accordance with the amendment to the Constitution last October, we cannot join an EU common defence without the approval of the people in a referendum.
Will the Government publish a White Paper outlining in detail the position on the draft constitution? There is an explanatory document but we do not have a point-by-point or clause-by-clause position paper from the Government outlining where it is at. There are massive gaps in our knowledge on the Government's position. The Taoiseach has already alluded to a change in the Government's prepared position in regard to the proposal for an EU commissioner for each state, which the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, had been pursuing.
Does the Taoiseach agree with and accept Article 1.40. 2º, which states that the EU defence policy shall not prejudice NATO states and shall be compatible with the NATO? Does the Government accept this even though the special rights and responsibilities of militarily neutral states are not explicitly acknowledged in the treaty as it stands?
As the Deputy stated, we have already published an explanatory document. When the treaty is completed, the Department of Foreign Affairs will publish a detailed document, as has been the case. In regard to EU commissioners, I am open to a number of suggestions, including the Nice and Convention arrangements and other alterations which have been put forward by other states and I am satisfied with them provided there is equality of treatment. Our issue is not so much what the arrangement is but rather that each country is dealt with equally and there is equality of treatment between member states. That is our key position.
Neutral states are covered by clauses in existing treaties which will be re-enacted. There is no doubt about our position in regard to our non-membership of, and non-involvement with, NATO, therefore, there is no need for further tightening up. The debate in regard to the solidarity clause has been raised but the idea that, in the event of an emergency, the EU would be in a position to mobilise its assets and call on its members – civilian and military – is in keeping with our own traditions of crisis management as is the case in regard to the Petersberg Tasks. All our partners – Austria, Finland and Sweden – support that solidarity clause. We are not under threat in other areas but we will keep the matter under review, even though our position on NATO is totally understood.
On the eve of Ireland's EU Presidency, will the Taoiseach indicate the number of legal actions which have been, or are in the course of being, initiated against Ireland by the European Commission for non-compliance with the implementation of EU regulations and directives? Is that the reason a list of barristers and legal personnel was recently circulated to all Departments with the intention that they be engaged in order to expedite compliance? Can the Taoiseach guarantee that, on the assumption of his Presidency of the EU, Ireland will be in compliance with all EU directives and regulations in order that, as the incoming President and Taoiseach, he will not be sued by the Commission in respect of legal obligations which we have to fulfil?
The Deputy is correct. We circulated the list in order to get Departments up to date because of their case workload. For the past year, I have been trying to get all the directives as up to date as possible. We are narrowing the list each month and are now in a healthy position. There will always be on-going cases and legal actions in regard to breaches of one sort or another, mainly in regard to competition. However, we must keep them to a minimum and ensure we have enacted directives and instruments into our own legislation. We are endeavouring to do this and make sure the list is as short as possible.
I wish the Taoiseach well in the specific matter of tax harmonisation because of its importance to this country.
Has the Government made any written submissions in respect of the Intergovernmental Conference and, if so, can they be laid before the House because, as most Deputies have remarked, we would like to see the detail? I wish to draw the Taoiseach's attention to an article in today's edition of The Irish Times which outlines concerns expressed by Sweden and Finland in regard to the specific proposal to allow a group of countries to come closer together in respect of defence matters. Sweden and Finland believe this could lead to tensions in Europe and they have expressed their position at greater length in a recent European newspaper article.
I thank the Deputy for his support on tax harmonisation because it has once again become a major issue. We have worked with Sweden and Finland and our position is the same. We do not agree with a group of countries trying to go ahead on their own. We have had that twice this year and I think it is to this the article refers. Towards the end of April, 28 April I think, France, Germany and Belgium came together and issued their position on defence, again trying to move ahead on their own. More recently France, Germany and Britain had discussions. These did not go very far because of the transatlantic relationship and Britain's position with NATO.
For different reasons, we believe – and this is the view held by Austria, Finland and Sweden also – that on any changes, whether people participate, opt in or not, all the discussions should be transparent, there should be full engagement and the issue should be dealt with at the full European Council. They should not be side deals. Whether people opt in or participate is a matter for them under their own constitutional arrangements as set down in the EU treaty.
One of my concerns for the future is that when 28 countries are involved – from 1 May 2004 Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey will attend many of the meetings – increasingly as the years pass three or four countries will have their own meeting or summit and take a line because they are frustrated with others. There is great fear of that happening with a group of 28. With the group of 15 it was just about tenable and with nine or 12 it was far easier. The bigger it gets the more difficult it is. The Deputy knows as well as I do the tendency of some countries to become frustrated with the process of having to go through the group arrangement. We are being strong on our position on defence. It is not perhaps about whether we can involve ourselves in these small groups but that they should not go off and make arrangements outside the European Council.
One argument in favour of a President of the Council and an EU foreign affairs minister is that at least if we had someone permanently dealing with the issue he or she could drive the agenda and it would be their job in the future. It would be their job every day rather than having a rotating EU Presidency where one just puts in as much time as one can. There would be somebody there to control the European Council and keep it in line. If we do not have that position we will get three or four countries going off here, there and everywhere. This is a big challenge for the future.
One of the issues of the Irish EU Presidency, which will not be resolved during that period, will be south-eastern Europe, the Balkan countries and Croatia. The determination of Croatia's candidacy comes during our EU Presidency, as will what is to happen with Bosnia Herzegovina and with some of the other countries.
The new friendship agreement which was agreed in Thessaloniki in June starts during our EU Presidency and will continue for some years. Recently I said it would go on for the decade but it will continue for some years and concerns the discussions which will open with the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, totalitarian states. It will discuss what is happening in the territories to the south, Algeria, Libya and Israel. It concerns where this will end and how we keep control. I have big concerns which I have voiced in discussions and will voice again during our EU Presidency. The process is starting and it is a matter of how we keep control and regulate it. It is not something for the Irish EU Presidency now but it has started and will remain a big issue over the next decade, particularly for a small country.
