With regard to the report on the conference of chairpersons of European affairs committees of the member states of the European Union and the European Parliament during the UK Presidency of the European Union, Deputy Mulcahy and Senators Leyden and Ormonde attended the recent plenary meeting of the conference of Community and European affairs committees of parliaments of the European Union, COSAC, in London in October. A report on the conference, which encompasses a report on the earlier meeting of chairpersons in July, has been circulated to members of the joint committee. I invite Deputy Mulcahy, who was the leader of the delegation, to discuss the report.
Business of Joint Committee.
The chairpersons' meeting took place in London in July. The plenary session of COSAC took place in London in October. Members and officials of the delegation would agree that the preparations for each meeting were exemplary. All of the documents were provided in advance.
The most significant aspect of the chairpersons' meeting in July was the attendance of Commissioner Wallström. At that stage the future of the convention was unclear and Commissioner Wallström appeared open to new ideas and appeared to say she would bring forward new proposals regarding proportionality and subsidiarity to the Commission and then the Council and the European Parliament, or both the Council and the European Parliament. That is my main area of interest. Unfortunately, there appeared to be a slight rowing back from this position at the COSAC meeting in October. The message was that, given that France and the Netherlands had both rejected the treaty on the draft EU constitution and we were now in a period of reflection, it would be anti-democratic to even experiment with the subsidiarity and proportionality provisions included in the draft treaty because there was no mandate to do so. I argued that there had always been an implied law of subsidiarity and proportionality and aside from the treaty, there would be nothing wrong with national parliaments in member states beginning this process on an experimental basis. This was more or less agreed at the end of the meeting.
Some countries do not want this process. They do not appear to have a parallel scrutiny process and do not believe national parliaments have a duty to initiate such a process. This is because they regard the European Parliament as fulfilling this role within their systems. There is a divergence of views on the issue. I am interested in hearing the views of the other members of the delegation.
Other matters such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy and a technical matter concerning the COSAC secretariat were discussed. The process is becoming much more concrete. Previously, it had become bogged down in technical discussions and such matters as the languages that should be used. Despite the fact that some member states have a negative attitude, there is a thirst to proceed with a limited form of co-operation within COSAC regarding proportionality and subsidiarity. However, the process will be slow.
Reference was made at the first meeting to the special guest status proposed for Ukraine and the minutes of the second meeting refer to the guests of the COSAC presidency and suggest that neighbouring countries to the Union should be invited to debate issues of interest to them. My concern is with the issue of raising expectations on the part of those countries.
With regard to Ukraine, we are out of line with the people we represent. To repeat what I said yesterday to the European Minister of Luxembourg, if one examines the reasons the electorate worry about the direction Europe is taking, key factors include the pace of enlargement, the capacity of the Union to absorb new countries and the impact enlargement may have on the drift of jobs from the western side of the Union to the east, which is already happening, as well as the proposed accession of Turkey and the definite accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Given what the public reads about Ukraine and countries in the western Balkans, concerns arise with regard to the capacity of the Union to deal with such rapid change and the impact of enlargement on people's lives.
We must heed the warning signs. However, we should tread carefully, for the sake of neighbouring countries. Their expectations should not be raised to the point where they believe accession is simply something to be negotiated before they automatically join the Union.
Will the two members who attended the meeting tell us what views were presented when these issues were discussed?
I agree with the Deputy. I will not mention the country involved but when I attended my first couple of COSAC meetings, I was surprised that a state with special guest status was introducing amendments to the proposals being debated. The amendments were circulated by the state in question and asked that COSAC's rules be changed on a particular issue. I found this strange, given that this country had not, to all intents and purposes, begun the accession process. It is almost an assumption that once one gets into the room, one cannot be kicked out. I accept the Deputy's point.
I agree with Deputy Allen. The Chairman is correct in what he said. That country, to put it mildly, overstepped the line in terms of its observer status. The problem is that COSAC now mirrors the situation at Council. Apart from the 25 countries that attend Council meetings and other European gatherings, it appears that other countries are being led — if not up the garden path — down a certain route by the Eurocrats. However, we must be careful in this regard because we do not want to shut the door on these countries.
No.
It is a fine balance. We should make the point at COSAC that observer status is no more than that. Observer countries should not have the right of amendment or intervention. They should be there to look, listen and learn.
