JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 27 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 28

Visit by French Delegation.

Chairman

I welcome the French Minister Delegate for European Affairs, Mme. Noelle Lenoir, Senator Yves Deniau and his excellency the French Ambassador, M. Gabriel de Bellescize.

Before we ask the Minister to say a few opening words I would like to put our meeting in context. Ireland will assume its sixth Presidency of the European Union in January 2004 at a time of great historical significance for the Union. I had the honour to be Minister with responsibility for European Affairs during our last Presidency and the nearer we get to this one the more I pine for the job.

The largest ever enlargement of the Union will take place on 1 May 2004, when the ten applicant countries will formally accede. This joint committee will play an important role during the Presidency when our objective will be to scrutinise the performance of the Government to ensure the Presidency is meaningful and conducted in an efficient, effective and impartial manner.

We have also commenced the process, through a new law passed here, of scrutiny of EU legislation. This means every proposal and every draft regulation and directive, once received by the Government, must be forwarded to a sub-committee of this committee within four weeks, together with detailed information on the document. We then decide whether greater scrutiny is needed.

During the course of the Presidency it is expected that certain key developments within the Union will take place. It is now likely that negotiations on the intergovernmental conference may be ongoing and due to conclude during the first half of 2004. Progress on the Lisbon agenda will form the main focus of the spring European Council and it is expected that by 1 May the Government will aim at the completion of the commitments made in the Tampere agreement in the area of freedom, security and justice on police co-operation and policies related to free movement. Negotiations on the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy are likely to be intensified during the Irish Presidency. These issues are significantly influenced by the unpredictable and volatile global environment and the increase in security concerns in the world following the attacks of 11 September in the United States.

Of particular interest to the committee is the rebuilding of EU-US relations which will be an important element of our Presidency. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view on how those relations might be rebuilt. There also will be negotiations on further enlargement of the EU as the remaining countries will still be negotiating then.

The joint committee also seeks to influence the Presidency programme. We set up a group, under the chairmanship of the secretary general of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which included our former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a former Minister, Mr. David Andrews, former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Noel Dorr, and Ms Bride Rosney, adviser to our former president, Mary Robinson. They looked at how we might advance the case for the developing world during our Presidency, including the issue of trade, HIV-Aids, indebtedness and the contribution Ireland and the EU can make in general. We hope these are issues we can advance during our Presidency. We already have the report of this group and intend to discuss it with our Minister shortly.

The convention has now moved into its final phase. Yesterday the text of the most recent draft constitution was sent to members of the committee and a further volume is being circulated today. Since the commencement of the convention this committee has closely followed its progress. We meet convention members regularly before they attend plenary sessions and after their return. We hope to have a special meeting of the committee next week to go through the volumes which have now been published although we have already gone through them section by section. Some minor changes will be made but we need to consider them now as documents which have been consolidated.

The committee has, on more than one occasion, submitted views, through convention members, to be considered at the convention. Most recently we noted a Chairman's draft, a draft I composed on behalf of the committee, as a contribution to the reform process, specifically in regard to institutional issues. The committee has also recommended enhanced access to the European Parliament for national parliament members. We have, at this committee, a provision where members of the European Parliament can attend and participate fully in the committee. They can do everything but vote. We do not normally break down on a voting basis. Many MEP colleagues attend the committee meetings. The European Parliament is in session so they are not here today. The committee sometimes meets on a Monday or Friday specifically to facilitate them. We made the case that perhaps there is too much concentration on institutional change when it comes to the question of a greater role for national parliaments in the evolving Union. If a person from the national parliament, either the chairman of the committee on European affairs or a person nominated by the Speaker, had a right of address at the European Parliament on behalf of a national parliament on issues of concern to national parliaments, that might go some way towards a reciprocation of our arrangement and a closing of the democratic deficit. We already have access to the Ministers who attend the Council of Ministers and commissioners regularly appear before this committee. The gap is between MEPs and the national parliament. The national Parliament here makes itself available to MEPs but the reverse is not the case and it may be a matter worth considering.

I am delighted to welcome the Minister to the committee. It is a very timely visit and we are pleased to have this opportunity as Ireland will be joining the Troika next month and we look forward to the Irish Presidency. It will be very useful to have exchanges of this kind. We look forward to your opening comments and we can then have an exchange with members of the committee.

Mme. Noelle Lenoir

I thank you for your words of welcome, Chairman. I am very pleased to be here with my colleague, Senator Yves Deniau, who knows your country very well because he is the president of the French-Irish inter-parliamentary group. I was here a few years ago and one of the best examples of the aims of the European Union is the way your country has been integrated into Europe which allows other member states to share some of your views and the manner in which you have been able to use the European Union policies. It is very interesting and we share a lot of ideas regarding the future of some of these common policies such as the CAP.

I apologise for my English which is quite rusty. I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak in English. It is not very useful now in France for a Minister to speak English. I usually speak in French.

