Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007

Vol. 637 No. 3

European Council: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council on 21 and 22 June and into the morning of 23 June, in Brussels. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche.

The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The highlight of the Council was the agreement of a detailed mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference, IGC. This represents a very considerable achievement for the European Union. It shows our ability to function coherently and effectively with 27 members to resolve issues that have troubled the Union for a number of years. The new treaty will provide the institutional structures and operating principles to deliver for the people of Europe in the decades ahead.

Before going into detail, I want to express my appreciation for the tireless work of the German Presidency and, above all, the President of the European Council, Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her commitment, patience, fairness and her enduring determination to achieve agreement paid dividends in the end. At a number of moments during the negotiations, it seemed that we would not agree unanimously on the outcome. The Presidency, however, was able to secure agreement on a mandate acceptable to all 27 member states.

The agreement of the IGC mandate was by no means the only success of the Council. We first convened in the form of the Council in the composition of Heads of State and Government, joined by the president of the European Central Bank, to discuss and agree on the accession of Malta and Cyprus to the euro. I am very pleased that we will share a currency with Cyprus and Malta from January next, bringing the number of countries within the euro area to 15. This will benefit the tens of thousands of Irish people who travel to these countries each year.

The Council adopted a set of conclusions which deals with the Union's ongoing agenda, including in the area of freedom, security and justice, notably in relation to migration and strengthening cross-border police co-operation. In the social, economic and environmental area the Council underlined the need for further progress on the Internal Market and looked forward to the Commission's Single Market review to be published in the autumn. Ireland will continue to support a deepening of the Single Market as this review progresses.

Significantly, the Council welcomed the outcome of the G8 summit in Germany on combating climate change, in particular, the commitment to the UN process and reducing emissions by at least 50% by 2050. This is an area where, following decisions taken at the spring European Council, the European Union is providing real global leadership and must continue to do so.

The Council also adopted conclusions in the external relations area, including on neighbourhood policy and relations with Africa. I am pleased to report that the Council conclusions welcome the recent engagement between the President of the Commission and the new Northern Ireland Executive and underline the European Union's long-standing and continuing support for the peace process.

Going into the European Council, the prospects for success did not look promising and there were a number of difficult issues to be resolved. Ireland's approach to the negotiations was to preserve as much as possible of what was agreed in 2004. We did not want a new negotiation to be launched which might take years to complete and raise issues which would have been very difficult to resolve. Our main concern was to ensure any changes required to accommodate the concerns of other member states would not undermine the balance and substance of the constitutional treaty negotiated in 2004. Finally, after one or two moments where the atmosphere became very difficult, the Council reached agreement on the mandate which is contained in the conclusions laid before the House.

The mandate for the IGC provides for the negotiation of a reform treaty which will differ in form from the European constitutional treaty. At the same time, perhaps 90% of the substantive package remains unaltered from the European constitutional treaty. I will report on the key changes for which the mandate provides.

The constitutional phrasing and symbolism which featured in the 2004 treaty are no longer being pursued. Similarly, the treaty will no longer be a single, consolidated text but a traditional amending treaty, that is, a set of amendments to existing treaties.

In relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Government supported throughout, we would have been happy to have it retained in the reform treaty. Unfortunately, it was not possible to secure a consensus on this. It will, however, have the same legal value as the treaties and apply to all areas embraced by the European Union and where the member states apply European Union law. At the behest of the United Kingdom, a protocol on the charter was introduced at a very late stage in the negotiations relating to its scope in UK law. Although we have no difficulty with the scope and application of the charter, I nevertheless considered it necessary and prudent to seek an opportunity to study the implications of the protocol. While we will continue to examine the technical implications, we are satisfied that the text of the charter and the wording to be included in the treaty appear to adequately define the scope and application of the charter. We did not seek an "opt-out" from the charter, nor did we seek inclusion of a footnote in the draft mandate recording any reservations. We simply indicated that we wished to study the implications of the UK position.

The title of "Foreign Minister" contained in the constitutional treaty has been changed to "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy". The new system of double majority voting in co-decision matters, where 55% of the countries representing 65% of the citizens must approve a measure, will not now come into force until 2014 and if any member state so wishes, it can be further deferred until 2017. The role of national parliaments has been considerably increased, with the so-called "yellow card" procedure much strengthened. The scope of the treaty's provisions on the environment is to be broadened with the inclusion of a specific reference to combating climate change, a measure I had specifically sought.

With regard to police and criminal judicial co-operation, it was decided to speed up the operation of the emergency brake procedure. This allows a member state to refer a criminal law proposal to the European Council if it is concerned that the fundamental principles of its legal system would be adversely affected. Alongside this are measures to facilitate enhanced co-operation where general consensus cannot be achieved.

It was also agreed that the UK should not be automatically bound by police or criminal co-operation proposals and that it would be entitled to exercise an opt-out in regard to them. Given the similarities between our legal system and that of the UK, Ireland has been given the option of following the UK's lead in the criminal law and police co-operation area. We will examine this issue carefully in the coming period. We will need to weigh up our general reluctance to take opt-outs against the issues arising from our being part of a JHA co-operation if the UK is not. The issue is under active consideration and a decision will be made in due course.

There has been much comment on whether the importance of competition within the Internal Market has been diminished. Competition remains a critical feature of a properly functioning Internal Market. While language relating to the Union's objectives has been altered somewhat, the robust and substantive clauses on competition within the treaties remain unaltered. They have served us well for many years and will continue to do so.

There will also be a protocol on public services which gives greater recognition to the variation of circumstances which can affect the delivery of public services, including geographical, social and cultural situations. The provision on primacy of European law in the constitutional treaty will be replaced by a declaration referring to European jurisprudence in this area which, as the House knows, has been based for more than four decades on the primacy of EU law.

