JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Monday, 19 Jan 2004

Visit by Danish Partliamentary Delegation.

Chairman

I welcome our colleagues from the Danish Parliament led by its chairman, Claus Larsen Jensen. We all know Claus from the COSAC meetings where he has put a great deal of effort into getting agreement on the rules and regulations and terms of reference of COSAC agreed. We are delighted to have the opportunity of an exchange with them here. This is a very interesting time to hold the Presidency of the European Union, with the enlargement process about to take place. Under our COSAC presidency we will for the first time have 25 full members. The same will apply at intergovernmental conference and such issues. Our Danish colleagues will no doubt be interested in having an exchange on some of these matters.

We hear much about the Danish Parliament and we might say a little about how we have changed our work as a committee and how we are continuing to change it. Our role is not the same as that of the Danish committee in terms of mandating our Minister, but he comes here every month before he goes to the General Affairs Council to allow us to go through the agenda with him. This is a new development which started under this Government. We also have a scrutiny process whereby a sub-committee of this committee now scrutinises in advance all draft regulations and directives.

The work of the committee has greatly changed. We worked closely with our parliamentary and Government members of the Convention on the Future of Europe and we met them before and after each plenary session. We have become more proactive in our conduct of European affairs. According to the new EU scrutiny legislation, we will have to report to the Dáil and Seanad on how it works to see what gaps there are and what needs to be done to improve its operation.

We are in the process of changing how we look at European affairs. We know the Danish parliament does so in a different way and we would be happy to exchange ideas with the delegation. I invite Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen to make some opening comments and we can then have an exchange.

Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen

I thank the Chairman for welcoming our delegation to the committee. It is a pleasure for us to have this opportunity to be in Ireland. In Denmark, our European affairs committee has a tradition of sending a delegation to the holder of the EU Presidency every time it changes. It is not always at the beginning of the presidential term, however this time we succeeded in getting it organised to coincide with the changeover.

The reason for the visit is that we wish to hear from those responsible for the Presidency their points of view, the direction of the Presidency, not only what one can read in the official Presidency programme, but also to hear what are the plans. This time it could be very interesting, apart from the programme in general, to discuss Ireland's expectations in terms of the IGC. It is an open question for Denmark too but I am sure Ireland is also having intense discussions as to what to do on this issue. We also wish to exchange some views on COSAC matters. We are focusing on the work that has to be built up in the secretariat to ensure it works efficiently. We also wish to raise some of the points that will be discussed during Ireland's Presidency. In addition to these matters, there will be others raised by members of the delegation. Once again, I thank the committee for the welcome.

Deputy Mulcahy

I join the Chairm an in welcoming the delegation from the Danish European affairs committee. Last night on our national television station, there was an interesting programme on the Danish EU Presidency when at the IGC meeting the Polish issue was determined. The Danish Prime Minister acquitted himself in an efficient manner. I know our Taoiseach was watching this programme to see how he could follow the Danish Prime Minister's lead, though I am sure he has his own ideas.

Both the Chairman and I attended the COSAC meeting in Copenhagen 18 months ago. This was an important meeting because it changed some of the rules for COSAC procedures. I am interested in the delegation's reaction to this. Under the proposed new constitutional treaty, a yellow flag of warning process is allowed whereby the European affairs committees of member states of all national parliaments, when looking at proposed EU legislation, can send a signal back to the Commission, Council or European Parliament saying that a proposal is outside the terms of the EU treaties or defeats the principle of subsidiarity.

There should be co-operation between the European affairs committees of all member state parliaments where they all receive the documents from the EU at the same time. Through co-operation with each other we can share concerns so we know if the Danes are raising a yellow flag on the same issue as some other committee. Currently, all the European affairs committees, except for COSAC, are operating in isolation of one another and without communication.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

We have not concluded this matter but our main concern in this regard is that a European affairs committee has only several weeks for giving an answer on an issue. It is necessary to develop an automatic procedure. When a proposal comes from the Commission to the national European affairs committee in every member state, it scrutinises and evaluates its content. These committees need to decide whether it corresponds to the subsidiarity principle, but this cannot be done without going into the details in the proposal.

Our committee has discussed developing a procedure to ask all specialised committees in the Danish parliament to go through the proposals. For example, if it is legislation affecting transport or environmental policy, then the respective committees should be asked to examine it and return with an answer after a few weeks. Our national process must then correspond with the processes of other member states. We have not yet finalised the agreement on the constitutional treaty. However, each member state needs to have the same timing as otherwise the process will not fit in with the overall machinery. It can be done directly through mail and by using the COSAC secretariat as a clearing house.