Before we have our discussion I wish to present the point of view of France with regard to all the big issues at stake at EU level. We are faced with almost all the problems of the building of Europe. Enlargement will create new frontiers. The Convention on the Future of Europe is now in its final phase. European competitiveness is a big concern because of the increasing gap between Europe and the United States in many respects. One of the reasons for my visit is that during the Irish Presidency next year, the Lisbon agenda will be at the forefront of your priorities.

I wish to say something about the problem of communication between governments and parliaments at national level and the citizens regarding the enlargement. M. Deniau will speak about the role of the national Parliament in France and the equivalent of your committee which is the delegation for the EU at the National Assembly and the Senate. He will speak about our view on the future role of national parliaments in the future constitution.

The enlargement of the EU is one of the biggest changes that Europe has ever experienced. France is fully in favour of the enlargement. President Chirac has been very much in favour of this large enlargement from the very beginning, even before he became president and when he was still mayor of Paris. We know that we will have to revise some of our objectives and also the way in which common policies are enacted. That is why we are eager to have close dialogue with Ireland. We regard enlargement as an opportunity for Europe and an opportunity to think of a renewed foreign policy at EU level. We are aware of the problem of Bulgaria and Romania. We are very much in favour of helping these countries to join the EU in due time in 2007. We are a bit more reluctant to accelerate the pace as was proposed by some countries and also by the Commission with regard to the Balkan states. We think that the necessary time should be devoted to help these countries go through the process of accession but the process should not be anticipated, as in the case of Croatia, for instance. The agreement of association and stabilisation is not yet concluded which is the necessary step before contemplating the candidacy of a country. We accept the perspective of enlargement next year. We fully agree that the Balkan countries have the vocation to join Europe but we think that the length of the process is a good thing because these countries have to adapt very rapidly to an entirely new system for them, namely the market economy. They have to drastically change their economies and social systems. The question of our new neighbours is considered to be a key issue for the new future member states. I participate in all the General Affairs Council meetings with our future partners and it is one of the key subjects of those meetings.

The Convention on the Future of Europe is in its final phase. President Giscard D'Estaing has said that he will not have the time to present the third part of the treaty regarding the Community policies if he has to finish his work in June. We have no request with regard to the timing of the convention. If it is prolonged until, for instance, the end of July, it is acceptable. If it is not, we will agree with that. We will leave it up to states to decide if they want the convention to have a slightly increased life expectancy. We share the view of Ireland and its Government that the convention must be a success. That is to say it is necessary as much as possible to find a consensual result, otherwise it will not have been useful to create the convention, which is a very democratic proceeding, very transparent and very accessible to the citizens. If it were just to propose different options, that is to say points of view from the different countries, on all subject matters, it would not be necessary to gather a little parliament such as the convention. We are optimistic that it will be possible in most of the cases to find a consensual position, and that is out aim.

What is our point of view? First of all we think that the future treaty must be of a constitutional nature. That is to say we are in favour of the introduction of the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution. I am a judge originally and have been a constitutional judge. Although we know that it will have to be combined with the European Convention on Human Rights and it will be more complicated, we think that the visibility of what we are doing at EU level implies that there should be a bill of rights not outside the treaty but in the treaty.

Second, we are in favour of the reinforcement of the institutional triangle. That is to say that we think that with 25 and later 27 member states the EU building has to be reinforced otherwise the efficiency of this extraordinary and unique institutional concept will not work. So we want to reinforce every institution of Europe. We have made a common contribution with the Netherlands to reinforce the Community method and the Commission. For instance there is a possibility for the Commission to participate in the drafting of the annual strategic programme, which the European Council will now have to draft and adopt.

We think the Commission must have reinforced power to exert its surveillance of the budgetary discipline of countries, including France. We think that the executive power of the Commission has to be enlarged because it will be more difficult for the Parliament to vote so many detailed directives. Delegated legislation could be an interesting option and we are not asking for a diminution of the numbers of commissioners. That is a proposal we made years ago, without success I must admit.

When Europe is at this turning point, that is to say is being enlarged with the addition of ten new member states, we understand that every country wants to get one commissioner. First of all, we never proposed diminishing the size of the Commission. We did not yet propose amending the proposal of the Presidium, because we wanted to see what was the most consensual position of the members of the Convention and the different member states, but I am not revealing a secret by saying that we agree there is great justification in the request of different countries to get a Commission with as many commissioners as there are member states in Europe.

I know that in Ireland as well as in other countries the Council is not always well understood. The European Council is the most well known European institution, because it is a show in itself when around a table like this there are all the big political personalities of Europe. Each European Council is an event followed by all the media. With 25 countries and 25 Heads of Government, each understandably having a strong identity and will to promote its national interest, we think it is urgent to avoid the European Council being an opportunity each trimester to show the divisions of Europe.

We think that there is a need for a president, a chairman or a chairwoman - as I would prefer - to be permanent in order to be able to travel around Europe all the time trying to help the dialogue between the countries. That person should go to all 25 countries before each European Council and again afterwards to see how the conclusions will be taken into account. That means dozens of visits throughout Europe each year plus the contacts with the Commission. We think that there is a necessity to allow the President of the Commission, who we want to have more powers and legitimacy, to be elected by the European Parliament.