I support those observations. An unfortunate phrase in the document — I am not suggesting Deputy Mulcahy drafted it — states that the Presidency proposed, and it was agreed, that the way forward was for future Presidencies to imaginatively include issues on the agenda that might benefit from contributions from "aspiring member states". We could change the term "aspiring member states" to "near neighbour states", given that there is a need to talk to neighbours such as the Ukraine as a result, for example, of issues of human trafficking and criminality. Consequent to the enlargement that will include Bulgaria, Romania and, hopefully, Croatia, an enclave or residue of Balkan states will remain that, quite frankly, need to be brought up to a level from which they can qualify for membership of the European Union. An aspiration for qualification is not the same as a guaranteed right of membership, a point to which the Deputy referred.
I am concerned about the looseness of the language. The phrase "aspiring member states" implies the commencement of a long journey. We have seen where this has taken us with regard to Turkey, regardless of whether one agrees with the Turkish aspiration. There is a neighbourhood policy. I agree that we must talk to our neighbours but not on the basis that they will become sleeping partners.
While I have nothing against other countries, I am concerned about the capacity of the Union to absorb them and the impact enlargement will have. I attended the Crans Montana meeting in Zagreb, hosted by the Croatian Prime Minister, earlier in the year. The question of the accession of Croatia was discussed at that meeting. The genuine expectation of the neighbouring Balkan states was that once Croatia was in the door, they would all follow almost automatically. Rightly or wrongly, the Eurocrats have led them to believe that this will happen, irrespective of political considerations or the feelings of those who comprise the EU electorate and who must decide about constitutions and try to pass judgment on matters which they see as being out of their control.
We have been asked to consider these issues during a period of reflection. Regardless of whether we know it, the committee has probably had one of its most concrete debates on one of the aspects for consideration during this period. Members make the point that we are rushing this process with regard to some countries. The phrase "leading them up the garden path" has been used. Do members wish to put proposals on paper? Should the committee take a particular direction in this regard?
Deputy Quinn's suggestion that we change the wording in the report from "aspiring member states" to "near neighbour states" was with regard to our records. However, our delegates to future COSAC meetings should politely raise concerns with regard to expectations. In addition, during the period of reflection in this country we must allow, as I have suggested, members of the public to express their concerns. We must go to the people. We must give them our views on Europe, provide information and listen to their concerns. Four key concerns must be dealt with.
Let us take it a step further. Deputy Mulcahy is correct to state that COSAC is simply mirroring what the Council has already done. As a committee, we should seek to ascertain the parameters with regard to initiating a process for a particular country, what that process is and whether it needs to be examined and whether we are dealing with guest status or observer status. We must discover whether there are parameters or whether someone simply makes a telephone call to invite a country to the next meeting.
I presume the parameters will be discussed at the next COSAC meeting in Vienna. The member who attends should raise this issue.
At present, the Presidency takes the lead. Whichever country holds the Presidency would make a suggestion with regard to a particular country. I understand that would then be agreed upon by the Troika, which includes the previous Presidency and the forthcoming Presidency. I ask whether there should be more interaction by the other members before such a decision is finalised.
The report contains the phrase "following inconclusive debate at Luxembourg", which suggests a difference of opinion.
Let us get to the nitty-gritty of this matter. Do members understand what I just said?
Yes.
The Presidency makes a proposal on guest status and the previous and forthcoming Presidencies must then agree with that proposal. Does the committee propose that this process be examined?
Yes.
We should give minute consideration to the existing EU rules for Council meetings and COSAC meetings. The last line of the first paragraph deals with Deputy Quinn's point to a certain degree. We could add the phrase "candidate, accession and neighbour countries".
The committee has reflected on the issue of guest status for particular countries and decided it would like clarification of the parameters as to how countries would be invited to participate in the process at the beginning.