There is currently a discussion in the Danish parliament as to whether it is urgent for us to conclude this matter knowing that the constitutional treaty has not been adopted. Personally, I think we should push for it because then the discussion could be started at the next COSAC meeting to find a model which would fit with all the national scrutiny systems.

Chairman

I remind the delegation that this is a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad and that our MEPs have the right of participation.

Ms Mary Banotti, MEP

I first welcome Ms Ritt Bjerregaard, a familiar face from a few years ago.

In terms of the Danish referendums, does the Danish European affairs committee have to produce an opinion on, for example, the Maastricht treaty, to the Danish parliament before the referendum? Does the opinion of the committee members have an effect on public attitudes to these referendums?

Ms Elisabeth Arnold

The system in Denmark is such that a law which has been passed by the parliament is then put to a referendum. The Danish parliament, as a legislator, must make a law stating that Denmark will support a treaty if the people wish to do so. This law will then be put to referendum. It is the parliament which will do that, not the committee. The committee considers the details, but it is the parliament as legislator which makes the law which is put to a referendum.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

During a process of creating a new treaty, we follow it very closely. Convention or no convention, all the texts are put before us as committee members. We consider these at committee meetings, including meetings with the Minister or Ministers, and discuss the proposals contained in the treaty, so when it comes to the question of finalising the IGC, we then make the legislation. It is not new material for us at that stage. We already know all about it and therefore do not necessarily need a very long discussion.

Mr. Henrik Dam Kristensen

When the law is before the Danish parliament, we handle it at our committee, but when the law is passed, comments are made by representatives of all the parties. It then becomes clear what everyone's view is.

As Mr. Larsen-Jensen said, I was a member of the convention. After every meeting there, the Danish member had to go before the Committee of European Affairs to tell of what had taken place. We have a secretariat which made sure that all papers were circulated to committee members. While working in the convention there was also very close co-operation between convention members and the committee.

Mr. Keld Albrechtsen

When the law regarding the referendum is passed by the parliament, the committee will submit a statement, which will be quite substantial if a referendum is involved and will include declarations from each party. In some cases we have made available public material to distribute to all citizens in the form of a small newspaper, containing statements from every party, along with other material. The committee provides information to the citizens in an impartial manner so that all party points of view can be considered.

Ms Banotti

In the context of the campaign, does the committee then break down into its component parts, those for and against whatever the question happens to be? Do the committee members have a particular status within the campaign for a referendum, as happened for example in this country when all the main political parties supported the Nice treaty and campaigned for it, if indeed they did so? The other parties had a different point of view and campaigned accordingly.

Presumably, within the witnesses' committee there are representatives from all the political parties, but in the context of a referendum in Denmark, do the committee members act in a collegiate manner on the basis of the work done or do they split up and go whichever way their parties go?

Ms Ritt Bjerregaard

The speaker is quite right. When we have the referendum we will be split up in parties, and each party will take a stand. The committee will not then be seen as a committee, though we are part of the debate and express different party views. That is how it works when a campaign begins. Every now and then we produce a publication in which each party has a page to explain its point of view, whether in favour or against a proposal.

So far, we have not succeeded in finding a way of involving the MEPs. We are the national committee and meet every Friday. We give the mandate, but involving the MEPs is a challenge we will have to take up in the future.

Mr. Jacob Buksti

In a way, the committee is a sort of mini-parliament. It acts on behalf of the parliament. When we are considering the opinion of the committee, that is based on how many seats each party has in the Chamber. When a process is starting we have a general debate in the Chamber on a resolution involving the Danish position. Committee negotiations follow, and all parties are represented. When we have the referendum, the law will be debated in parliament, because what comes before parliament is public while what is debated in the committee is not.

The committee therefore has a strong position, but it has members from all parties, so it is not a matter of the committee in itself assuming a position. Naturally we know the position of each party. That is how the campaign goes on.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

Regarding the role of the committee, members naturally fight for whatever campaign position they maintain, but jointly the committee has succeeded for many years in having this EU information centre in the parliament where we can distribute factual information as well as the points of views from the different parties, including the Non-Movement, or anti-EU movement, which is very respected, and has the most visited website on EU affairs in Denmark.

The role of the MEPs involved is different from that of the Irish MEPs. Since we are acting on behalf of the parliament, our committee consists only of national parliamentarians, because we are talking of two different parliaments. Following the expansion of the role of the EU Parliament since 1998, with the Amsterdam Treaty and since then, we now need to find out how we can inter-act before the first reading in the European Parliament so that we can make that work better. There is no point in European parliamentarians meeting every Friday when we are meeting at our committee. There is no point in our joining them in their procedures because two different parliaments are involved, and two ways of working. We could probably develop some interaction over time.