Agreement by the European Council on the mandate for the IGC follows two years of uncertainty over the future treaty basis of the Union. This could not have continued for much longer without inflicting damage on the Union's credibility. In preparing the Council's work, the German Presidency wisely waited until after the spring European Council and the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome before increasing the pace of negotiations. There were intensive contacts at all levels, including, as Members heard earlier today, when I travelled to Berlin to meet Chancellor Merkel a couple of weeks ahead of the Council.

In the build-up to the Council, we acknowledged the reality that the constitution in its 2004 form was no longer acceptable to a number of member states. We recognised the difficulties faced by some partners following the "no" votes in 2005. Like others, we wanted to be helpful to those who had encountered ratification problems. At the same time, we made it plain that we could not abandon the thrust of a draft treaty that was agreed in 2004 after long, complex and highly inclusive negotiations and which was needed to enable the enlarged Union to operate successfully in the interests of our citizens. We fully achieved that objective last week.

The mandate we agreed at the weekend is a good compromise between those who had difficulties in ratifying the constitutional treaty and those, like Ireland, who wanted to retain its substance. Its altered appearance is a small price to pay for unanimous agreement on how the Union will carry forward its work for many years.

For Ireland, the mandate represents the achievement of all our goals in the negotiations: the substance of the constitutional treaty is preserved, combating climate change will now be given a treaty basis, our position on justice and home affairs is maintained and we can determine the best course for Ireland in regard to the JHA opt-in option during the IGC.

For the Union, the mandate reflects the main tenets of the constitutional treaty. These include provision for a more efficient and effective enlarged Union, the introduction of a President of the European Council, the creation of more effective arrangements to manage the Union's increasingly important foreign policy, an enhanced role for national parliaments, ensuring that the composition of the Commission will be based on absolute equality between member states, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, setting out clearly the rights which must be respected in the implementation of the EU's business and ensuring that the social consequences are taken on board when assessing the likely impact of legislative proposals.

Ireland has benefited hugely from EU membership and continues to do so. As an advanced nation with an export-orientated economy we have a substantial stake in a stable and prosperous future for Europe and its neighbouring regions. This can best be secured with an EU which maintains a high level playing field for economic activity within Europe and which can advance Europe's values internationally. Ireland needs a Europe that works, whether that be dealing with international crime, addressing energy security, managing relations with Russia, negotiating with the World Trade Organisation, operating and regulating the Single Market or combating climate change. An effective EU is a vital national interest. The agreed mandate provides the basis for modernising our Union to take account of the way Europe's circumstances have changed in recent years. For that reason alone, the reform treaty will be good for Europe and for Ireland.

Deputy Seán Barrett

On a point of order, with respect to the Taoiseach, I wish to make a point. One of the problems I perceive with any European matter is that the language used in statements is language about which the ordinary person in the street does not have a clue. For example, the Taoiseach said the role of national parliaments has been considerably increased, with the so-called yellow card procedure much strengthened. Can anybody tell me what somebody listening to this on radio would take from that? We are using language here that people do not understand. We talk about JHA and options during the IGC. With respect, this is language that people do not understand and that is part of the difficulty.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Johnny Brady)

That is not a point of order, but a point of information. We will record it.

Deputy Enda Kenny

It is a relevant point of information. I wish to share time with Deputy Bernard Allen.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Enda Kenny

Three years ago, when Europe reached a historic agreement on the constitutional treaty, I recall Valéry Giscard d'Estaing saying to the negotiators: "This is what you need to do if you want people to build statues of you on horseback in the villages you all come from." Despite all the hope and confidence that might have been achieved, in the end the agreement and the statues in the villages had to wait. As a committed European and vice-president of the European People's Party, I am pleased and relieved by last week's moves to agreement and consensus which rescue us from the stagnation and divisiveness of the past two years. The Fine Gael Party strongly supports EU reform.

The period of reflection turned out to be more protracted and contentious than originally envisaged. Last week's agreement may have come late and with some difficulty, but it must be said that to conclude the period of reflection in such a positive way was a distinct achievement for the German Presidency, as mentioned by the Taoiseach. I agree, and I pay special and deserved tribute to Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her task was difficult, some said impossible, but in the face of huge pressure and a hardening of attitudes of some member states she led the discussions forcefully and with admirable skill.

This week the Financial Times compared the efforts to change the text to the description of Nabokov’s Pale Fire — “A labyrinth of dazzling complexity” and a prime example of “the literature of exhaustion”. At 4 a.m. this must have been true for the 27 negotiators and their retinues.

There is no doubt that membership of the European Union has been excellent for Ireland. We have gained huge benefits economically and infrastructurally, but now we need to move on to discussion about Europe in a way that goes beyond the traditional sell of pure economic opportunity, beyond the one-way benefit of what is in it for me. This time we need a real and informed debate on the necessity for the Union and what it really means for us to be Europeans. With another referendum on the way next year, I urge the Taoiseach to give the country the resources and facilities to have that debate in every county and every section of society. There is no room for complacency about the proposal for approval of the revised treaty.

This debate needs to be replicated across the Union. I was intrigued by one of the observations by the international relations commentator, Gideon Rachman, this week, which relates to the comment made by Deputy Seán Barrett, that while the constitution was all about transparency, when Europeans saw what Europe was doing, they were often horrified and hence the "no" vote on the constitution in France and the Netherlands. He wrote:

It was as if the manufacturer of tinned meat had suddenly decided it would be a good idea to put a large notice on the front of the tin stating: ‘this product contains re-constituted cows' udders!' How surprising and hurtful that sales should fall as a result.

