JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1998

Amsterdam Treaty: Presentation by Institute of European Affairs.

Chairman

The main business of the meeting is an address by the Institute for European Affairs on the Amsterdam Treaty. The members of the institute's delegation are: Mr. Terry Stewart, its director general; Professor Jim Dooge, chairperson of the institute's IGC monitoring group; Mr. Eugene Regan, chairperson of the institute's lawyers' group; and Professor Brigid Laffan, chairperson of the institute's Agenda 2000 governance and institutions group. The usual procedures will apply — the representatives will make their respective submissions in whatever order they wish and we will then have a question and answer session.

I will report later on the visit by the committee to Brussels — suffice to say it was extremely helpful and useful as regards acquisition of up to date knowledge on developments in Europe.

I welcome our guests. They are all well known to us in their respective capacities and we have sought their supreme knowledge of this area for some time.

Mr. Stewart

I will first outline what we have been doing about the intergovernmental conference and the treaty. Professor Dooge chaired the group which worked on the Intergovernmental Conference and in 1996 it produced a booked called Ireland and the Intergovernmental Conference, which was the basic document used by many people following the negotiations. That group continued its work and produced a number of Intergovernmental Conference updates which many Members will have received via fax. In January we launched a book on the Amsterdam Treaty entitled Amsterdam: What the Treaty Means, edited by Dr. Ben Tunra. This book explains the basis of the treaty and we hope it has been and will be helpful. No past treaty or intergovernmental conference received as much preparation as this one — the work goes back almost two and a half years and we will discuss what the outcome has been. Today we hope to give an outline. We are interested in what Members will ask us and we are prepared to answer questions as best we can.

Professor Dooge

Chairman, I think your method of dealing with the meeting is good because the main substance and value will come from free questioning and answering.

First, a few words about the book itself. We started to work on this first book for the Intergovernmental Conference almost immediately after the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. We would have done that anyway, although possibly not so quickly, because the institute has been set up to inform the public about European matters. We considered it was extremely urgent and necessary to start straight away because many of us — and I am sure it is a view shared by many Members of this Committee — were appalled by the level of public debate on the Maastricht Treaty. Issues were distorted and extraneous matters were introduced. We may have even felt a little that the public had been left down both by ourselves and others with regard to this question. We determined to start working straight away in order to clarify the issues, options and implications for Ireland.

We were well served during the Presidency by our team of negotiators at all levels. The treaty became for the first time one that could be called a people's treaty. It was hard even for experts to follow the intricacies of the Maastricht Treaty. The objective in the negotiations towards Amsterdam was to take seriously the question of a people's Europe. While the Amsterdam Treaty is a good deal easier to read than the Maastricht Treaty, it is still quite complex.

In this book we have tried to explain what is in the treaty — the background and the more important treaty changes — as well as exploring thoroughly the implications for this country. In preparing it for the target audience, we decided to look beyond the audience of our previous publications in our treaty series. We decided not only to look to the experts within our Government Departments and policymakers like yourselves, but also to reach out to members of the public who are sufficiently interested to inquire into the matter.

When I received the book I was a bit nervous opening it. I asked myself whether we had achieved what we set out to do, and I think we did. It is something that can be useful and we hope it will contribute towards a reasonable debate over the next month or so.

The book is organised with a look back at where we have come from. It then goes on to discuss the three different pillars. The first pillar is the centre of what has already been achieved and which has its own particular method of decision making. The second pillar raised great anxieties in the past in this country, but it appears that the difficulties have been largely overcome. The third pillar concerns justice and home affairs matters, problems like drugs and crime, about which the public is very concerned.

As the Chairman has said, we can best work through questions and answers. There is no need for me to say anything else at this point.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I join with you, Chairman, in welcoming the group. I congratulate the Institute of European Affairs on yet another fine document. We are debating the amendments to the legislation on the Amsterdam Treaty in the Dáil. As you will be aware, we adjourned the debate at 1.30 p.m. when I was half way through quoting Mr. Eugene Regan's comments and views on the CFSP.

I was the Irish member on the reflection group which set out to prepare the annotated agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. We set ourselves the task of ensuring the Union will become more transparent, efficient and effective as well as relating more to issues of concern to citizens. While we did not go as far as we had hoped, we went much further than people realise, particularly if one looks at the provisions on discrimination and employment. The employment provisions are much stronger than we could have expected at the outset.

We need to remind ourselves that the process of European integration began in 1951 with the European Coal and Steel Community because 60 million Europeans killed each other in the first half of this century in two world wars. The process of integration, including the Amsterdam Treaty to further integrate the EU, is not the same as that undertaken by the founders of the United States because they had a blank page on which to write a constitution. Having started out with six, we now have 15 sovereign states and the number will rise to 26, perhaps more, in a relatively short period. We are having to write this as we go along and if the treaty seems to be lacking in ambition, it is because it is running in tandem with EMU.

Chancellor Kohl, in particular, could not anticipate getting both EMU and an ambitious Amsterdam Treaty through the Lander. That is the context of the matter. This process is about our children and our grandchildren living on this Continent in a peaceful, stable and, therefore, prosperous Europe which is integrated, not assimilated.