Deputy Harkin

I welcome our visitors from Denmark. The visit gives all of us an opportunity of sharing some perspectives on the EU.

While I was reading through the brief, I looked at what happened after Maastricht. There were a number of opt-outs agreed for Denmark at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council meeting. One of those opt-outs stated: "It is laid down that citizenship of the Union will in no way replace national citizenship." In the context of the proposed constitution for the EU, do the witnesses feel that this threatened their citizenship in any way? Did you see it as potentially over-ruling your own constitution? Second, if a constitution is adopted during the Irish Presidency or subsequently and you have to put that to the people in a referendum, what kinds of difficulties do you envisage?

It is important that leaders should lead, but there is also concern that they should not run too far ahead of their people. The briefing says that, during the debate on the Maastricht treaty, parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve it, yet a few weeks later, the Danish people narrowly rejected it. In that context, it is important that leaders do not lose contact.

Given that we had to have two referenda in Ireland on the Nice treaty in order for it to be approved, what lessons have you learnt as a parliament from the Maastricht experience and what advice can you give us?

Chairman

We have only about an hour.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

We will not know what we have learnt until next time. We have had six referenda, so we know the business.

To answer the member directly on citizenship, the problem was solved in 1998 with the Amsterdam treaty, which clearly stated that European citizenship is not intended to take over from Danish or Irish citizenship, for example. It confers additional rights in Europe. The same text is in the draft constitutional treaty, and that means that there should be no problem.

What will be on the agenda if we are to have a referendum? It will probably be some of the same themes that we have been hearing all this time - the threat that the country will disappear as a sovereign, independent nation. That has been so since 1972, and we even have representatives here who can argue that way. Not only yea-sayers are represented around the table. Those are the types of arguments. There are many cases where someone points out that it is really a threat to the country.

Mr. Albrechtsen

I am one of those members of this committee who voted against Danish participation in the euro and against the Maastricht treaty.

Ms Arnold

Six times.

Mr. Albrechtsen

Yes, against all the treaties. However, regarding the major themes in this debate if the constitutional treaty is put forward, the question of citizenship is not one on which there is popular consensus. There is consensus in parliament, but not among the people. The charter will be challenged, especially by right-wing anti-Union campaigning saying that it will go against the Danish exception and over-rule Danish citizenship, also leading to better protection for refugees and so on. The right-wing and "No" people will state that in a referendum. I do not agree with it, but that is another question. It is irrelevant in that context. We have a representative who holds that position, Per Dalgaard.

The left-wing position against the treaty, which I hold, will be that it constitutes a concentration of power which is not being properly debated by the people. With all due respect to those working in the Convention, the constitution is not being made by the people. It is not debated enough and not democratic enough. Those will be the two positions taken by the "No" side.

Mr. Dam Kristensen

We have had a great deal of good discussion in the committee. First, we have learnt always to be afraid of a referendum, because one never knows what will happen. As Mr. Larsen-Jensen was saying, we are trying to change the organisation of our committee on European affairs. One thing that we have learnt is that, if one discusses European affairs and policy only when one has a referendum, one has a problem. Making how we handle European affairs part of daily debate and internal Danish politics in parliament is important.

We have a problem in Denmark. Back in 1992 we thought that we could walk on water. First we beat you all in football in the European championships, and then we said "No" to Europe. People in Denmark still remember 1992, so that is also a problem for us.

Ms Banotti

Perhaps I might add to that. We consider the new treaty as potentially difficult in a referendum. Much has been achieved, and we feel it is right that it has been achieved. Nevertheless, it is not very easy to go out to Danes and explain that we should have one more president. There would be the role of the President of the Commission and another President. All those necessary constitutional changes are not really what people care for. We have been slightly worried about what we could really argue in front of the people because of that.

In Denmark, enlargement has been popular. Most Danes thought it was a good idea and that it would finally bring peace to the whole of Europe. On the other hand, we were also afraid that many of those living close to Denmark would move to the country and take some of the jobs. In that respect, we have different opinions. We consider a referendum difficult - even those of us who very much support the way in which the Union is moving.

Mr. Kristensen

It has been said that one of the major lessons from Maastricht was that one has to be very careful with referenda. However, the whole European Union learnt, not just from the Danish "No" but from the small size of the "Yes" majority in France, to realise the democratic deficit in the European Union. It was after 1992 that you invented the concept of subsidiarity so that matters could be dealt with close to the people. However, the problem is still that matters are so complex it is very difficult to explain them to people in simple terms. On the other hand, we asked the people because it states in our constitution that we must do so if we give up sovereignty in a clearly defined way.