In the context of language and the understanding of it, when we say we should understand what Europe is at and that Europeans should see what Europe is about, we should be able to explain the situation to people in a more relevant fashion. Entertaining and all as Rachman's interpretation may be, one must question whether there is an element of truth in it. In the new formula did we take away the vital transparency that was achieved in the constitutional treaty, reducing it instead to mere footnotes in tiny print? I noted the Taoiseach's statement during Question Time that he did not agree with the changes made to the original text. He said that he made no secret of the fact that he would prefer the original form. I hope that the Government will offer full and absolute support for this in the upcoming referendum. I hope too that the Green Party, which has voted against the European Union in all previous referenda, and argued against the European ideal whenever it had an opportunity, will see that its responsibility as part of the Government is to support Ireland's view that the European Union is good for this country which, by playing its part in the Union, can be a strong role model for other countries. If the party must consult with its membership I hope that the Green Ministers, Deputies John Gormley and Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, will be able to convince it that this is good for the country because complacency and divisiveness are not the way of the future for Ireland in the European Union.

I agree that the achievement was significant. No benefits will accrue to a divided or paralysed Europe or one that is so stricken with internal views that it cannot agree on the big picture. The member states depend on a Union that works together to bridge divisions through co-operation and an understanding of common goals and challenges. We supported the text of the European constitution and will strongly support this revised document and campaign actively for it throughout the country whenever the date of the referendum is agreed.

I note the Taoiseach's point about the Charter of Fundamental Rights with which he dealt this morning. I accept his view that he supports this fully and the reason he gave for his analysis of the British protocol which came in late at night.

As Prime Minister Blair leaves office today it is appropriate to say that while we have given him due credit for his persistent dedication to the issue of Northern Ireland, his attempt to put Britain at the heart of Europe did not feature in the end. I note that Mr. Blair is to be appointed an envoy to the Middle East on behalf of the Quartet.

The Basque separatist movement ETA, has called off its ceasefire. This is a complex situation and there is serious concern in Spain that it could result in a resumption of indiscriminate bombings. It appears that the Spanish Government is having difficulty in that regard. The situation there is more akin to that in Northern Ireland than that in the Middle East. Perhaps Mr. Blair, with the assistance and advice of the Taoiseach, could speak to the Spanish Government, if requested, about how this might be resolved.

It appears that the Spanish Prime Minister had some negotiations or dealings with ETA. This was a cause of considerable concern at the meeting of the European People's Party. I was able to cite the experience of the Irish Government in handling a difficult and sensitive situation to save lives, build bridges and put together an economy. I wish Prime Minister Blair well in his future career and also wish the incoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, every success in his endeavours.

Deputy Bernard Allen

The recent so-called period of reflection has allowed debate on European issues to slide considerably. After a period of stagnation that ran on far too long, the latest moves towards agreement and consensus within the Union are welcome.

Angela Merkel, in her role as President of the European Council, deserves much praise for this. She was faced with a difficult task to reinvigorate and revitalise the agreement of a treaty that had presented the European Union with its greatest challenge in many years. In the face of considerable pressure, and with some states adopting hard stances on various issues, she has led the discussions that have forged a new agreement.

No one benefits from a European Union that is paralysed. The member states of the European Union depend on a Union that works together. The new agreement sets a course for that type of European Union once again, but the agreement hammered out last week is only a beginning of the journey towards this end.

When presented to the people in referendum, the new European reform treaty will not be simply waved through. Without a doubt, people are now happy to question what benefit there is for them in Ireland's continued membership of a Union that has changed dramatically since we first joined more than 30 years ago. This is as it should be. For too long, this Government has expected people to simply be in favour of the European Union without explaining to them the real need for Ireland's continued membership of this co-operative group of European countries.

There is now even more need for the Government to avoid lecturing people about the benefits of Europe, as has happened in the past. Instead, it should, as the leader of Fine Gael suggested, listen to their concerns at county, city and parish level. There are concerns about the capacity of the Union to accommodate future enlargement, the impact enlargement has had on people's quality of life and job security and the drift of jobs from west to east. The Forum for Europe and the Government have a responsibility to listen to and address people's concerns on those issues at grass roots level. If they fail to do so, they will repeat the errors of the past. I see the newly appointed Minister for Europe in the House and his presence gives some hope that things will be different on the next occasion.

Fine Gael is very supportive of Ireland's membership of the Union, and is happy to debate this at any time and place. We are also supportive of the reforms that are needed to ensure we continue to get the most from the Union, for the people of Ireland and the peoples of Europe. This is one of the reasons we have pushed, most recently in our general election programme, for an end to the wasteful trek from Brussels to Strasbourg every month. This squanders money, is damaging to the environment, and undermines the ability of the European Union to speak with authority on the very issues that it should be championing.

However, for a party such as Fine Gael, which has a strong pro-European stance, the current Government composition must be of concern. The Green Party will not be in a position to signal whether it supports the text until it consults its members. If its members are opposed will we see a divided Government on the issue? What chance is there for this treaty being passed if the Government itself cannot agree on the issue?

With regard to the name of the treaty, Ireland is already a signatory to a number of different constitutions, that of the World Health Organisation, WHO, being an example. There has never been a question that our signatory status to these constitutions would undermine Bunreacht na hÉireann. That said, I am broadly supportive of the change in the name of the treaty, as this matter can now no longer be used to cloud the debate which will surround the agreement of the treaty. The necessary reforms to underpin the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Union are of more importance that the name of the treaty.

However, a serious issue, on which there is popular misunderstanding, is that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I hope the clarification given by the Taoiseach this morning that Ireland has not obtained a derogation will get through to the public. Otherwise it undermines one of the great selling points of the treaty and will mean the Government faces a much harder job convincing the public to support it.