Whenever there is a problem the countries should be able to tell the President of the Council of that problem and ask for help in order to prepare the decision making process, although as members know there is no vote at European Council level. I cannot hide the fact that it is the strongest position we have, not because we want a super statesman or stateswoman, as I do not think the President of the French Republic would accept being submitted to the instructions of the President of the EU Council, but because we need the synergy between member states to be at its best. We have the same view that each country must have the possibility to re-appropriate the EU institutions. That is the reason we will not oppose a rotating system at the level of Council of Ministers. While it is not the official position of France, I personally promote the idea of the European Council meeting in the different countries. Europe must not be a centralised system and the host country can co-chair each European Council with the help of its administration. We are looking for a system which combines our wish for a European Council which is, democratically speaking, the most visible institution for the public and the media. We wish to combine the necessity for an efficient body with the democratic needs of countries to feel "at home" with Europe. We have discussed the position of the Council and the Commission realising that in the end there will be a compromise. We are considering the most foreseeable compromise.

With regard to the EU Parliament, we are in favour of the enlargement of its role as co-legislator, except with regard to the CAP, with regard to which we believe there is a different aspect. We are not very much in favour of the EU Parliament having to interfere in foreign policy matters. Perhaps it could vote on resolutions but it should not interfere in the decision making process. At least for the present we believe it is really up to the member states to decide what common position they are able to adopt in this field. We have proposed the reinforcement of the parliamentary system and that is, to some extent, ongoing between the Commission and the European Parliament, in terms of allowing the European Parliament to elect the President of the Commission and also to overturn the Commission.

To maintain the balance between both institutions, it could be appropriate to allow the President of the Commission, in case of a very difficult crisis, to ask for the dissolution of the EU Parliament. We believe it would have looked like a balanced parliamentary system but, oddly enough, this proposal has not been taken into account.

Chairman

What is the precise proposal with regard to seeking a dissolution?

Mme Lenoir

We propose that the President of the Commission could ask the Council to authorise the dissolution of the Parliament. This is a half-way proposal. It is not directed against the Parliament. We consider it more logical that the Commission should be more dependant on the result of a vote by the Parliament and the Parliament should be in a position to overturn the Commission. However, this proposal has not met with great support.

With regard to the external policy, we have a very ambitious view which is not aimed at defending our national interests. We believe the main current challenges facing Europe include safety, security, the fight against terrorism and developing a shared set of values in facing international crises. Our own vision for the future has been outlined and we have also seen the will of countries which have a very divergent point of view towards the Iraqi crisis. We have seen the efforts of this country to secure consensus and we have had several common declarations, including 27 January, 17 February and at the last European Council on 21 March. We believe European foreign policy is a key area. We have accepted the proposal of other countries for a minister with "double hats" and we have proposed that decisions in this field are made on the basis of qualified majority, based on the inter-governmental method, not the Commission. We accept that we can sometimes be in a minority but we must proceed. Otherwise, it will not be possible to have the ambition to build the new political identity of Europe in the world.

With regard to defence policy, we wish to have an agreement with NATO. We share the view that a trans-Atlantic relationship is key to Europe. We wish to have the military capacity of Europe enhanced because, as we have seen at the beginning of the Balkans war, the Americans were not very willing to help at first. We are fully conscious of our duty to ensure safety in Europe and to be capable of intervening when necessary. We wish to add to the definitions of the missions of defence policy - the Petersberg Tasks - the establishment of peace and humanitarian missions and the fight against terrorism. We would also like those countries which are willing to do so to accept a clause of solidarity.

Those are the main points with regard to the convention. Last but not least, we have very ambitious views of the future of justice and home affairs. I know that your Government is somewhat reluctant in that regard and I can provide some further details. We believe that corruption, organised crime, drug trafficking and trafficking in human beings are some of the main challenges our democracies are facing today. We consider it illogical that criminals should be able to use the common space of Europe while police forces and judges are limited by their national boundaries and geographical area of competence.

While I have spoken at length, I would like to comment on two further issues, CAP and the Lisbon agenda. We rely very much on the Irish Presidency, which has the necessary sensitivity. Oddly enough, France is now the country of reforms in many fields. We are fully in line with the Lisbon agenda.

Senator Yves Deniau

France is in favour of enlargement but we think it must be voted on by national parliaments, the role of which we insist upon. The convention must improve the role of the national parliaments in the European process. While these ways are not clearly decided, there is some time left and what needs to be added to the convention should be a major issue. For instance, the association of the national parliaments with regard to European decisions would probably give better support to the opposition in some countries to reform of the CAP currently proposed by Commissioner Fischler. Even if that reform can be considered as too strong, we think that the role of the national parliaments is essential.