You can see that very small pieces should be put to a referendum. However, the problem is that it always ends up in a debate for and against membership of the European Union. When we come to the treaty, it is not simply a matter of saying "Yes" or "No" to a treaty but whether it is against the Danish constitution. It is said to be not just a treaty but also a constitution, and that is difficult. Especially for a small country that is also an island, the problem is telling people that, to maintain sovereignty or even increase it, one must give up part of it. If one simply stays outside, one will have one's complete sovereignty but nothing to deal with. That is the problem, since we Danes always think that we are world champions - not simply European champions but world champions. We have built up the best society in the world, and therefore the EU can be only worse. It is a little difficult for the moment. Just yesterday, there was an opinion poll in Denmark showing that the anti-opinion is increasing both vis-à-vis the treaty and also about giving up the opt-out. It is a hard issue.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

You have had some centuries' experience of the Danes.

Ms Arnold

Having held six referenda, we have learnt to have great respect for referenda. I advise that the committee try to avoid opt-outs. They are very difficult to get rid of afterwards.

One could always anticipate that at least 35% of the electorate will vote "No" in order to punish the politicians or to show that they can say "No" and cannot be manipulated. The campaigns for referenda are excellent for mobilising European debate because one has an excuse to discuss Europe in towns and institutions across the country. As a committee, we have had six or seven campaigns work because we went out——

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

A road show.

Ms Arnold

Yes. A road show during the campaign to show our different opinions and how we worked together in parliament. They were quite successful. I do not know whether they influenced the final result in any way. At least, we got out to present ourselves to the public.

There is one very important experience I wish to raise. One can never make too much information available. Even if one makes the entire treaty - or small extracts from the treaties - readily available, as well as plenty of information via TV, one will always meet some voters who, the day before the referendum, will ask why nobody tells them anything. Thus, it is necessary to inform the electorate. In our experience, the committee ought to be prepared for a "No" vote of at least 35%.

Deputy Quinn

I welcome the delegation and say with appreciation that it would be wonderful if we could respond to you in your language. The manner and clarity of articulation with which you are responding to us is appreciated and not taken for granted.

My first question relates to the single currency and the decision of the Danish people. What is the mood today? What do the social partners in Denmark feel about being locked into the rate of the euro? The Danish currency was previously locked to the deutschmark and had no say in Frankfurt.

I address my second question to Mr. Keld Albrichtsen. I know what the witness and his colleagues are against when they talk about a loss, a fear of losing something. Can the witness tell me what he is for?

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

That is a good question. I will deal with the question on the euro. The Danes are sailing in a small boat after the euro boat. We have fulfilled 100% of the demands of the Stability Pact and we follow the euro up and down as we did with the German mark earlier. We have no influence on it as a currency. If one heads around Copenhagen, or the west coast of Jutland, one has more or less double pricing and one can spend money. If one asks the Danes they are not in favour right now of joining. If one asked whether they expect that in ten years' time Denmark will be part of the euro, a majority say that they expect it to be so.

I arrived last Friday but the rest of the Danish group arrived this morning. They told me that the Danish media have just published an opinion poll saying that 46% favour getting rid of it while 40% are opposed and 14% do not know. The question is can we get rid of it now. With all the turbulence with France and Germany on the Stability Pact, the "No" vote in Sweden and the uncertainty concerning the constitutional treaty, it is an open question whether one could win it now if we had a referendum. In practice, we are no trouble for Europe and it is no trouble for us. Economically, it is not a problem. Politically, it is.

Mr. Albrechtsen

Many Danes are sceptical about the euro. Do not believe that small countries can have fair treatment. France and Germany can do as they please and nobody will care, but if Denmark or Ireland or other small countries do this, then they will be punished. The Deputy's question on what to do instead of having the euro and the treaty is the weak point in the "No" campaigns. That question always is put forward by my colleagues because they know that I will not be able to answer. The question is fair enough because it is the weakness of the "No" campaigns. To tell the truth, there are almost as many answers to that question as there are Danes. There are at least five different alternatives. One comes from my party, a left-wing party, another comes from the Danish People's Party, a right-wing party. We do not have the same alternatives. These two popular movements are represented in the European Parliament and each one has its own alternative. It would not be proper for me because of the timing of this meeting to go into all that. This is one of the major issues in every referendum. We are asked and have to explain from our own perspective but there is no general agreement about the alternative.