While political debate has been centred around the treaty in recent years, the development of a Single Market is not getting the attention it deserves. There needs to be a strong message from the major political parties to the effect that a more efficient and effective European Union is in everybody's interest and that being an active member of the EU has benefited Ireland greatly. The Green Party has surprisingly remained uncommitted to the treaty, which is strange because the party had two weeks of talks with Fianna Fáil before forming a Government. It would appear that the Green Party had no agreement to back this treaty which its members knew was imminent. This will be an early pressure point for the Government and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. It may make for embarrassing ambiguity in the future for Ministers from the Green Party and for the Government.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

It may be unseemly to quote Bismarck in the context of a German Presidency of Europe, but he made one apposite comment when he remarked that laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made. We have not yet seen the law that will eventually result from last weekend's summit but, having seen just part of the process of its manufacture, even its greatest fans could not disagree with the reality that the blueprint for a new reform treaty is not a particularly pretty document.

The Labour Party supported the constitutional treaty and fully participated in the process that resulted in this single legal document. We believe in an EU governed by the rule of law. We remain convinced that, for a people to be able to claim ownership of such a complex political organisation like the EU, they must first understand it. After the referendum on the Nice treaty, it was acknowledged that our citizens were not fully abreast of the purpose and future intentions of the European Union and there was an increasing disconnect between the EU institutions and who they were meant to be working for, namely, the people of Europe. After 50 years of existence, the Union was at a crossroads.

One of the fundamental points agreed at the Finnish Council was the need to make Europe simpler. We all agreed that by providing clarity in our legal framework, we would begin to assuage people's concerns that the EU was a heaving Leviathan-like structure intent on gaining more and more control over national law.

Rather than a single document that people can understand, we are now confronted with a body that is governed by four separate treaties, comprising more than 1,000 articles that have never been consolidated but are full of amendments, substitutions and deletions, together with a forest of protocols, directives and regulations and a range of different ways of decision-making. The obvious advantages of setting out what the Union actually does through a list of competences are now buried in a legal text where the contents page needs an accompanying explanation guide. That is not just a pity from an aesthetic point of view, it also has practical ramifications. Most parties and individuals in the Dáil are pro-European. Most of us realise that means a Europe clearly relevant to its citizens and their concerns, which is a more open and accessible Europe. However, the truth is that a generation of eminent people who gathered on our behalf in Brussels have continued with an approach, language and terminology that does not aid the citizen to directly deal with the treaties themselves.

There are many benefits that still exist from the constitutional text. It seems that it was still possible to retain a great deal of what was achieved through this process. In terms of the institutional amendments, the additional powers conferred on the European Parliament, the new budgetary procedure and the new rotating presidency of the European Council will assist in a smoother running of the mechanisms within Brussels. The establishment of the EU as a single legal entity will open a new chapter in the Union's jurisprudence which will hopefully be of advantage to the legal recognition of the Union's work. While the new title for the EU Foreign Minister position is rather cumbersome, at least the powers and functions of the high representative have been retained, further bolstering the coherence of the Union in its key strategic role on the global political stage.

In addition, I welcome the further role that national parliaments will be able to play in the work of the Union and while EU legislation may not be the most interesting legal documents that come before this House, it is important that we, as Members, continue to develop our capacity to scrutinise European legislation. By doing so, subsidiarity will not merely be a principle annexed to these legal documents, but will be made an increasing reality, to the clear benefit of our country.

One of the greatest benefits from the constitutional project that has been retained is the clear list of competencies that the member state has sovereignty over and those that have been handed over to the Union, through previous treaties, for collective responsibility. This list, simply compiled, is a useful and essential tool to show to those cautious of the Union that the EU institutions have limits, which have been defined through agreement by all member states and which they cannot exceed.

However, one of the greatest disappointments and causes for concern is that people will not be able to find these important clarifications within an ever-expanding legal text. They are now buried within one of the two founding treaties, under the common provisions title. That fact is evidence of the reality that democratic development and accountability have long been the poor relations of the European project. We are all responsible for the fact that the European Union and its affairs remain remote and removed from its citizens. That was one of the good reasons for embarking not just on another round of institutional reforms to cope with an enlarged Union, but on a constitutional treaty-making exercise.

The constitutional treaty deserves our support as democrats. It would have given us a written EU constitution in a single text between two covers that all citizens could strive to understand, owe allegiance to and so claim to own.

What has now transpired is that that aspect of the process that made most sense has been ditched. It is not just flags, Beethoven, etc., that went out the window. The success of the last Irish Presidency was to hand over a draft text which, by comparison, was clear and lucid. That draft also has been ditched.

The draft constitution was admittedly long and detailed. It could not be otherwise if it is to set out a legal framework for close co-operation between 27 countries which wish to remain sovereign while pooling that sovereignty in certain clearly-defined areas, but its overall structure was simple enough. It set out the principles of the Union, prescribed limits for what it could do, detailed how its institutions were to work, laid down a charter of rights to govern Union legislation, and consolidated policies developed over 50 years.

The irony is that the referenda in France and the Netherlands showed a wide communications gap between leaders and their electorates on European issues. This was interpreted as a suspicion of Europe's political elite and their expansionist plans for an enhanced European agenda. The solution was to strip the new treaty of its constitutional aspects, not just flags and anthems, but even the notion of a single basic text. The citizens' need was a need to take stock, to seek to simplify, to consolidate and to establish rational basic structures and rules.

That is why one of the most important treaty-making tasks was the one undertaken by the Irish Presidency. It was the most basic but least exciting of tasks — the drawing up of a genuinely readable version of the existing constitution of Europe. The popular failure to grasp the European architecture is not due to any intellectual deficiency on the part of the people of Europe, nor is it simply lack of interest, but the opportunity to make Europe more readable, accessible and therefore more understood has been missed.