Ireland has no choice but to have a referendum whereas in France, the choice is the President's because our constitution does not oblige us to hold a referendum for the ratification of a treaty. The issue of reform is complicated and difficult to explain to the people because there is no clear question. Therefore, it might be a good thing if it is voted on by parliament.

I will conclude to give time for questions. I apologise for my French accent but would like members to know that my son speaks English with a Cork accent.

Chairman

We will take questions. I will begin where Senator Deniau finished with the point that Ireland is bound to have a referendum. We have only recently held a second referendum on the Nice treaty. An important part of that referendum was to agree the wording on the strict rotation of commissioners and on permitting the European Council to set the number of commissioners at less than 27 once there are 27 member states. It would be difficult to go back to the electorate with a different formula so soon.

I was on the reflection group with MichelBarnier in the run-up to the Amsterdam treaty, was the Minister responsible for European affairs throughout the Amsterdam treaty process, was director of elections for my party for three referendums and am strongly pro-European integration. However, I feel strongly that it is wrong to revisit the question of the size of the Commission so soon after the Nice treaty. There is a very good formula in the Nice treaty in that if the European Council wants to reduce the size of the Commission, it already has the power to do so. However, the rotation is strictly set out and is fair. Any departure from that would be very difficult for us to tolerate or to sell, and I say that as a strong pro-European.

It is important to sometimes remind ourselves that we are not running a spare parts factory - we have to bring the people with us. We cannot simply make efficient decisions as such decisions might see a French National Assembly of 50 members or a Parliament here of ten Members. That will not do because we must bring the people with us. They have to know that there is identifiable representation. As the European Union grows eastward, as positions are established of permanent chairman of the European Council and Minister for European Affairs - who will chair the Foreign Affairs Council - and as our representation in the larger European Parliament diminishes, to interfere with the Commission's role would be extremely difficult for us. We have agreed a formula in this regard in the Nice treaty. To revisit that formula before the larger member states have surrendered their second commissioner - the trade-off for the change in qualified majority voting - is disingenuous.

Mr. Deniau touched on defence policy. This morning I started to read volume one of the report of the Convention, most of which we have already gone through with our Convention members. I notice that there is different wording in the early part of volume one than in the later part. On page 99, it states that there "will" be a common defence, and that it "will" lead to a common defence while on page ten it states that it "might" lead to a common defence. The wording is clearly intended to lead to a common defence for those who wish to join that common defence, and I presume the Minister would agree with that. A common defence entity will be on the agenda for those willing to join. It is important if we are to carry the referendum here that we put the truthful situation before the people and explain it to them.

Will the Minister address the issue of EU-US relations? Without being undiplomatic, French-US relations seem difficult. Is there to be a mending of fences, perhaps at the G8 meeting or at some time in the near future? Does the Minister think there will be a treaty of Rome or a treaty of Dublin?

Senator Quinn

Madame et messieurs, je vous souhaite la bienvenue. Ce n'est pas la première fois que nous avons parlé. Comme j'ai déjà dit, j'ai une fille qui est marié à un Français et ils ont un petit fils. Chaque année pour le match de rugby entre l'Irlande et la France, c'est mon petit-fils qui porte le vert et mon gendre qui porte le bleu - et ce n'est pas toujours l'Irlande qui gagne.

I congratulate our guests on the quality of their English. I read in my newspaper today that the Minister said that it is not the time to give the impression that Europe is adrift. I know that she is talking about the value of the euro, which has enhanced in value not due particularly to action on Europe's part but more to action, and a policy I deplore, on the part of the United States. The United States seems to have taken the view that it should devalue its currency in order to gain benefits from that. Those of us who attended university in the 1950s were taught how dangerous it is to enter into a battle of devaluation of currencies. I would like to have the Minister's view on this reference to Europe being adrift.

My other question concerns qualified majority voting. Ireland has had a successful economy since we adopted a low tax policy, particularly with regard to company tax. France has a policy of high taxes and we are afraid that, under qualified majority voting, we will lose the advantage we have had to build our economy. I would be interested to hear the delegation's views and those of France in that regard.

Deputy Mulcahy

I add to the warm welcome that has been extended to Ms Lenoir, Senator Deniau and the rest of the delegation. Ireland has always enjoyed the warmest of good relations with France, ably assisted by an excellent ambassador, Mr. de Bellescize, who has constantly worked very hard to that end. I found the delegation's point of view interesting and I feel we have a great deal in common. Both countries are committed to what is known as the communautaire approach of the European Union. The Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, has stated on many occasions that such an approach is absolutely vital for Ireland. We want a Union in which all members are equal in all senses and in which the welfare of citizens is prioritised regardless of the country from which they come. The successes of the past will be repeated in the future only if the internal dynamic of the communautaire approach is retained.