I am disappointed about the Schengen provisions, not because they are going into the treaty but because Britain and Ireland will not be joining from day one. Because Britain did not join, and over 60 per cent of journeys from the Republic are to the United Kingdom, we were obliged to stay out of this common travel area. We will have a say, however, in the way the Schengen provision develops in future because the institutions of the Union will have a role in it. It is a pity that the British Government has again decided to be one treaty behind the rest of the Union and, therefore, on this occasion we are obliged to stay out. This is the single biggest thing that makes us foreigners within the Union. We are not really citizens as long as we have to show a passport when travelling within the Union. The other member states, and even the new applicant states when they join, will take on the full acquis and membership of Schengen. We, however, along with Britain, will be outside it and that is regrettable. It is something that the Government of the day could do nothing about. I am disappointed that is the case.

I would like to ask a question in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Article J.4 of the Maastricht Treaty seemed to be more disposed towards the cause of people who are particularly sensitive about Irish neutrality. In fact, Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty favours those who favour Irish neutrality to a greater extent than the old Article J.4 which it replaces. This is because it requires any future common defence or merger of the Western European Union and the EU to go through three steps. The first is an intergovernmental conference. The last intergovernmental conference took approximately two years and involved preparation and negotiation. Second, it requires a unanimous decision of the EU Council of Ministers. We would have to agree in addition to every other member state. Third, if Article J.7 is passed it would require, in the context of this country, a further referendum, not because of the pledge of any Government but because the Article provides that such matters in future would have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirement of each member state. In view of the consequences of the Single European Act, this would mean a referendum in Ireland.

Does the institute agree with the assessment that if we pass the Amsterdam Treaty it will strengthen the provisions in terms of those who are concerned about Irish neutrality? If we were to join NATO tomorrow or the day after the treaty is ratified, we would not have to go through the three steps I outlined, yet ironically within the context of the EU we would have to do so.

Senator Lydon

I welcome the delegation. I served with some of them on the executive of the Irish Council for the European Movement for a number of years and currently as a council member of the Institute of European Affairs, an excellent institute which is the brainchild of Brendan Halligan.

Would Professor Laffan indicate what she considers to be the implications for Ireland of majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers? I am aware of the current situation, but how does she see future developments? Does she consider that the treaty should have made a more extensive agreement and, if so, would Ireland be left out?

Senator Ryan

While it has been addressed in the treaty, most commentators are agreed that the institutional weakness of the EU has not been dealt with. A variety of reasons for this have been given by people, depending on their European perspective. I take the view that it is partly because we are a long way from a situation where the citizens of Europe see themselves as citizens both of Europe and their own state. There is, therefore, a lack a collective consciousness about a civic society in Europe. Given this, we may take the view that the only way to make pan-European institutions work effectively is to eliminate accountability. In this regard, a prominent member of Senator Keogh's party told me in private conversation last week that astonishing powers have been given to the Governor of the Central Bank with regard to the European system of central banks under the Central Bank legislation.

We did not discuss much of substance on the economic issues during the Maastricht Treaty debates. Least of all did we discuss the details of the powers of the European Central Bank and the European system of central banks. I worry that the unaccountable powers we have given to the Governor of the Central Bank in terms of his functions in the European central bank system will become a model.

When a group of us visited Brussels some weeks ago we were briefed by officials from the EU Commissions about the developments — some would argue the lack of development — regarding common foreign and security policy. While the treaty principles were as outlined here, other institutional arrangements were described. For example, the secretary of the EU Council of Ministers could have independent room to manoeuvre in terms of common foreign and security policy. This again suggests a tendency to move away from accountability because of the administratively cumbersome decision procedures in place. However, the last thing the European project needs is a move away from openness, because there is a considerable level of public hostility, more so on mainland Europe than here. I am concerned about that.

We also need to look at the treaty beyond Deputy Mitchell's comments on the unanimous nature of decision making. Once unanimous agreement is given there is a provision in the treaty for qualified majority voting about how to implement a decision, for example, to seek the support of the Western European Union. This is an advance on what was in the Maastricht Treaty. I would like elaboration on that. While I accept we would have a veto, there may be circumstances under which we could have constructive abstention, which means we would not be forced to partake in a process upon which Europe embarks. While I do not believe there is a dramatic change in our position on neutrality because of the treaty, institutional and procedural changes are perhaps more significant than is being suggested.

In your excellent book, Patrick Keatinge refers to the question of armaments and the treaty refers to co-operation in the field of armaments. Does anybody know what that means? Mr. Keatinge mentions that, following the EU Council of Ministers summit at Amsterdam, the Presidency's conclusions included a reiteration of the goal of encouraging an effective arms export control policy within the common foreign and security policy. What does that mean? Apart from military and neutrality implications, these have profound moral implications. The idea of an arms export policy is difficult to accept in principle.