One particular issue that has come to light and attracted comment in the past couple of days, and which has been commented on during Question Time and subsequently by Deputy Kenny here today, relates to Ireland's position on the opt-out from the charter. The simple fact is that the charter comes into legal effect when member states are applying EU law. If we are members of this Union, then our Government should adhere to that law, just as we ask our citizens to do. The Taoiseach told us just now, as he did during Question Time, that he is in complete agreement with the charter but wants to know the implications of the British protocol for member states if interpreted by the courts. I do not understand how we will determine that before the court is seized of a tangible issue. The charter is a simple set of clear principles — rights that the Labour Party strongly supports and considers necessary for the application of European law. The public deserves to know where each party stands on an issue that removes an important aspect of the original treaty from the Irish people. The Taoiseach seems to say that all he has done is enter a caveat that allows him to raise issues at the convention.

The Labour Party continues to support the Charter of Fundamental Rights and believes it should be fully incorporated in the text of the new treaty. The opt-out of its provisions by the Government will have implications for Irish workers and trade unions in respect of basic and fundamental rights of Irish citizens.

A pretty document it may not be but it is the one that we have. Much of the good work from the long consultative process that resulted in the draft constitution has been retained in the outcome of the recent European Council. The changes made to this legal text will need to be presented to the people of Ireland, as declared by the Taoiseach. A very simple question that will be asked by our voters is why we need it. I thought we had learned a lesson from Nice but it seems we have taken the same approach to our next European referendum as we have for all the previous times, blindly ignoring the fact that Irish voters are increasingly asking why they should vote for another one of these treaties.

For those who framed the agreement, and for those who support the European project, there is a necessity to make it clear how the new structures will help to address concrete issues. We will find it extremely difficult to sell treaties to the electorate on the basis that they provide Europe's leaders with a less messy way of conducting their affairs. Instead we need to demonstrate how a more effective Europe can contribute to economic growth, more and better jobs, action on climate change and a fairer world order. I do not doubt that Europe's leaders faced a major challenge going into the weekend. They have emerged with just as great a challenge, namely, persuading people to support the new treaty.

It is a pity to see the fine balance found during our Presidency dissected into legal pieces and peppered throughout an already unpalatable legal text. Selling this to our population, after it gets further additional commas, sub-clauses and numbering changes from the Intergovernmental Conference, IGC, will be a major challenge.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We always knew that worried-looking journalists would speculate about how difficult it would be to get agreement. We knew an air of crisis would be created and the negotiations would drag on until the early hours of the morning. We knew that a last-minute deal would be done, much to the practised relief of the EU leaders and assorted commentators. We know that every EU leader would declare that they had been vindicated in their approach to the negotiations. It all went according to plan. We are being told that there is no alternative but to ratify this treaty, as we are always told.

The first imperative of the summit was to show that Europe is moving forward so a deal was always going to be done. The second imperative was for the French and Dutch Governments to be able to say that some of the most objectionable parts of the constitution have been removed. The text was duly blurred in places where it came in for greatest criticism during the French and Dutch referendums. The third imperative was for various European Union leaders to play to their national public, just as the Taoiseach has done in recent days. Last but not least was the imperative to avoid referenda where possible. For this to happen, everybody must pretend the constitution is not a constitution.

According to the imperatives, the summit has been a great success, but the summit has not been a success for ordinary people across Europe. The summit decided to rename the EU constitution a "reform treaty". This is reminiscent of the name change of Windscale to Sellafield. Objectionable terms have been changed to try pull the wool over people's eyes. Some of the more obvious symbols of statehood have been removed or clouded over but let us make no mistake, the so-called reform treaty is the EU constitution in all but name. As the Taoiseach stated earlier, the changes do not "undermine the balance and substance of the constitutional treaty". The constitutional treaty has been taken off the shelf, dusted off, repackaged and put on special offer. No referendum will be necessary in most states.

The draft mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference, IGC, explicitly and continually refers to the conclusions of the IGC in 2004, or in other words, the failed EU constitution. As the Taoiseach stated, "90% of the substantive package remains unaltered". This is the same package that has already been rejected by the people of France and The Netherlands. We were forced to vote a second time on the same package that was the Nice treaty, but the French and the Dutch who are being asked to swallow this pill will not be asked again whether they want the treaty. They are being told they can like it or lump it.

The EU summit failed spectacularly to deal with any of the real issues and concerns of people across Europe. EU democracy is further weakened and smaller member states in particular are further marginalised. We will get an EU president whether we want one or not. We do not want one. We will also get an EU foreign minister, albeit with a different title — a high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. That is a mouthful. In effect, this is a foreign minister in substance if not in name. People will see through the clouding of the matter.

The Oireachtas will lose its role to decide on a whole new range of policy areas. This will add to the difficulties we already have in influencing EU policy in its current areas of competence. Our neutrality will be further undermined as we slip closer towards a militarised European Union. While welcome, the protocol on services of general interest does nothing to stop the headlong rush towards privatisation and liberalisation of services. Member states are still limited in their economic choices and restricted in their ability to tackle poverty and social exclusion. The treaty will do nothing to address issues of global inequality and poverty, nor to uphold international law.

Moreover, we have not yet dealt with the issue of enlargement. As the new voting arrangements will not kick in until 2014 or 2017, the voting arrangements for any new member state still remain to be resolved. When the new voting arrangements kick in they will mark a further shift in power towards the bigger countries. The people of Europe do not want the reheated leftovers of the EU constitution, they want a European Union that is more democratic, which prioritises people over profit and respects the sovereignty of nations, especially those with smaller populations.