I ask the delegation to reflect on certain matters. It has been said that the institutional triangle has been very successful, but is it possible that we are now interfering, in some sense, with the very delicate mechanism that has been so successful? For example, members of the committee will recall that Commissioner Kinnock attended a meeting several weeks ago. His view is that the election of the President of the Commission by the Parliament would be a severe mistake because it would politicise the Presidency of the Commission. I have also had lunch with the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

I am disappointed that up to 16 countries, most of which are small but one of which is Poland, signed up to a proposal to elect the President of the Commission through an electoral college. The Senator might agree with this. The electoral college, which would consist of national Parliaments and the European Parliament, would be a mechanism for involving national Parliaments in the election of the President of the Commission. Although 16 countries signed up to the proposal, the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe decided not to include it in the latest draft of the convention. I find that slightly difficult to understand. Perhaps a majority in the French language does not mean a majority as we understand it in the English language. My French is not as good as that of Senator Quinn.

Regarding the question of foreign policy, many speakers said that the recent crisis regarding Iraq has shown that a joint foreign policy in Europe simply does not exist. There are two or three different schools of thought. It is fine to have a European Foreign Minister representing everybody, but that pre-supposes a common and united foreign policy, something from which we are surely a long way. The seriousness of member states can be assessed by asking whether France and the United Kingdom would be prepared to forego their seats on the United Nations Security Council so that there can be an EU place on the council. Such a move would demonstrate that the UK and France are serious about adopting a single foreign policy in the European Union.

Deputy Harkin

I echo the words of Deputy Mulcahy by welcoming the French delegation to this meeting this afternoon. While I congratulate Senator Quinn on his use of the French language, I will speak English. A headline in one of today's newspapers claimed that battle lines have been drawn. It referred to the fact that a draft document was published by the Convention on the Future of Europe yesterday. A member of the delegation said that France wants the convention to be a success and that it would like consensual views to emerge from this process. While I fully accept that this might be an aim, I wonder if it is the reality and the end product. Is that what is being delivered?

The Minister of State with responsibility for Europe has said that the institutional proposals represent an attempt by the large states to grab power and to change existing political balances. I hope I am quoting the Minister of State correctly in that regard. Ireland's major concern is to ensure that the position of the smaller states in the Union is respected. There is a certain sense in Ireland, which may or may not be correct, that the EU is in the process of becoming too powerful. As a result of the two debates we have had on the Nice treaty, Irish people have a greater knowledge of the scope of the EU and the influence of its legislation. Perhaps a great deal of this information may not have been in Irish people's consciousness in the same way that it is now. While I understand that politicians must pursue certain visionary policies and that leaders must lead, I wonder if we are going too fast for the people of Europe. This is a very important issue in Ireland because the decisions that are taken will have to be put to the people in a referendum.

The delegation also said that countries need to feel at home, but I sense that the convention is not engendering such a feeling of comfort. While I agree with many of the aims of the convention, perhaps it should be consolidating what is already there. The Chairman referred to that in his comments about Nice. We should not try to introduce too many reforms or changes because I fear that such measures might prove its undoing. I can only speak about Ireland in that respect.

Deputy Haughey

Like other speakers, I welcome Ms Lenoir and Senator Deniau to this meeting. I thank them for their contributions. I reiterate what other Deputies and Senators have said about Ireland's enjoyment of close relations with the French Republic, and long may it continue. Many questions have been put to the delegation so I will be brief.

Irish people view the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe with a little trepidation. As the Chairman said, we must put the new treaty to the people by way of referendum. Irish people are very engaged with the EU project as a result of the two referendums on the Nice treaty. We need to be in a position to sell the treaty to our people in a referendum. I would like the delegation to respond to a perception that exists in Ireland among critics of the way in which Germany and France are dealing with the Convention on the Future of Europe. The perception is that a Franco-German alliance has emerged and is driving the convention. Those who hold this view believe that such an alliance is not in the interests of the smaller states. I do not know how the delegation will respond to such a criticism.

This exchange of views has been very useful. Ireland is a small country in EU terms, whereas France is a larger state and one of the founders of the Union. How does the delegation respond to the suggestion that there is now a battle between the large states and the small states? Does it agree that a new Franco-German alliance is driving the Convention on the Future of Europe process to the detriment of the smaller states?

Senator Ormonde

I welcome Ms Lenoir and the French delegation. I am still on a learning curve but I have been grasping all that is coming through in documentation. I have been trying to assess and assimilate how best to transfer my knowledge to the citizens of Ireland, but, at times, I am having great difficulty. I congratulate the working groups which have been operating over the last number of months on reaching a consensus regarding all the reports that have come through.

There seems to be a little difficulty in terms of the European Union's institutions and the perception of them. This point has been touched on by many members of the committee today. There is a perception that the smaller states may not be in control, which is why we have been trying to explain in the aftermath of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice how important it is to convince citizens that we have control in the most important areas. There is a perception that the larger states are dictating to us and it concerns me a great deal when I have to talk to citizens. I must explain that we are in control and that the economic and social cohesion of Europe is for the betterment of us all. There may be concerns regarding the issue of the dual Presidency and I would like the views of the delegation on that.

Chairman

Deputy Carey is an alternate member of the convention.

Deputy Carey

I am sorry I missed the earlier part of the discussion. I was attending a meeting in another committee room. I welcome the delegation.