Mr. Kristensen

I wish to ask a question which we all have thought about in the European discussion. We are very pleased about the Irish Presidency because after the Italian Presidency, and what happened in December, the question of what country succeeded Italy became important. If anybody could lead the discussion about the treaty back to where it should be, perhaps it could be Ireland. What is the opinion of the committee about making progress under the Irish Presidency? Could the Irish hand over to the Dutch a situation where we could conclude it in December, or could the Irish accelerate the process so that perhaps it could be finished under the Irish Presidency? What is the feeling of the committee about that?

Deputy Quinn

We are blessed in that our present Taoiseach has a lot of experience both of European Councils and of negotiations. That is the positive aspect. The negative side is that he never in the past, when he was Minister for Labour, intervened in a dispute until he knew that a positive result was possible. He will bring the same tradition of negotiation to this task now.

I echo the view expressed by the former leader of the Fine Gael Party, former Taoiseach and the last Irish President of the European Council, Deputy John Bruton, who made the point that the Spanish Government has a window of opportunity to move while Señor Aznar is still head of the Spanish Government. I sense that the Poles are also prepared to move, provided that they are not seen to move at the request of the Germans.

I do not think the Irish Presidency wanted to have this dominating the agenda. In my opinion - I am not centre to any of the informal soundings but my colleagues in the European Parliament have some sense of what is going on in the background - both the Spaniards and the Poles were prepared to move. I think the Germans are also prepared to move. I would be optimistic that if there is any possibility of movement the Irish Government will attempt to travel with it. However, it is too soon to say. We will have a much clearer picture in this regard in the next four or five weeks. We do not have much more than six weeks in which to move because of the Spanish elections. If this cannot happen, I am fairly confident they will hold the present position, which boils down to one issue.

There are two stages to this process. The first is getting political agreement among the contracting parties of the IGC and the second is getting an agreement that can be successfully sold by way of referenda to both the Poles and others. It would be a mistake to get a very naked political compromise at the first level if it was so damaged that it was incapable of being sold in the referenda.

Ms Banotti

There is virtually nothing to add to Deputy Quinn's assessment. He has been very well briefed by someone close to the European Parliament. It was just last week we began to get an idea of what was happening. I do not think the Taoiseach particularly wanted to get involved. That was not the sense we got prior to Christmas. By the end of the Italian Presidency, even though Mr. Berlusconi gave us some of the best days we ever had in the parliament - it was more fun than anything we had experienced in years - there was quite a lot of despair about what was happening. By Christmas the Taoiseach did a very clever and useful thing. He went on a charm offensive and, by the time the Parliament and everyone else reconvened, they felt they had been consulted appropriately and they were willing and delighted to give the Irish Presidency the chance to do what it could. Without exception, they emphasised that this was the main political priority for most of the major political groups.

I just wanted to make one comment. I am sure members are aware that Hans Peter Bonda spends more time in Ireland in front of the GPO telling us how we should vote during referenda than he does in the country he allegedly represents. We are very familiar with many of the issues the Danish people have. However, Denmark does not have something which inevitably becomes part of every referendum in Ireland, namely, sex. I try to explain to my colleagues that no matter what the issues in referenda, which sometimes are complex, turgid and boring, sex inevitably adds a whole new dimension to referenda, which is why we hate referenda. I should not speak for everyone, but a significant number of us hate it.

Deputy Andrews

Sex or referenda?

Ms Banotti

Referenda. We do not hate sex but we hate the way it ends up being part of the discussion, unlike anywhere else. When I told my colleagues in the Parliament that all that was spoken about in the context of the Single Act referendum was sex, they all just laughed. Of course, there was a double entendre in English, which members might not understand, but it adds a whole new dimension to referenda in Ireland.

Senator Dardis

I could comment at some length about some of the things that have been said already. One of my questions was the one that has just been asked by Deputy Quinn with regard to the currency. What is happening is what I suspected would happen, that is, that it would become more and more a feature of trade and life in Denmark and eventually will not be seen as a particular issue. Perhaps I am wrong.

Of all the countries that are members of the European Union, Denmark is the country to which we relate best in terms of referenda and dealing with the Union. From that point of view the discussions are extremely useful and beneficial. Our experience with referenda is identical to that of Denmark. There is a feeling that there is a sort of coalition of the disaffected on one side, which ranges from the extreme right to the extreme left, that the centre is occupied by those who are more enthusiastic about Europe and that there is a disconnection between how the political establishment and the parliament feels and how people feel. We have attempted to try to overcome this by the creation of a forum for Europe, to which Mr. Bonda is a regular visitor. This is to try to demystify Europe, get away from the jargon and bring it to the people so that at least they can understand what they are voting on. It has served a useful purpose, while still being the preserve of the specialists.