There are many good things about this treaty. It is right that we should have closer co-operation on international crime. However, why have we not used simple administrative measures in the meantime to facilitate co-operation? During the visit to Brussels I mentioned, I heard an official describe how the Dutch police were following potential drug dealers to the border with Belgium. The official went on to say that they did not have the mobile telephone number to contact their counterparts in the Belgian police. We do not need a treaty to change that. Are we not putting the cart before the horse? Should we not organise simple administrative co-operation so that people get used to the fact that the police forces of separate states are part of the EU? When apparently trivial administrative details of that kind are resolved we can begin to build our grandiose institutions.

Chairman

Perhaps I will call the delegation to respond to the queries raised so far.

Mr. Regan

There is a tendency to think that the Amsterdam Treaty or a treaty amending the Treaty of Rome entails fundamental constitutional change. However, many of the provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty are legislative commitments and policy clarifications.

Turning to a common foreign and security policy, the Supreme Court ruling in the Crotty judgments of 1986 effectively means that if there are changes in treaties which could have been anticipated from the existing treaties and which came within their objectives no constitutional issue arises. The second criterion is that the essential scope or objectives of the treaties are not altered. The third criterion is that sovereignty is the unfettered right to decide to say yes or no. If one looks at the common foreign and security policy within that context, it is very hard to see any fundamental constitutional change. There is a growing perception, in terms of the public debate, that that is the situation.

In regard to the specific point raised by Deputy Mitchell, the Maastricht Treaty stated, "Common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence". There is a rewording of that in the Amsterdam Treaty which reads, "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide".

In terms of the fundamental wishful thinking, I do not think the wording changes anything. However, the Amsterdam Treaty goes on to say that if there is agreement in the European Council it shall, in that case, recommend to the member states its adoption, in accordance with their constitutional procedures. In a sense, there is a rowing back there. I agree with Deputy Mitchell that there is a backtracking of sorts in relation to defence because that constitutional requirement was not in the Maastricht Treaty. There tends to be a great emphasis in the debate on foreign and security policy on the security and defence provisions rather than the common foreign policy element.

The question of constructive abstention was raised. The whole area of common foreign and security policy is intergovernmental in nature and is based on agreement by unanimity. That has not changed. In terms of constructive abstention, we have an enabling clause where a member state can participate but can adopt a position of saying yes or no, which is where the issue of sovereignty comes in. There is an effort, to a certain extent, to make the existing common foreign and security policy adopted in Maastricht more effective; however, there has been a drawing back in one sense in regard to the securing of what each member state may wish to decide.

Chairman

What is the position on majority voting, which was raised by Senator Lydon?

Professor Laffan

There are two issues in regard to majority voting. The first is how much qualified majority voting is needed in the treaty. All member states have different views. They all want qualified majority voting in the areas of interest to them which someone else is preventing but they all want unanimity in those areas they want to protect. Every country has its own wish lists for qualified majority voting and unanimous voting. The reality is that in order for the system to work when we have 25 member states there will have to be more qualified majority voting. There will be a trend in the system towards more qualified majority voting. Therefore, all member states have to decide the key issues on which they require unanimity. These would be major issues such as constitutional change and defence.

The second issue is the balance in voting power between member states within qualified majority voting. This was a critical issue in this Intergovernmental Conference because the large states felt that, as the system has got bigger and bigger, the proportion of votes they control is decreasing. That is the reality and the large states had a strong case in both democratic and representational terms. There was an attempt to rebalance the votes. There could have been agreement in Amsterdam on that but the Dutch very unwisely gave themselves more votes than the Belgians, which meant all bets were off and the Belgians said no. That is up for grabs again.

There will be a reduction in the number of commissioners for the large states to one per state before the membership of the Union exceeds 20, provided there is an agreement on a reweighting of votes. Ireland will not lose votes but the pool of votes will get bigger and the larger states will have more. That is necessary because there was a danger that a number of countries representing a minority of the populations of Europe could outweigh the states representing the majority. That must and will be changed in order to keep the balance between the majority and minority in terms of population. We have no great need to fear that. However, I think some states will come back to the principle of one commissioner per state. That argument is not over. We won it this time but it is not off the agenda and will come around again and again. The real crunch point will come when there is a Union of 27 states.

The question of the accountability and openness of the central bank relates to the deep issues of European integration. The question is how to balance the need for these pan European institutions, which are evidently necessary for peace and prosperity, with the need to ensure democratic control is not lost. There will be a battle once EMU occurs between the ECOFIN council and the central bank. One should not assume the central bank will have it all its own way. It is similar to reading our Constitution, in that it gives us the framework but it does not tell us exactly how it will work politically. There will be an attempt to balance the independence of the central bank with a more political EUROEX council. The French have got their own way. Germany is the only country which, for good historical reasons, is happy with a completely independent central bank. There will be a battle and the issue is not over in terms of accountability within the system.

In regard to the relationship between that and a civic society, we cannot build a European polity in the way there is a national polity because there will not be that kind of European identity. However, I would be loath to argue there is not an emerging European civic society. I am constantly struck by the number of groups in Ireland which no longer work simply in the context of Ireland but which go into this other arena. The people arguing about the siting of Mullaghmore, for example, argued up the line from the local to the national to the European levels. This Brussels arena is part and parcel of the politics of contemporary Europe and there is no way around it. People do not agree on what this arena should do but that is normal politics.