I will now make an intervention that I wanted to make at the beginning in response to the second part of Deputy Mulcahy's observations that Eurocrats were providing false expectations and leading people up the garden path. It is much deeper politically than that implied. There is a point of view — it is no surprise that this comes from the British Presidency — which does not want the European Union to consolidate into a serious political entity. The wider and more complex, rather than deeper, its composition becomes, the less possibility it has of acting cohesively. The position of the United States of America has consistently been that we should open the door to Turkey tomorrow, notwithstanding all of the absorption difficulties. I do not refer in that sense to the religious connotations of Turkish membership but to the capacity of 80 million Turks to live in the European Union. It is a little like asking Home Farm to play in the Premiership in the United Kingdom. No matter how good the Turks are individually, Turkey is not in the same league as our sophisticated Single Market and will not be for a long time to come. Going back to the idea of a European free trade area, there are a great many people, many of whom are still in London and many of whom, including John Prescott, are still in the Labour Party, who do not want to see the European Union develop into a cohesive political entity. The more one adds carriages to the train, the more one reduces the speed of integration. There is a political dimension to this question which we should not ignore. Permitting the Ukraine to join the European Union should not be contemplated because to do so would immediately create enormous tensions with the great Russian bear and states across the rest of the Eurasian continent. We should say this honestly to the Ukrainians now rather than repeat the mistake made with Turkey.
To clarify, I can see how this has a great deal to do with the Ukraine. Poland for its own reasons was anxious to involve the Ukrainians at a higher level within the discussions at COSAC and elsewhere.
Wanting democracy to take root in a particular place does not mean one wants that place to become a next door neighbour. Everyone around the table supported the pursuit of democracy in South Africa and the ending of apartheid, but that did not extend to the belief the Republic of South Africa should become a member of the European Union. We should separate two issues. While there is a desire — and it is desirable — to pursue democracy across the globe for those countries which can embrace and sustain it, its embracing does not automatically mean a state is a candidate for EU membership.
If we have the generalised debate mentioned, this will be a key topic. I do not recall a substantive debate on the issue in an Irish context. In general, our policy has correctly been very positive towards new entrants. I do not mind recording that I believe in encouraging new entrants. Deputy Quinn characterised the British reason. I favour a looser rather than an integrationist arrangement. I am open about the attitude I have adopted. Deputy Quinn is correct to say some governments are less open. While there is a subterranean agenda, there has never been, even in the European context, a debate on the speed and depth of integration. I encourage such a general debate.
That would be to stray from Deputy Allen's suggestion.
At the next COSAC meeting we should establish the ground rules according to which guests are invited. There should be some communication with invited neighbouring countries on a consultative basis.
I support Deputy Allen's suggestion and add that we should seek clarification with the assistance of the secretariat that there is a guiding principle that the status of participants, be they member states, candidate countries, aspiring members or near neighbours, and their ability to intervene in debate and circulate amendments are the same as that which prevail in the Council of Ministers. We should take the lead as a subsidiary body from the senior body.
At the same time, we are asking how the process begins in the senior body.
The Ukrainians cannot arrive at the Council of Ministers and circulate amendments.
Yes, but if somebody suggests to the Council that the Ukrainians should be involved, it will trickle down to COSAC.
They can arrive at an informal session of Heads of Government and participate and be asked to contribute. In an institutional organisation such as COSAC arrangements should mirror the institutional arrangements of the senior and primary body of which it is a subsidiary.
Is that the view of the committee?
All of this must come back to basics. The fundamental issue is that we are in a period of reflection. I am not convinced that the structures in place allow the people of this country to communicate their views. I receive views on an informal basis at whatever events I attend and have relayed what I have heard already. People believe the capacity of the European Union to absorb major changes must be examined. In basketball parlance, there is a need for a time out to consider our position. There is a fear that the economic consequences of a failure to absorb change in current structures may be serious. We can see what is happening in France and, regardless of whether we like it, are aware of fears relating to Turkey. People are mixing up what is happening in France and Turkey, but their fears must be addressed. However, the structures to take account of people's fears are not in place. We are great ones to preach and lecture about how wonderful the European Union is, but we are failing to listen to people's views on the direction in which the European Union is headed.
I propose to ask the secretariat to seek clarification on the process from Council to COSAC level and report back to Deputy Allen and the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank our two delegates for their report.
I thank Senator Ormonde, who is not in attendance, Senator Lydon and Deputy Mulcahy, for his leadership.
I am always available to deputise for a Fine Gael member.
Full plenipotentiary powers were accorded to the Deputy. There is no reneging here.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.20 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 November 2005.