We are at a very serious juncture in the debate on the formulation of the new constitutional treaty. The next three weeks will be very important to the development of the European project. Everybody will be able to agree with 95% of what has come into the public domain. Nobody need be afraid that there is an attempted power grab in the offing by any part of the institutions of Europe. That said, it is important to reflect on a number of issues which are coming forward now. We must ask how the balance among the institutions is to be preserved. I have enormous reservations about the proposal for a permanent President of the Council as it will create the possibility of a conflict between the President of the Council of Ministers and the President of the Commission. There is a serious difficulty there. As other members have said, there is also a possibility that smaller states will lose out. It cannot be ignored by the President of the convention that 16 smaller states and Spain have come together for various reasons to indicate their unease at some aspects of what is proposed.

The chairman of the committee said as I entered the room that it is too early to start unpicking Nice. The smaller states in particular gave up a great deal in the Nice treaty and it is profoundly unfair to expect the same countries to give up more. I agree with speakers who have said that doing so would make it extremely difficult for us as Members of Parliament to convince our electorate that they ought to support a revised formulation of the institutions. It is a great pity that the proposal for an electoral college to elect the President of the Commission which was put forward by the Irish delegation and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, was rejected. A great opportunity is being lost by allowing only one candidate. If we are to connect with the citizens of Europe, we should provide for between three and five candidates for the position who would be required to present themselves to national Parliaments. That opportunity is being lost, but it will not be lost on the Irish people. What has been proposed has been labelled "the Baghdad formula" here, which is not healthy for democracy.

Another member of this committee and an esteemed member of the Praesidium, Deputy John Bruton, made a much more imaginative proposal based on direct elections. While the Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated that this proposal is ahead of its time, it is a great pity an opportunity is being lost to formulate a form of election. Those areas must be got right. The chairman of this committee has spoken passionately of the need for an agreed foreign policy. Progress is being made in that regard and many of the basic principles involved are probably agreed. We have difficulties talking about foreign and defence policies and there is no point pretending that foreign and security policies will not be problematic for Ireland.

This is the first time that the debate in advance of an Intergovernmental Conference is being conducted in public. As I heard the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, say on radio this morning, up to now everything was done at the Intergovernmental Conference, largely behind closed doors. Now, the citizens of Europe have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I take my hat off to The Irish Times which today published almost wall-to-wall coverage of where we are at. I do not know what the other newspapers have done as I did not get the opportunity to see them. Anyone who says they do not know what is happening can only blame himself or herself. All they need do to become more engaged is take up The Irish Times or listen to the radio.

Chairman

I think I spotted The Irish Times noting the Deputy's point.

Senator Dardis

Madame, Monsieur le Sénateur et Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, bienvenue en Irlande. Mon ami, Senator Quinn, parle bon Français, mais je parle seulement un petit peu Français. Chaque année je vais au match entre l'Irlande et la France et pour moi, c'est toujours le vert - pas le bleu.

I re-echo some of the things which have been said by earlier speakers. One of our fears when the convention met initially was that we felt there was a tendency towards a federalist model, which would raise serious concerns in this country and among all the smaller states. Thankfully, in the draft which has emerged, there is reference to acting on a communautaire basis. The dreaded "f" word is not present. Perhaps the delegation will provide the committee with the French perception of the development of a federal-style Europe in which there is a centralised system of government and subsidiary governments. Even more sovereignty would be ceded to the centre in such a system than is being ceded at present. I accept that the ceding of sovereignty has benefited member states in that it has helped improve their standing and the welfare of their peoples. I echo Deputy Mulcahy's allusion to the reference in the draft to individual member states not undermining the Common Foreign and Security Policy. While this is fine rhetoric, it does not sit well with what happened with regard to the Iraq crisis, where its many approaches were in evidence, none of which converged towards a common European Union position.

I share Deputy Carey's concerns about the institutional balance and the questions of Commissioners and a permanent president, which bring us back to the debate here during the Nice treaty referendum and the point made by the Chairman. Part of the reason it became possible for the Nice treaty referendum to be passed was the apparent definitive resolution of certain issues, which it now appears are being reopened under the auspices of the convention. This is an undesirable development.

I note that newspapers today feature concerns about the lack of consultation in the European Union, which have been expressed by what I would describe as the anti-European group. The convention constitutes a good example of full consultation with national Parliaments and beyond. As the group will be aware, we have a Forum on Europe which has engaged in public debate.

This brings me to my final question. Given that a referendum will not be required in France, how engaged with the European ideal and the debate on Europe is the French public? Ireland must have a debate on proposed EU treaties by virtue of the fact that a referendum must be held to ratify each treaty. Although this has not always been the case, we had a debate in the aftermath of the signing of the Nice treaty. How is it possible to engage citizens with the European ideal if one does not have a mechanism for dealing with treaties, such as the referendum mechanism available to us? I can understand that at times, particularly in circumstances in which a small proportion of the European Union population is allowed to decide whether a treaty will be ratified, the referendum mechanism will cause irritation among the larger member states, as failure to pass a referendum could be regarded as akin to exercising a veto. I hope some of these difficulties will be overcome through the clarity which will emerge from the convention when the treaties are made easier to understand and drawn together in one new treaty.