Unfortunately this is not what has been or is now on offer. Instead, the EU elite has chosen to run away from the people. The Government cannot run away, much as it might wish to do so, and the people will be given a date for a referendum. People must examine the treaty fully and in detail and must debate its implications fully before the referendum takes place. It will be an opportunity to expose this treaty as the cynical manoeuvre it is.

Sinn Féin has demands that it wishes the Government to take on board. Given the opportunity presented by the Intergovernmental Conference next month, perhaps it will address them and negotiate on behalf of the Irish people rather than on its own behalf. The first relates to the provision of state aid and to subsidies and funding. As my colleague, Deputy Ó Caoláin, outlined, Sinn Féin believes that state aid provisions are overly restrictive. Potentially, they make it impossible for member states to make use of redistributive tools, such as targeted state funding, to full effect to achieve objectives such as balanced regional development. For instance, I refer to addressing infrastructural defects in border regions in cases in which an overwhelming democratic mandate for such measures exists.

When responding to Deputy Ó Caoláin, the Taoiseach acknowledged that state aid provisions can cause conflict at times but stated that the Government must negotiate with the European Commission when such issues arise. Does the Minister of State agree the best way to ensure the Government and all future Governments would win such negotiations when conflict arises would be to insert an opt-out or a right to one into the next treaty? I call on the Government to pursue an opt-out on the right of state aid provisions to overcome this island's legacy of Partition and to build a vibrant all-Ireland economy that addresses all the aforementioned shortcomings.

The second issue relates to the pillar on police and judicial co-operation. Sinn Féin recognises the fundamental importance of international co-operation between law enforcement authorities in the interests of justice for victims and the prevention of crime. However, as the right to privacy is also a fundamental human right, all measures that would suspend this right to privacy must be justified, proportionate and balanced by adequate safeguards. In Sinn Féin's experience EU legally binding measures in the area of justice and home affairs have not achieved the correct balance. This is particularly the case after the events of 11 September 2001. Therefore I also call on the Government to negotiate an Irish opt-out on matters relating to police and judicial co-operation, just as the British have achieved for themselves.

Were such fundamental matters to be removed from the sovereignty of this member state, in effect we would be living in a super state, and even my old nemesis, Mr. Michael McDowell, agreed with me on this point. Britain and Ireland operate a different legal system from the rest of the EU and there is huge variance across member states in terms of human rights safeguards in operation at present. It is essential that the Government should seek and achieve an opt-out from the police and judicial pillar. If the constitutional treaty comes into being, an opt-out would allow future Governments the freedom to opt into progressive measures and opt out of regressive ones as mandated by the people.

I refer to the issue of Ireland's neutrality. How can the Government contend that the reform or constitutional treaty as proposed is in any way consistent with the position of this small State as a neutral independent state? The Taoiseach's argument is nonsensical. How can the introduction of an EU Foreign Minister or "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" represent the views of Ireland on the world stage while in the same breath representing the views of NATO members, nuclear powers or those countries that dived headlong into an illegal war on Iraq? How can anyone represent both views? The simple answer is that no one can do so. This move should be seen in the context of statements from the European Commission calling for EU member states to lose their individual seats in the UN.

Thus far, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is one good thing in an exceptionally bad treaty. We should ensure it is implemented in full throughout the Union and within this State.

While making statements on the EU Council, I have concentrated on the proposed reform treaty, but I want to raise another issue, namely, Palestine. EU Foreign Ministers, including ours, have made a hames of their involvement in this issue. Instead of concentrating on the source of the conflict, the occupier — the Israeli state — the EU has used its powers as a provider of funds to further beat the Palestinian people. The EU's decision to freeze funding after the democratic and fair election of Hamas amplified the impoverishment, hardship and factionalism suffered by Palestinians under occupation and sent the wrong political message to Israel and the United States. It has exacerbated the humanitarian problems tenfold, particularly in the Gaza Strip. What we have seen in recent weeks has been the result of the EU and others withholding funding from the region.

When will the EU start to apply real pressure on Israel to end its occupation? Will the Minister of State agree to push for the suspension of preferential trade? I hope he will be able to address some of my points in his reply. I do not anticipate his agreement with me, as we have been on opposing sides regarding previous EU treaties. There is concern among the public that we are being sold the pig in the poke again, namely, that we will be asked to ratify something that is unacceptable to the peoples of Europe. In many cases, there will be no opportunity for a referendum. It is detrimental to our nation, sovereignty and the interests of the Irish people as a whole.

Deputy Bernard Allen

The Taoiseach stated: "The new system of double majority voting in co-decision matters, where 55% of the countries representing 65% of the citizens must approve a measure, will not now come into force until 2014 and if any member state so wishes, it can be further deferred until 2017." What is the Government's attitude regarding this decision? How will the system operate in practice and if any country in the Union decides to oppose the proposal, will it be delayed until 2017?

On energy policy, demand outstripping supply and the consequent impact on prices, supply and competitiveness, was there any discussion at last week's EU Council meeting on the need for a coherent policy?

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Dick Roche)

The Deputy is reading correctly in that there were difficulties regarding voting. I would like to say, without being in any way patronising, how impressed I was by Members' contributions. I agree fundamentally with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Barrett in his unscripted contribution. There is an absolute requirement that European treaties be simple, not because people may not understand them but because we owe it to them to make the Union's processes transparent.