One of the problems we face in dealing with European integration is that people are surprised there is conflict about it. However, we should not be surprised because politics is about reconciling conflict. In that sense, what is happening at European level is becoming more like national politics, albeit of a different kind — there is a new form of politics. I am not as concerned as Senator Ryan about the future but those who want a more accountable, open and transparent Europe will have to fight for it. However, that is also how the nation state came about.

The European armaments industry is undergoing a great deal of restructuring following the collapse of communism and the peace dividend. There are concerns in Europe that the United States is winning across the board. The desire is to ensure the United States does not have it all its own way on the armaments industry. In terms of effective arms control, I would have thought one would expect a far more careful arms control system to emerge at European level than would ever come from individual member states. Ideally it would be better if Europeans did not export their arms around the world but they do and we cannot stop them——

Senator Ryan

The Colombians export their drugs but that does not make it right.

Professor Laffan

There is, of course, a whole moral issue about arms but there is an arms industry. We are fortunate this country is not part of it. The only argument I make is that arms control at European level is likely to be more benign than arms control by any of the member states. The only comparison I can make is with the Lomé Convention, which gives a better deal for Third World states than the bilateral aid deals they had with individual former colonial masters. I do not defend it; it is just that it is more likely to be of that order rather than the other way around. It is more likely to make things better than worse, but that is obviously not a foregone conclusion either.

Professor Dooge

On the question of accountability, it would be useful if we heard from Terry Stewart who is not only director of the institute but is also a former Brussels bureaucrat. He should be allowed say a few words on how it is viewed on that side of the fence.

Mr. Stewart

One of the last things I did before I left the Commission was to chair a steering committee on the European Social Forum where for the first time we brought together as a group in Brussels the sort of organisations about which Brigid was talking. We expected 1,000 people to turn up; 2,000 turned up at this forum from all over Europe. That will be repeated again this year in the last weekend in June in Brussels. Another social forum comes under the remit of the Social Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Flynn, and that was foreseen in the White Paper. That development has been dramatic over the past few years and I agree with Brigid about that.

On the question of accountability, one of the winners in this treaty has been the Parliament. The European Parliament has considerably increased its role as a result of this treaty and the decision-making process has been significantly refined. However, the power lies with the Council at all times. The Commission is heavily restricted in what it can do. There is an increasing evolution of systems. As far as the European Central Bank is concerned, one of the members of the French Central Bank, Mr. Jean Claude Trichet, said we do not live in isolation from other citizens; we must take into account what is happening. There is that accountability as well, but the bureaucrats are seen to be a little unaccountable. At the end of the day, they are not. Accountability will increase and matters will be more open and transparent, but we must fight for it.

Senator McGowan

I join with the Chairman in welcoming the group. While their visit is welcome, the capacity of this committee to act in this area is limited. Explaining the Amsterdam Treaty and the referendum is a marathon task, so the book is very helpful. It is user-friendly, easy to read and is well laid out in chapters. However, we live in an age where the media only see the negative aspect to everything. Whether it is the Ryanair strike, cutting down trees in Wicklow or a sewage treatment plant in Galway, the only newsworthy element is the negative aspect.

We are not succeeding in convincing the public that the Amsterdam Treaty is about anything other than drugs and military hardware. The committee must do more than hold meetings like this one. The institute must help it educate the public who are slow to understand the treaty's implications. I come from a part of the country which has its own problems and is involved in serious negotiations concerning the peace initiative and its related aspects. I would like the Amsterdam Treaty and the referendum explained by those who have a positive contribution to make. We should not leave it at this today, saying we had a useful discussion and were pleased to meet helpful people. That would leave matters as they are. There is a significant job to be done and I ask the delegation to help us put across the message and to counteract the negative approach the public is sure to get.

Deputy Kirk

The book states that the Amsterdam Treaty amends the Maastricht Treaty and sets an objective of a high level of employment within the Union. While the book sets out how that will be done in bureaucratic terms, could someone from the delegation explain it in layman's terms?

The treaty will be viewed in terms of the Irish economy. Certain agencies in the economy have certain obligations and responsibilities. For example, FÁS deals with social employment. There is a serious problem of a skills deficit in the economy and I am sure that applies to varying degrees in other member states. Is consideration being given to a reappraisal of economic structures with a view to placing greater social obligations on some of those structures to employ people who find it difficult to obtain employment for various reasons?

Let us examine the fortunes since we entered the Union in the early 1970s of three industries of relevance to us on a daily basis: the footwear industry, the textiles industry and the agriculture/food industry. The footwear industry is of particular relevance to my constituency of Louth. Approximately 7,000 people were employed in the industry in 1970. That has fallen to under 700 today and is declining. The textiles industry is labour intensive and has run into competitive difficulties with the result that there is also severe contraction there. As regards the food industry, the value of food has dramatically decreased in the period from 1970 to date and all economic indicators suggest that the decline will continue. It would have been worse were it not for the dramatic and, perhaps, underestimated performance of the agriculture industry in Ireland and the radical changes it has undergone from the underdeveloped state in which it was in 1970 to today. The net result of those changes has been that fewer people are employed in what is essentially a labour-intensive industry. More people are moving into part-time employment and part-time farming. As the value of food products continues to decline, the number of people employed in the industry will decrease further.