Mme. Lenoir

My colleague will answer questions on economic issues such as the euro and fiscal legislation and on the qualified majority. If I may be permitted to take several questions together, I will comment briefly on this new and detrimental notion of a cleavage between the so-called small or medium-sized countries and the large states and on the Franco-German alliance. I will then make a few additional remarks about the balance between the three main institutions of the European Union and answer the questions on the Commission, the President of the Commission, the proposed president of the Council, etc. I would then like to respond to the Deputy who stated the European Union was becoming too powerful, which, as members will appreciate, is not an accurate reflection of the current position. I will then discuss the issues of foreign policy, defence policy, relations with the United States and, not least, the problem of public understanding. I will also contemplate the question concerning federalism in Europe.

With regard to the question about whether the treaty will be known as the treaty of Rome or the treaty of Dublin, it is more probable that it will be the latter, unless Mr. Berlusconi's proposal that EU leaders take an aeroplane or boat from Dublin to Rome to sign the treaty receives a positive response.

Chairman

We could discuss the possibility of signing it in the Vatican.

Mme. Lenoir

I agree, provided it is done in a secular way, as France would wish. I will comment first on the position as regards the small and large countries. The media portrayal of certain events and the entirely new context which has arisen in our post-Cold War society and world have resulted in opposition or divisions among countries and the manner in which some of them work together to produce proposals being regarded as a sort of attempt to secede from the European fair play rules. It is not fruitful to think in this way.

At the beginning of the European Community, there were three small and three large countries. Since the Treaty of Nice some sensibilities have been touched. Previously, this had not been a problem. What I see, which is not good for our citizens, is that this fictitious opposition between the small and medium sized countries on the one hand and the large ones on the other has been given such public prominence recently that even in France people are saying we have been disadvantaged because we do not have the number of members of the European Parliament we should given our demographic size.

One cannot view the functioning of Europe as a balance sheet. Consider what happens in the context of common policies. The principle by which countries "want their money back" is becoming the common approach, leading to a renationalisation of policy. I do not envisage that the European Union will become more powerful. It is too complicated and fragile to function perfectly. If one were to heed the arguments of the British, the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds would be abolished. If one were to heed the arguments of the Germans, the Common Agricultural Policy would be abolished because Germany, which pays for a substantial proportion of it, can no longer afford it. There is a synergy between the functioning of the institutions and the common policies. If one takes the approach by which one calculates which country benefits most from the European Union, Europe will have no future. This is a complicated matter to explain.

I regret the cleavage between the small and large countries. As the committee will be aware, while we do not admit it, the French are sometimes arrogant. However, we are equally arrogant towards the large and small countries. Our arrogance is fair.

Chairman

It is even-handed arrogance.

Mme. Lenoir

Yes. It is understandable that member states do not want to lose power, as they must all demonstrate to their citizens that membership of the European Union is beneficial and not a disadvantage in terms of money, power or jobs. Therefore, one must argue domestically that one is winning. However, one does not win or lose in the EU, one must compromise. This is the reason I do not feel at ease with this concept.

With regard to the second point, I recognise that for different reasons which are difficult to explain the Franco-German alliance is not accepted as it was years ago. While I do not speak off the record I want to explain it as openly as I can. The first reason is because from the very beginning Europe was created out of the Franco-German reconciliation after the war with, for instance, a community for steel and coal industries. The miraculous idea was to put together the causes of the war to build peace. Young people have forgotten what was the purpose of Europe - peace in Europe. It was not only done for economic reasons but for peace. Economic ties are a means to keep peace. There was a crisis in 1929 which led to the Second World War and to Hitler and all that so we know very well that the economy is a means to make peace.

The Franco-German dialogue is a way for us to build compromises. That has been the case from the beginning. We are neighbours. However, it is not an exclusive relationship and, as I already said, we made contributions at the convention where we had close contacts with this country and the Government. We also made contributions at the convention with the Dutch and the British. We are currently working with the Belgians, the Greeks and the Irish Government. We are even working with the future member states.

It is true that, for most of the time, Germany and France have had different visions of Europe but we are used to this dialogue and it helps us to accept compromise in a way which is not detrimental to the other countries. In the area of defence policy, for instance, we work with the British. We share the building of our future aircraft carriers. We have the same programme. It is not to govern Europe. The Germans are not at all in line with us in regard to the CAP and the Structural Funds. As members know, they are much more federalist than we are. Every country wants to transpose its own national system onto Europe. It is just a way to make proposals but it is not exclusive. This kind of dialogue has existed for a long time. It is as if one were criticising the British because they have close links with the United States. How can one tell them what to do? It is difficult to explain, but it is not because we are always on the same lines that we agree. It is a traditional dialogue that has nothing to do with the big countries against the small ones.