Although I always regarded its title as somewhat inflammatory, we have moved from a single, coherent constitutional treaty document to something less coherent, a point made so eloquently by Deputy Rabbitte in his fine contribution. That is the negative side. The positive aspect of the change is that the great bulk of the work of so many, as contained in the document, is protected.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct in his observation that the document was produced by 250 representatives of the peoples of Europe, comprising those elected to the various parliaments and governments as well as diverse interest groups. It was an extraordinary and rigorous process. I was privileged to be part of it, as were Members from all sides of the House, in making a significant contribution. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that it is a pity that the coherence that came from a single document is lost. What is important, however, is that the substance of the document — the good and valuable aspects of it — is retained.

I am sure all Members agree that one of the most uplifting elements of the agreement is the provision regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is one of the finest aspects of the agreement and an issue to which every democrat will be willing to sign up. It will not be included in the reformed treaty but will be contained in a separate document with which there will be a strong linkage. I ask those Members who have not read the charter to take the time to do so. It is so important because it speaks of the aspirations and wishes of the peoples of Europe for generations. It speaks of human dignity, the right to life, the integrity of the person, the prohibition of slavery — it sounds odd that this should be a concern in this day and age but it is a fundamental aspect — the right to liberty and security, and so on.

Deputy Bernard Allen

I interrupt the Minister of State to ask how much time is remaining. I understood this was a question and answer session.

Acting Chairman

There are 15 minutes remaining.

Deputy Bernard Allen

I put two simple questions to the Minister of State but he is delivering a state of the European Union address.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Allen should allow the Minister of State to continue.

Deputy Bernard Allen

I am sure other Members have questions. We do not want a long Second Stage speech from the Minister of State. We want answers to our questions.

Acting Chairman

Please allow the Minister of State to answer the questions asked.

Deputy Bernard Allen

I do not mean to be impolite to the Minister of State but I am anxious that we conduct our business properly. It is supposed to be a question and answer session.

Deputy Dick Roche

I was taking up a point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh; I regret if I took it up at length. The charter is a fundamental aspect of this enterprise.

Deputy Bernard Allen

We all know that.

Deputy Dick Roche

I am glad that is the case.

In regard to Deputy Allen's question on double majority voting, I made the point earlier in response to Deputy Barrett that it was no wonder people lost interest when we slipped into using this type of jingoistic terminology. Yes, it is the case that the new system of double majority voting has been pushed back to 2014 and, as made clear in the statement, if any member state so wishes, it may be deferred until 2017. Poland has difficulties with this provision. Therefore, the answer to the Deputy's first question is yes.

On the issue of energy, I draw Deputy Allen's attention to two specific references in the mandate, one relating to energy solidarity and the other to climate strategy. I will provide the specific references if the Deputy so wishes. I make the point, however, that this is where we lose the peoples of Europe. Rather than talking about the issues, we are talking about chapters and paragraphs, thanks to the Deputy. Included in chapter 4 is the statement:

Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity with Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.

There is a specific reference to the matter. Reference is also made to climate change later in the same section. The answers to the Deputy's questions, therefore, are "yes" and "yes".

Deputy Bernard Allen

It does not tell us what has been decided.

Deputy Dick Roche

Of course it does not tell us what has been decided. We are discussing a mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference. I cannot tell the Deputy what is going to be discussed and agreed in the context of the IGC.

Deputy Bernard Allen

My question referred to the problem of demand outstripping supply. I do not appear to be receiving an answer.

Deputy Joe Costello

It will be ironic to attend the National Forum on Europe tomorrow, given that it was established subsequent to the difficulties experienced by Ireland regarding the Nice treaty. Part of the forum's remit was to provide greater awareness, transparency and accountability by involving citizens. That was Ireland's response to a difficult situation when we had a negative vote but the response we are now discussing is the opposite. We have no transparency whatsoever and it seems the purpose of the procedure on which we have embarked is to enable member states to avoid referenda by making matters as confusing, complex and legalistic as possible. It will be interesting to learn how the various Irish interest groups respond at tomorrow's forum. It certainly seems we are moving backwards in that respect, which is a severe disappointment.

Was any discussion held on whether the way is now open to proceed with enlargement and is there the stomach for proceeding, particularly with regard to the Balkans?

We do not have a text of a treaty as such but we have a mandate for the IGC. Has any other substantial issue from the constitutional treaty been included, apart from climate change? I understand that component represents a major difference from the original treaty.

Perhaps the Minister of State can provide the answer the Taoiseach did not give during Question Time by indicating whether the other two parties in Government were consulted in advance on acceptance or otherwise of the caveat to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Deputy Dick Roche

My apologies to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. When I was interrupted, I forgot to answer the second part of his question. The Middle East peace process was certainly discussed in the Council and the focus of the questions and answers and most of the contributions made today concerned the main issue. The collapse of the unity Government and the Hamas takeover of Gaza was part of it and the reality is that it is a tragedy for the Palestinian people who have already suffered so much for so long. I disagree with the Deputy's characterisation of the European Union and its role on that issue. The EU is one of the biggest supporters in that area and has given substantial and welcome support to the people who have suffered.

Deputy Joe Costello

It has not performed very well since the election of Hamas.

Deputy Dick Roche

The EU has reacted promptly to the violence and division. On 18 June, the General Affairs and External Relations Council issued a strong message in support of President Abbas which should be understood in the context of the discussions. It has also restored normal relations with the new emergency Government and is seeking ways to restore direct aid, with which Deputy Ó Snodaigh was specifically concerned because such aid will have a significant impact on the people of the area. My apologies for not responding to the Deputy.

In response to Deputy Costello, the focus was primarily on the constitutional treaty and where we go from here. The Deputy is right that climate change was a significant addition. A better reference was made, which has not been given as much coverage as it deserved, to services of general economic interest, which the Deputy and myself would both welcome given our interest in public utilities. Other than that, the main issue was to focus on the concerns that existed on the constitutional treaty.