We have a problem with social exclusion. As a result of the population settlement policies we pursued, there are people concentrated in certain population settlements who are either unemployed or who find it difficult to secure employment. What measures are envisaged under the Amsterdam Treaty to tackle this area of social exclusion? It is tied in with the issue of unemployment. Despite the Celtic tiger economy, unemployment levels are still intractably high. Will it be possible to secure suitable and stable employment for people finding it difficult to enter the workforce without radical change in economic policy?

Ms McKenna (MEP)

It was said there is a certain amount of back tracking in the context of the common foreign and security and the common defence policies. However, the opposite is the case. The Maastricht Treaty spoke about the "eventual" framing of a common defence policy. This has now become the "progressive" framing. There is quite a difference between both words. The Maastricht Treaty also said the eventual framing of a common defence policy might in time lead to a common defence. The new treaty speaks of a common defence policy being decided upon by the European Council. I note that Amsterdam: What The Treaty Means says that, in the context of articles J.11-28, the competence is one which both the Union and the member states shall define and implement. However, under the new Union, it would be the Union alone and not the member states which would have such competence. This is a fundamental change. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the possibility of a common defence was left to a future treaty amendment whereas under the new treaty the European Council may decide on the issue without necessarily amending the treaty. It is also stated that there would be no requirement for a referendum. Many of us feel that if the Treaty of Amsterdam is ratified there will be no future need for a referendum as we will be handing over competence to some future Council of Ministers to decide on common defence.

There are a number of other issues concerning the armaments industry and arms control. It was said that it is fortunate we are not part of the arms industry. However, because the Treaty of Amsterdam for the first time provides for co-operation in the field of armaments, Ireland, by virtue of being in the Union, will be involved. As an MEP I have followed the arms industry debate. There have been numerous reports from the Parliament and the Commission on this issue lamenting that since the end of the Cold War there has been a decline in sales of weapons in the EU and that the European arms industry needs to be boosted to allow it compete with the US. It has even been proposed that Structural Funds be channelled into dual use research projects. The Titley Report which came before the Parliament some months ago before the Treaty of Amsterdam was drawn up promoted the idea of boosting the EU arms industry to allow it compete with the US. That alarming report called on the negotiators of the Treaty of Amsterdam to "give a decisive boost to the development of a common armaments policy by incorporating this objective into the treaty as an element that is essential for the establishment of a common defence". This is what has happened. It is alarming that some people are talking about back tracking as this is far from correct. In fact, the issue has been pursued further than any of us imagined. There is an attempt to brush over this by saying the same people are again being alarmist. However, we are not being alarmist — the provisions are set out in black and white. The book I referred to earlier recognises the consequences and significance of the provisions.

A number of people have raised concerns about the common foreign and security and common defence policies. However, there are a huge number of other areas of concern, including justice and home affairs, particularly in the context of the Schengen agreement and Europol. The Schengen agreement is a massive document of 1,300 pages about which nobody has a clue. I know Britain and Ireland are outside Schengen, but by voting on the Treaty of Amsterdam we will vote on this huge document, the consequences of which people do not know.

Europol has been pushed along without any public debate. Civil liberties groups throughout Europe are extremely critical of it. There are a number of aspects to be raised, including the protocol which establishes Europol employees as being above the law. It also gives them sweeping powers concerning data collection, not just on terrorists, drug traffickers and criminals but on other people on the grounds of ethnic origin, religious and political beliefs and sexual orientation. I do not know that this has to do with combating crime. The public will not have access to the data held about them, something strongly criticised by the data protection agency in London.

We have a huge number of concerns, all of which I cannot raise in a few minutes. International groups have criticised the refugee and asylum policies which the UNHCR has said are contrary to international human rights conventions. Groups working in the area of social exclusion and the unemployed have said, in the context of the employment chapter and social protocol, that they welcome the additions in the treaty but that they are far too limited. In addition there seems to be a complete contradiction as unemployment and social issues have been sidelined because of the obsession to achieve EMU. The Green Party believes that current EU policies are not effectively combating unemployment and that the Treaty of Amsterdam is not doing much to address the problem — it is window dressing to try to give the public the impression of concern.

The treaty is a huge step forward with no going back, particularly in the area of common foreign and security policy. I do not understand those who talk about back tracking.

In the context of arms control, the British Government is discussing a code of conduct. The proposed code of conduct provides that when a dispute arises between an EU country which exports arms to another country with a questionable record resulting in a decision not to export arms, the only countries which can be involved in the debate are the arms exporting country and the country which may take up the contracts. Other countries which are not involved in arms production or in any other aspect of this unethical trade, such as Ireland, will have no say. Therefore, the code of conduct regarding the arms trade will exclude those who have some moral high ground. It does not appear as though the code will change much under the British presidency or subsequent to it.