With regard to the institutions, I can reassure members about the number of Commissioners. Personally, as I have said it to The Irish Times, I am not sure it has been a good idea to propose to diminish the size of the Commission. It will not be accepted anywhere. The French have not proposed to restrict the size of the Commission. With regard to the election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament, we were strongly against it for the reason that we think the strength and credibility of the Commission is as a watchdog to ensure that the states respect the common rules of Europe. Its role is to be neutral, not to be politicised. Nobody would accept having the chief of a political majority at the head of the Commission. It would not work.

I was involved in the European Union with Jacques Delors some years ago and he was perfectly aware that the role of the President of the Commission is to help the countries to have their interests respected. It is not difficult for the Commission to be European because they take powers from the states. It is much more difficult for the governments to be European. It is heroic if I may say so. They do so because they know that it is better to be together. Even if one thinks that one's country is smaller than France, on a worldwide scale there is not much difference between 10 million and 60 million. The challenges are on a worldwide scale. It is because we are not big enough that we build Europe to protect ourselves and to build a robust economy.

The members are right to say that the President of the Commission must not be politicised, but we have accepted that because it was a request of a strong majority. We have now to think of the kind of election we would best accept. I am aware that 16 countries, including Ireland, have proposed a system which I personally think very consistent. It will be discussed at the Presidium which is managed from Brussels - not from France as some countries seem to think. It is possible to find a compromise between the consensual ideas that the European Parliament must have a bigger role, that the President of the Commission must not be politicised and also that there is a need to try to fill the gap of the democratic deficit.

In regard to the democratic deficit, member states are contradictory because while we regret the democratic deficit, we do not want a federal super state. We do not want a President of Europe elected through universal suffrage. We do not want European political parties. We do not want transnational political parties campaigning throughout our countries. We do not want this federal system, but if it is not a federal one it is a mixture between what is called the community method and the intergovernmental method and this is complicated. We are building something new which is not simple because the main actors of the Union are the states, either in the Council of Ministers or the European Council.

There are two very extraordinary institutions, which I am not sure would be created at the present time. At the Commission, the monopoly of initiative is a miracle. Imagine that instead of having 25 proposals from 25 states we were obliged either to refuse unanimously or to accept one proposal from a transnational body which is not political. It is a miracle. I am sure that at the present time nobody would accept that. The second thing is the primacy of community law in the Court of Justice. Without those two bodies the European Union would be an intergovernmental organisation as the Council of Europe which is——

Chairman

We are running into difficulties with time. Could Mme. Lenoir say something on the defence issue?

Mme. Lenoir

The defence policy is based completely on voluntary contribution at two levels. Firstly, many countries among the new entrant states, such as Malta, want to remain neutral. Defence policy is also in the domain of sovereignty, so a state can contribute to military capabilities or not, as it wishes. Similarly a state can send soldiers or not. The defence policy is based completely on voluntary contribution at each level, and we are in favour of reinforced co-operation in a much simpler way than provided for in the treaty. It is fully voluntary, but the security of Europe is a big challenge.

With regard to the US-EU relationship and France, we have had divisions and have exchanged strong words, though there were more from the Americans than from the French. The press was very harsh against the French and we regret that, as you know, but we have no problem with a transatlantic relationship. We had no problem with the evaluation of the situation but we were not in favour of the military intervention in Iraq.

A UN resolution has now been passed and we know that the transatlantic relationship is part of the European identity. There would never have been a European Community if the Americans had not been pushing in that direction. We have of course had strong words but the French press is not at all discourteous to the Americans. Regarding our seat at the Security Council, since your colleague Deputy Mulcahy is not here I will not answer his question.

Senator Yves Deniau

I will say a few words about tax harmonisation. This is always an issue for countries with taxes which are too high. France has to cut its spending and taxes. When we have done that, which will take some years of hard work, we can talk of something else. Decisions on finance are at the base of all democracies. It is a part of sovereignty which should not be contentious. At the time, France took the path it has taken, but it is no longer a main issue for us. What we should examine is the possible harmonisation of rules and not rates. Rates are the decision of each state. If the rules were better harmonised, it would be easier for companies and private citizens who live or work in different European countries. That is the only thing I can see developing in the near future in terms of harmonisation.

France currently has problems with the Commission because its deficit is too high. The Commission has effectively asked us to increase our taxes in order to reduce the deficit, but we feel we should do the opposite and continue reducing our taxes in order to ensure better growth and more income and thus reduce the deficit. Some time ago the Commission criticised Ireland on the grounds that its taxes were too low and were a factor in causing inflation, but taxes which are too high are a major problem for Europe in terms of competing with other parts of the world. If harmonisation occurs, it will result from the wisdom of the financial politics of every country.

Chairman

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Deniau et Madame le Ministre et Monsieur l'Ambassadeur. Je vous souhaite un bon séjour en Irlande.

Madame Lenoir

Thank you very much indeed.

Chairman

We have some matters to discuss in private.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.15 p.m. and adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 May 2003.