The Deputy also asked about accession and whether there was a focus on enlargement as such. The discussion focused on the accession criteria. There was much discussion, particularly laterally, on whether there should be a specific reference to the Copenhagen criteria. The mandate does not deal specifically with the Copenhagen criteria but it does state that the conditions that were previously agreed by the European Council shall be taken into account. There was a specific reason that a direct cross reference was not made to the Copenhagen criteria. If there was to be such a direct cross reference, one would undoubtedly find, from time to time, judges deciding on the issue of extension of the Union, which is fundamentally a political decision which must be made. It is a political decision which will be based on how Europe regards, for example, the human rights behaviour of an applicant. However, to answer the Deputy's specific question, there is a reference to the accession criteria.

Reference was made earlier to the area of national parliaments, which was a point I was going to make before I was interrupted. I agree with the point made by Deputy Kenny that the issue of national parliaments is very important. There is an extension in the number of weeks of delay which arises because of the yellow card process. It is perhaps, in some people's view, not particularly large but it is there nonetheless. Otherwise, the institutional arrangements are as they were. One of the positive points about the weekend is that the institutional arrangements were not reopened because if they had been, the very fine balances which were put in during the course of the Irish Presidency could have been undermined.

The process adopted by the German Presidency was to focus on as few points as possible. I do not disagree with the Deputy's characterisation that much of the discussion for domestic consideration in other member states is on some people's abhorrence of referenda. We will have a referendum here and that is a good and proper approach. Indeed, it is the only approach possible under our Constitution. It gives us the opportunity to engage with the people and do what Deputy Kenny referred to in his contribution. Deputy Kenny made the point that it is very important for Europe to listen. The only way we can listen is by having a dialogue, and we will have a dialogue. I am very grateful to the leaders of the two main Opposition parties for their contributions.

The final question the Deputy asked concerned whether, in the middle of the night, during the discussions on the British protocol, a reference was made back home. The answer is "No" because clearly, at 3.45 a.m. it would not have been appropriate to do so. However, the Taoiseach very wisely put down a marker that we must determine what exactly will be the impact of the British protocol. My personal view——

Deputy Joe Costello

Was that not a red line issue from the beginning for the British?

Deputy Dick Roche

No, the British——

Deputy Joe Costello

Was it not the case that the wording of the protocol came at the very end but it was a red line issue for the British from the beginning?

Acting Chairman

Other Deputies wish to contribute.

Deputy Dick Roche

Deputy Costello is right. I will be as brief as I can on the issue. The British, for some reason which I do not understand, indicated from the beginning a certain allergy to the charter. I could never understand that because, before I was interrupted, I was trying to make the point that the charter is a non-threatening part and——

Deputy Bernard Allen

The Minister of State was not interrupted. He was called to order

Deputy Dick Roche

The charter is a non-threatening part and is something to which we should all be able to sign up. Frankly, I was surprised that it caused so much difficulty.

With regard to the protocol, if one examines the fields of application of the charter, which are in the original treaty and which will be transferred over by way of a new article, one can see that it achieves any clarification that anyone would reasonably require.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Listening to the Taoiseach's contribution on the statements today one can see that he believes it is virtuous not to seek an opt out in any particular situation. It is important to remind the Taoiseach and Deputy Roche, who now holds a new portfolio, that sovereign governments exercise the right to secure the right to opt out in the interests of sovereign people, which we are. The Government should evaluate every situation in the interest of the people who have elected it.

Let me cite the Taoiseach's references to police and criminal co-operation and what has been described as Britain's opt in clauses in relation to it. The people have options. From the Taoiseach's response to me during Taoiseach's questions, I formed a view that he was reading my points that it was an opt out blanket in all situations for State aid provisions, but that is not the case. I am asking the Minister to take up in the course of the upcoming intergovernmental conference the opportunity to ensure that we have the right to exercise an opt out clause, where the specific provision is in conflict with the Government's stated intent to address the imbalance in terms of regional development. As a Border Deputy, I am deeply concerned that we will not see the critical implementation of the promise to address the kinked economic and infrastructural investment that the Border and western counties have suffered from for many years. It is critical the Government protects the interests of people in the regions throughout the island. I understand the EU is well disposed to this.

Under the North-South Ministeial Council it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that State aid is provided to allow the problems of the regions to be addressed and to give economic vibrancy to the regions that have been long neglected. We have a real fear that if we do not ensure the opt out option is in place, that effort will be significantly curtailed, if not rendered impossible.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Will the Minister explain how the introduction of a new EU Foreign Minister would be consistent with our status as a neutral and independent state?

Deputy Dick Roche

Ireland's neutrality is well recognised, as it is in previous protocols. There is nothing in the position of foreign minister/external relations high representative that will in any way undermine it.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to opt out which touches on the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin. In general we do not like such clauses for the simple reason that it makes the process extraordinarily cumbersome. It is far better to be part of the mainstream and to negotiate positions. We have an opt in arrangement in regard to immigration, asylum and external borders. That arises out of the reality that we have no option but to join the British. That issue arose earlier under the Schengen Agreement and we must consider the implications for Ireland of the British arrangements in the criminal law area. I do not believe that we should automatically subscribe to whatever arrangements the British come to. I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin that we have to make a decision on where the balance lies in its own right.

There was a great deal of discussion on the issue of competition. There is a fairly oblique reference to the protocol which deals with the Internal Market and competition which came in following President Sarcosi's intervention. Apart from that brief reference there is nothing that changes the existing arrangements. There was a specific reference to services of general economic interest, to which I also referred and which I welcome because it is something with which those of us who are concerned about social Europe might have had some difficulties. It was addressed in a positive rather than a negative sense.

Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.