The Petersberg Tasks should also be raised.

Chairman

We will have to receive some answers to the issues raised. We do not have time to go through the entire document, but we will return to Ms McKenna, MEP, at a later stage.

Professor Dooge

Senator McGowan asked how the institute can help further the campaign. The nature of the institute does not allow for such help. Towards the end of Amsterdam: What The Treaty Means the institute’s mission statement is outlined. We exist to promote and advance knowledge about Europe and European integration. This book is not the view of the institute — the institute identified people to contribute to it and the contributions are their responsibility. However, once the whistle has been blown for the start of the referendum campaign, the Institute of European Affairs will bow out. It has published this and other documents. There are other bodies on both sides of the argument which are glad to provide information. If anyone has any query arising out of this book, they should not hesitate to look for further clarification and explanation by ringing the Institute. If necessary, the Institute will then put them in touch with one of the authors or I am sure the authors will not object if someone gets in touch with them directly regarding queries on their own chapter. As an Institute, we will be taking no part in the referendum campaign.

Mr. Stewart

On the question of unemployment and social exclusion, 10 per cent of jobs disappear every year. This does not mean that 10 per cent of people become unemployed, but people and products are changing. There has been a very big structural change in the Irish economy. Deputy Kirk is absolutely right in terms of the footwear and textile industry. The textile industry has tended to move eastwards, as has the footwear industry. One of the big problems in Europe is that there has been a big change in this area, particularly since 1991-92. The Single Market created a great boost of ten million jobs, but since 1992 there has been great restructuring in Europe. The reason is that industrial structures and trade have changed. The whole global economy has changed and we are in an era of great competition.

Employment and social policy were never part of the original treaty. There is a great article in the book by Joe Larragy about the evolution of social policy. There was much opposition to the introduction of the employment chapter but it is in place now. This, in itself, will not create one job, but we must use what is in the chapter. We must make sure member states co-ordinate their policies. There must be a report each year from each member state on what they are doing in the area on employment. Targets must be set. There will be a major emphasis, particularly in the restructured Social Fund which Ireland will benefit from in the transitional years up to 2006, in focusing on the problems within each member state. Ireland has the biggest problem of long-term unemployment in the EU. We have many untrained and unskilled people. Up to now we have not spent enough money getting these people back to work. This is where the focus must be in the next few years. Some 200 billion dollars is spent each year keeping people unemployed; of that 200 billion dollars less than 8 per cent is spent training and retraining people and getting them back into work. It is a big problem and we must use all the instruments at our disposal to rectify it. The treaty will help us to use these instruments.

Social exclusion is part of the agenda. There are member states within the EU, particularly Denmark and Germany, who believe the Union should not be involved in this matter. We fought a long fight to include the first social exclusion programmes. The Germans opposed it to the end because there was no legal basis for it. Now it is in the treaty and it can be implemented. The Commission has used some money to do pilot projects and Structural Funds can be used in this area.

Professor Laffan

On the question of defence and security, we can talk around the houses on this matter but we will not agree. The reality is that nine states of the EU wanted to include the Western European Union as part of the system. The majority of states thought this was desirable and a good thing from the perspective of their foreign policy. Four neutrals and the UK prevented this from happening. In order for that to happen there are several processes that must be gone through. Then there is the question of the circumstances in which the Irish State and people be asked to be involved in any direct defence commitment. This commitment cannot be entered into without approval. It is up to the Irish Government and the people when they want to be part of a European defence system, if that should ever happen. We could argue this is a very desirable development and one need only look to Kosovo to see what is happening at the moment. There is need for a crisis management capacity in Europe, because there are thugs in government in some parts of Europe. We would be much happier if leaders like Milosevic were not around, but the reality is that Milosevic is killing people. If that can be prevented through peacemaking and crisis management, and if that be a European concept, I have no problem with it. This is not to say that other Irish people would agree. So it is our decision when, and if, that happens. We cannot prevent other member states collectively deciding they want to do something. We cannot dictate to the French, Germans and Belgians what their foreign policy interests should be no more than they can dictate to us. Successive Irish Governments have said there will be a referendum on this matter, therefore it will be a decision of the people. That is as democratic as one can make it. It is not possible to agree as to the meaning of the treaty in defence terms.

Mr. Regan

There are specific provisions on flexibility and closer co-operation throughout the Amsterdam Treaty. There is Schengen also which is a form of flexibility. The first application of it is that this treaty, which was outside the framework, has been brought in. Then there is a common foreign security policy. In a sense, Ireland has the ability to participate or not, as it wishes. In that respect, it is an enabling treaty but the sovereignty issue and the decision-making still remains in our hands.