My question revolves around the defence aspect. From our point of view, it is somewhat of a surprise that Denmark is a member of NATO and, on the other hand, it is not an enthusiastic participant in a European defence dimension. This is also our experience. We do not wish to be part of a European defence policy, even though we subscribe to the Petersberg Tasks. I would like to hear the views of members of the delegation on this issue because there appears to be a contradiction in this regard.

On the convention - I am a member of the smaller of the two Government parties - my analysis does not differ markedly from that of Deputy Quinn. There is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to advance the matter. It was true that coming up to Christmas and before the last meeting in Italy, all the focus was on other aspects of the Presidency and very little on that issue even though it is now dominating discussion. The six-month time horizon is short in terms of the consultation that must now take place and the Spanish elections. Nevertheless, there would be an anxiety to progress matters, if not to conclusion, at least to a point where there is sufficient clarity to have a conclusion early in the next Presidency. Others might disagree but that is my analysis of the situation.

Chairman

I want to add to the point made about defence policy. When Ms Banotti said she was coming to an issue I thought she was going to refer to defence because it is the issue that is raised on a regular basis. During the last referendum campaign here, some organisations put up posters that read "Say No to NATO". After ratifying the Nice treaty there was a suggestion that we were, therefore, joining NATO. Ireland is not a member of NATO and there is an issue about joining any European Union defence entity.

Denmark does not wish to know about a European Union defence entity; it wants just NATO, which is a dichotomy. Many people here who would safeguard their neutrality do not understand why a small nation like Denmark would want only NATO and not a European Union defence entity. It would be interesting to hear the views of members of the delegation on this issue.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

To most of us around the table, bar two, it is illogical that we are not part of the security and defence policy. When the Maastricht decision was made the western European Union was seen as a German-French organisation, together with some other countries in the European Union, to build up an alternative French-led military structure apart from NATO. There was no interest in Denmark in splitting from the Americans. The western European Union has disappeared, not the organisation. The secretariat still remains, which is strange. The European defence and security policy is developing more in the direction of combining with NATO. In reality it is going to be easier for us. To us it is illogical that if the European defence pillar had been a part of NATO, we would not have had any troubles. Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are neutral countries. It will be easier for us the more it moves in the direction of NATO. However, it is also clear in political debates in our country that this change in security and defence policy is encouraging opinion to move to the left, one of the parties of which wants more separation from the Americans, particularly in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The party to which I refer wants a stronger European dimension and is in the process of changing its position in this area.

In the long term, it will lead to our being able to join too. However, Ireland and the other neutral countries will be obliged to discuss their relationship with NATO. I attended a meeting in the Nordic countries at which defence policy was discussed. It is clear that the Finns and the Swedes want to separate from NATO structures because they are not part of that organisation. We want it to be part of the NATO structures. It is illogical that the Swedes and Finns are massively active in this area. We do not know where it will end. In the long run, however, I believe we will be there. Our Nordic colleagues are afraid of having close links with NATO. They will have to take a stand on NATO membership in the long term, particularly if it is going to cover most of Europe.

Mr. Albrechtsen

Denmark is probably, with perhaps the exception of Norway, the most pro-NATO country in Europe. It is more pro-NATO than Britain. Iceland may be even more pro-NATO. That is a historical tradition opposed by the left wing. However, it is a fact that the majority of the Danish people have always seen the United States as a basic feature of Denmark's security policy. The formation of a military union with Germany would, in psychological terms, be difficult for many older people. If Ireland and Great Britain had to join a military union, perhaps the same kind of feelings would arise.

Chairman

That is the genesis of our non-membership of NATO. Matters have moved on, but at the outset we had a difficulty joining because Britain was to be a member. We understand that the positions are comparable. Our neutrality has moved on and many things have happened in the interim.

Mr. Albrechtsen

The same is also true of Denmark. The left wing parties in Denmark are involved in a debate because they have never supported the NATO line. The question is whether the European Union could be an alternative to the United States. The answer to that question is not clear to those on the left wing of Danish opinion and it is still a matter of debate.

Ms Arnold

Another point that is changing the Danish attitude is that Denmark has always been very active in United Nations operations in other countries. Now there are signs that the United Nations will delegate these operations to, for example, the European Union. We will then be in trouble because we cannot join in European Union-led operations but we can join in those led by the United Nations, even if they are completely alike.

Senator Dardis

What if an operation was mandated by the United Nations?