The importance of EUROPOL and judicial co-operation in criminal matters is self-evident where there is free movement of goods, services and people. Such measures must be in place in order to provide that freedom in the context of security. Recently this has been brought home to people in Brussels where there is evidence that cars are being taken and brought to Spain, Poland and elsewhere. These people benefit from open borders. EUROPOL is an instrument whereby we can provide that framework for co-operation but it is not the FBI or CIA. It is a mechanism by which co-operation among member states can be facilitated. Given that judicial co-operation in criminal matters per se remains third pillar, it remains an issue of common interest but is still within the competence of member states. The Community has not gone so far as to put that into pillar one. At the moment it remains an issue of national competence.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I find it very hard to see how some of the claims made about Article J.7 by Patricia McKenna can be sustained. I agree with Professor Laffan and it is very clear from Article J.7 that three things must happen in the future if there is to be any change in terms of common defence.

There would have to be an intergovernmental conference in accordance with Article N, the European Council would have to make a unanimous decision and it would have to be ratified by each member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. That would mean a referendum here post the Single European Act. Irrespective of whether any Government promises it, it is included if we pass Article J.7. Mr. Regan rightly described that as rowing back from the situation in terms of a less pro-neutral case. People who are more disposed towards looking at security and defence situations will be more at ease with Article J.4 of the Maastricht Treaty than with Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty. It is disingenuous to misinterpret it.

We cannot take the high moral ground on anything unless we acknowledge that we did nothing about the pile of bodies that were left in Bosnia. Those of us who sat back and said nothing should at least have the grace to acknowledge that NATO took on the tyrants and sorted them out while the European Union issued a démarche. Are we not ashamed of that even now? If it happened again in Kosovo, Albania or Algeria, would we continue to sit back and salve our consciences by issuing irrelevant statements? I sat at too many ministerial meetings and played the game of agreeing sentences and statements which meant nothing so that we could say we did something when we did nothing to tackle the situation in Bosnia. Our children and grandchildren will decide on a common defence or a merger between the Western European Union and the EU and they will not do so by listening to bogeymen or bogeywomen. They will do it in a more intelligent manner than we conduct foreign policy.

Deputy Kirk raised some interesting issues. For example, a big car assembly plant set up in my constituency some years ago has gone. We knew from the beginning that it would not be long in business because fully assembled cars would be imported. However, the numbers at work here have increased from 1.1 million to 1.3 million. I read recently that if the baby boom had not occurred in the 1970s, our unemployment rate would now be less than 3 per cent because we have created so many jobs. We have a long-term unemployment problem but the Structural Funds and funds used through local development partnerships have helped to tackle this in the most needy communities.

I was interested to hear Mr. Stewart speak about social exclusion. The reason the Germans oppose it is because they must pay for improvements while we only talk about it. They also bear all the defence costs while we take the high moral ground. At least social exclusion is mentioned in the treaty so it gives us a base for future actions.

We should be aware that although our economic status has improved as the rising tide raised all boats, there is still a great degree of poverty. A woman called to see me two weeks ago and told me that she and her husband get £107 per week on a pre-retirement pension. Because they are under 65 years of age, they do not have free travel and she cannot afford the £15 required for a chiropodist. If she was over 65, that service would be available free of charge. A whole community of poor people have not benefited equally. If one compares lower and higher earners the higher earners are 4.9 times better off than the lower earners whereas they were only 4.1 times better off shortly after we joined the Union. That shows the wealth is going in a certain direction. We have a responsibility not only to promote enterprise but to provide social justice.

We should remember that last year we exported in excess of $4 billion worth of computer software which made us in terms of volume the second biggest exporter of such software after the United States. Some 20,000 jobs have been created in that industry and we are continuing to create them at the rate of 2,000 a year. Whereas the ratio of the international to indigenous software industry was 3:1, the indigenous industry is now 40 per cent and growing. This could not have happened without the £5 billion which was invested to reform the telecommunications sector and which allowed us to set up the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin. When I became a Member of the Dáil in 1981 it was impossible to get a telephone as there was a waiting list. The European Union, through the Structural and Cohesion Funds, has greatly helped to bring about this new raft of jobs.

Would the deputation agree that the days are gone when we can include a commitment to deal with social exclusion in the treaty and expect the Germans to pay? Should we not make a contribution towards dealing with social exclusion now that we have the wealth with which to do it?

Ms McKenna (MEP)

As regards the argument that there is no need for a future referendum, a book from the Institute of European Affairs states:

Although the position in European law is not crystal clear, it seems that as a matter of Irish constitutional law there would be no requirement for a referendum. This is because if the Constitution is amended to license ratification of the proposed treaty which encompasses the competence to frame progressively a common defence, and to take a formal decision to institute a common defence, there will not necessarily be any development which would amend the treaties or add a new treaty competence for which a referendum would be required.

We should also take into account that neutrality is not enshrined in the Constitution.

Deputy G. Mitchell

It will be when we pass Article J.7. I suggest that Ms McKenna reads it.

Ms McKenna (MEP)

I have read it.

Deputy G. Mitchell

She does not understand it.

Professor Dooge

I emphasise that what is written in this book are the views of the authors. Consideration was given to the omission of the chapter quoted because the editorial committee considered there were errors of interpretation in it.

Ms McKenna (MEP)

A book was published and now it is claimed it is incorrect.

Chairman

I will not allow a discussion on this matter. We cannot conduct our meeting in this way.

Ms McKenna (MEP)

That is a serious statement.

Chairman

Order. We will deal with the issues as they arise not as interpreted by one person or the other. A number of questions were raised by Deputy Gay Mitchell and Ms McKenna. We will hear the answers and then have one final round of queries.

Mr. Stewart

There is a possibility that we can do something on social exclusion, although the leader of our group on the Amsterdam Treaty said we will still expect the Germans to pay for it. That is all part of the financial arguments. We should ensure we have the basis to begin to develop policies on social exclusion but the bulk of the money spent must come from within the member states. It is an increasing problem and we must deal with it. Now there is the possibility of dealing with it at European level.

Mr. Regan

Some members asked about social exclusion in the context of employment. If one accepts the proposition that governments do not create jobs but create the conditions in which jobs are created, the lead up to the single currency has created those conditions. The necessary discipline has been achieved for the creation of jobs. We now have the luxury to concentrate on social exclusion. That is an important consideration in the context of the employment chapter in the treaty which, again, is an issue of discipline among member states. Like the cohesion provisions of ten or 15 years ago, which was only a concept, the employment provisions in the treaty create the treaty base for that discipline and for continuing the sustainability of employment which is now the objective within the treaty.

Chairman

Are there any other questions?

Ms McKenna (MEP)

I seek clarification. My interpretation of what was said about this chapter is that there was consideration about whether it should be included because it was incorrect. The author of the book is a barrister and the Jean Monnet lecturer in European Law at Trinity College. It is amazing to hear Professor Dooge saying he is wrong.

Professor Dooge

I expressed a personal opinion. With regard to the policy of the institute, I will ask the director.

Mr. Stewart

The institute is a policy analysis institute. We look at policies but we do not take a stand on them. We do not say one is better than the other. At the beginning of the book we say the views expressed are those of each author and do not reflect the views of the institute. Indeed, there are some differences in the views of individual authors as to the implications of the treaty.

Ms McKenna (MEP)

You said there was consideration as to whether this chapter would be included. It must——

Chairman

Before we get into that, we must clarify one matter. In an agreement such as the Maastricht Treaty or the Amsterdam Treaty which is intricate and has many detailed provisions like the Bible, there will always be areas about which people will argue. Learned men and women will disagree about them. People go to court about such matters from time to time and roughly 50 per cent win their cases. This is a debate; it is not a question of one side winning against the other. We are debating the issues and the people will make up their minds in the referendum. Our job is to debate the treaty and that is being done effectively. However, it is not and should not be a question of who wins the argument. We must present our case and it has been well presented.

I thank and congratulate our guests for presenting a concise and lucid response to the questions raised and for presenting a perspective that is somewhat different from those we have encountered previously. The purpose of these meetings is to compile a report which will be submitted to the Oireachtas. The report will, I hope, be helpful in facilitating people in coming to a conclusion that will be in their own interest. The report and the debate that will take place in the Oireachtas will be fruitful and beneficial. When the Maastricht Treaty was being debated a great deal of misleading information emerged which came to nothing. We should not be fatalistic about this matter, the sky will not fall in. However, it is essential that the debate takes place and that we inform the public accurately.

I will meet the chairman and a number of other members of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security of the Senate of the Czech Republic at 3.45 p.m. tomorrow. A delegation of the Committee met four Commissioners or their representatives in Brussels last week. It was a fruitful exchange of views which was extremely beneficial to the Committee in the formulation of its report. We hope the report will be compiled and ready by the middle of April. That will give adequate time for its utilisation in the discussions that are likely to take place before the referendum. It is hoped the report will incorporate the wisdom we have gleaned in the course of these meetings.

Our next meeting will take place on 8 April when a delegation from IBEC will address the Committee. That will be the last delegation we will meet before the presentation of our report.

Senator Ryan

Will we hear from somebody opposed to the treaty?

Chairman

We have been hearing from somebody who opposes the treaty.

Senator Ryan

I have not heard any delegation advocate anything but a "yes" vote to the treaty.

Chairman

Anybody who wishes to come before the Committee can do so.

Senator Ryan

Let us not close the door before we have heard the opposing side.

Chairman

Absolutely.

Senator Ryan

A number of groups have strong views on this matter which we should hear.

Chairman

Yes. I indicated to the committee that we would encourage groups anxious to address us and we have done that. We have found it difficult to get groups who are willing to make the effort but we encourage them. If the Senator believes the committee should hear from a group which is prepared to discuss the issues between now and 15 April, we will be happy to meet it. I will not go beyond that date as the report must be published and the committee must debate it before it is sent to the Oireachtas.

Senator Ryan

There has been a group before the committee every time it has had a meeting and there has been no room for anybody else.

Chairman

That is true. The committee meets each fortnight and it will have no difficulty meeting more often if necessary. It will meet during Holy Week although not during Easter week. However, if it is necessary we can meet then. If anybody wishes to come before the committee to make a case, he or she is welcome to do so. However, I want to discuss the treaty only, in so far as that is possible.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m.