Ms Arnold

It is not enough. We cannot deploy Danish troops if they are going to be under European Union command. This is a matter of some discussion in Denmark at present.

Chairman

We have a similar problem but for a different reason. We passed a law which provides for what is called a "triple lock". For us to participate in peacekeeping duties, the mission must be mandated by the UN and approved by the Government and the Dáil. In the case of Macedonia, even though there was support from the United Nations the mission did not carry that organisation's specific mandate so we could not participate.

Mr. Per Dalgaard

The Danish relationship with the United States and NATO has a great deal to do with our not being so keen to accept the treaty. If we accept the treaty, it will be under the guidance of the French and the Germans. This will lead to a dilution of our relationship with the United States and it will also lead to the destruction of NATO. Many people in Denmark do not want this. We have a close relationship with the United States and NATO and we do not want to be a small country in a Europe led by France's anti-American ideas. In my opinion, this concern affects many Danish people.

Deputy Quinn

I suspect the Vikings were the first to create an antipathy towards immigrants in this country.

Ms Avril Doyle, MEP

The Deputy should not go back that far.

Deputy Quinn

For a long period, Irish people were the unwelcome immigrants in other countries. In recent years, by relative comparison, there has been a virtual explosion in the perception of the Irish public that we are being invaded, overrun and that hospital services, etc., are being taken away from us. A serious anti-immigrant, racist problem exists here. I suspect we are approximately five to six years behind Denmark in that regard, but I anticipate that, if they are not already here, Deputies will be elected to the House on explicit racist/anti-immigrant platforms in the next election or the one after it. Sinn Féin is extremely nationalist in attitude and this could easily become an anti-immigrant attitude. How does Denmark deal with this problem and are there any lessons Ireland could learn from Denmark?

Ms Bjerregaard

We can stay here all night outlining them.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

The Deputy has raised an important question. Denmark's Government is made up of liberals and conservatives, together with Per Dalgaard's party, the Danish People's Party, which has changed the legislation, introduced stronger restrictions and adopted a more anti-immigrant attitude. We have had difficult discussions on this matter. There is no doubt that it was the main reason for the change of Government at the last election. That tendency is there and we have made a backwards move. It is clear that, above all other matters on the agenda, it is the main political issue.

Mr. Buksti

It is the main issue now and it was such, as Claus stated, in the previous election. One could state that it is a combination of new immigrants coming in and the fact that they experience major difficulties in obtaining jobs and becoming integrated in society. With social welfare and housing, therefore, they constitute a large percentage of the problem. Many Danes can be offended and that can be used in political campaigns, for example, by the far right in supporting the government.

There are two main problems. One is how to deal with immigration. Can immigration be controlled or reduced? The other problem is how to deal with integration. If one integrates these people into Danish society or Irish society, they could be a benefit to those societies. The working part of the population is declining and the labour force has to be increased. However, there are linguistic, cultural and other problems and putting them into Danish society, which has been homogeneous for centuries, generates strong feelings. Despite the fact that the percentage of immigrants in Denmark is low compared to Sweden, Germany and some other countries, it is considered the main problem so we have to deal with it. Some say that this was done too slowly. It is a question not just of dealing with the problem but also with the rhetoric being used, which has become more antagonistic. The way one talks about the problem might increase the political conflict about this. From the social democratic point of view, this is rather depressing.

Mr. Per Dalgaard

The subject of immigrants is not only a Danish problem but a problem for western European countries. It is all about culture in the first instance and, second, it relates to over-population in the Third World. Nearly 80 million children are born every year and 95% of them are born in Third World countries where there is no prosperity, jobs, water or education. There are also corrupt leaders. Given the level of world-wide communication, they can see and hear about how the western world is doing. As a result, they pack their things and slip into western Europe. The western European countries cannot deal with this massive immigration. The problem is too many people being born in the Third World.

There is also the problem of culture. The people who come to western Europe have a very different culture from ours. They do not believe in democracy or women's liberation and they do not like the way we live, behave or dress. This is causing a problem and that problem will get bigger each year if we do not deal with the problem of too many immigrants.

Deputy Quinn

How do we deal with it?

Mr. Dalgaard

We have to stop it.

Deputy Quinn

How?

Mr. Dalgaard

That is the big question. One thing is sure, however. If it is not stopped, the society of western Europe will collapse. The social system will collapse because these people cannot contribute to it. They are not educated and we have modern societies. What types of jobs do we have for them? We do not have them.

Ms Arnold

I try to calm down when Mr. Dalgaard is talking. He asked how we deal with anti-foreigner sentiments and so forth. There is the democratic way. One must accept there is a political party, which gets many votes at elections, and which has a large representation in parliament. They cannot be neglected but have to be taken into the sphere of responsibility. This party is now supporting the Danish Government. I believe it is considered a loyal supporter by the Government. However, it gets a return through the passage of strict laws, for example, on family reunion matters.

If nothing else, it has brought the discussion into the open. The level of things that can be said to each other has been lowered considerably. Discussion is very open hearted and rough. I do not know if that is a beneficial development but it is there. The democracy of the whole thing is obvious and good because it is an expression of the will of the voters. We have to deal with it, live with it, take this party into the sphere of responsibility and make it responsible for the development of the country.

The most worrying thing is that this party calls into question the conventional framework of what we are doing in Europe, for example, through the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights and human rights institutions. It is questioning those conventions and that is the most dangerous thing about it.

Mr. Dalgaard

That is rubbish.

Ms Arnold

No.

Mr. Albrechtsen

If this debate is entering Ireland in the same way it came to Denmark, there is good reason to consider what can be done. However, there might be optimism in the Danish situation. This xenophobia has reached its maximum and it might even be falling slightly. Denmark has now almost closed its borders and it will be some years before we can change that. Young people in Denmark do not support this xenophobic trend. I hear it when I talk to young people. They have a clearly global vision for their lives. They want to move freely, study in other cities and countries and live where they wish. They have a different concept.

However, immigration was a shock to many of us and we had to re-evaluate many things in our minds to understand ourselves. If Ireland is entering that phase, it would be wise to analyse that and perhaps do it a little better than Denmark did.

Ms Bjerregaard

I wish to raise another question and I will try to be brief. One of the differences between Ireland and Denmark is that religion plays a much bigger role in Ireland. I am curious to know whether religion is an issue in the European question. Previously, we had heard about sex always being an issue in referendums in Ireland but I thought religion was related to it as well.

Chairman

I am sure Ms Banotti meant abortion rather than sex. That was the issue because we have a protocol on abortion.

We think we are in a special position because Ireland is neutral, while you think Denmark is in a special position because it is a member of NATO. Denmark has a monarchy while Ireland cannot understand monarchy. A substantial number of people in Ireland would like to see some reference to God or to our Christian heritage in the constitution while others would not wish it. The religious issue and the formal influence of the church in any referendum are probably not as great as they might have been ten or 15 years ago. There are still people involved in the churches who have opinions. However, there are people in all walks of life who have opinions.

Senator Dardis

There is a general desire to include God in the European Constitution, but it would not be so strong as to be a serious issue in a referendum, even by those who are committed to it.

Deputy Quinn

The Progressive Democrats have a unique experience in that regard.

Senator Dardis

I thank Deputy Quinn because I was about to refer to that. On one famous occasion my party suggested that the Constitution could do without God. However, it was not well received. We have moved quite a distance from that point. While religion is important, it is not dominant. The influence of the churches is not as great in policy matters as it was ten or 15 years ago.

Chairman

The minutes of the meeting of 17 December have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. I propose to defer the rest of the agenda, which is mainly correspondence, until the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank our colleagues from Denmark for coming here today. It is a great pleasure to meet you again and to have this opportunity to exchange views. When we consider the issues of scrutiny and of holding governments to account, the Danish experience is constantly mentioned. I suspect we all develop systems to suit our own way of doing things. We can learn from what you have done. We will not get to the stage where we will mandate Ministers going to meetings, but the way we do things has changed. When we consider those changes, we examine the way Denmark does things.

It is a pleasure to have you here today. The fact you do this each year shows your great interest in that regard. We might consider visiting the Presidency country in the future. We do that as part of COSAC, but we do not do it independently as a committee.

I apologise that I will not be able to attend the dinner this evening as I have another pressing matter with which I must deal. I thank you for coming here today. We are delighted to get a cross-section of views on the issues.

Mr. Larsen-Jensen

I thank you, Chairman, for this opportunity, which has been useful. The problem in the European Union is that we believe we are special. Some are more special than others. Sometimes if we try to compare it with the situation in other countries, we realise we are not as special as we believe we are. However, it is important that we meet and learn from each other. We should try at the next COSAC meeting to see if we could follow up on the yellow card model so that we could start discussions despite the fact the constitutional treaty has not yet been adopted. We could see how far we could get with the discussions, which would be useful for everyone in all the countries.

I thank the committee for receiving us. Some of us are meeting tonight. I would like to give the Chairman a symbolic gift.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.54 p.m. until 11a.m. on 21 January 2004.