We have to discuss the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and agreement on the EU reform treaty with the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche. We shall also discuss the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, Deputy Michael Kitt. I thank the Ministers of State for their attendance. Without more ado we proceed to the main business.
EU Reform Treaty and GAERC Meeting: Discussion with Ministers of State.
I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment. As long as I have known him, he has had a vibrant interest in European affairs. Over the years, he and I have shared that interest and focus. Throughout his long service in the Dáil the Chairman has been a constructive and informed voice on Europe. I look forward to working with him. I also congratulate all members on their appointment to the committee, in particular the newly elected Members of the Oireachtas. I should mention that the Chairman played a significant role in respect of the charter which is now coming into play, as is the convention in which I played a modest role. We are facing into interesting times.
I welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss the reform treaty and the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I am aware that in early December members of this committee and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny will visit the EU institutions in Brussels to meet the Union's key actors. I welcome this engagement. I know my officials are working with the committee in preparation for that visit. I am happy to offer whatever assistance I can.
My statement is somewhat longer than usual, as I want to facilitate a full and detailed discussion on the reform treaty. I welcome the opportunity to report to the committee on the treaty agreed by the European Heads of State and Government at the informal European Council meeting in Lisbon on 18 and 19 October. It is planned that the treaty will be signed at the December European Council meeting. Thereafter, it will enter the ratification phase.
Some did not expect us to arrive at this point. Following the Dutch and French referendum results, some considered that the European Union should simply abandon its efforts at reform. Neither I nor the Government were of that view. Member states should draw a breath and stand back and reflect on how best to proceed. We saw it as imperative that the Union should reform its decision-making arrangements to ensure they worked better in the interests of citizens and member states. Putting our heads in the sand was never an attractive option.
There are new circumstances and challenges facing the European Community. It would be an act of utter folly not to give ourselves and Europe the means by which to deal with the emerging 21st century agenda. Having arrived at the consensus on the Europan Union's needs, the 27 member states have now elaborated on this in the reform treaty. It is a treaty which will improve the way the Union works and will certainly help it to play a more positive and progressive part in shaping the world.
It is worthwhile reflecting on what the European Union means in concrete terms. The Union has helped to build an unbroken peace and progress in Europe during the past 50 years. That is an astonishing prize. Some 50 years ago, at the end of the second war in Europe in half a century, nobody could have foreseen the extraordinary progress that would be made. Nobody could have foreseen that this institutional arrangement which we now call the European Union would have produced a situation, whereby war was not just unthinkable but materially impossible, allowing countries which had once fought savagely to put all that behind them.
It is also important to remind ourselves that the European Union helped to guide Greece, Portugal and Spain on the road from authoritarian to democratic rule. It has contributed tangibly to the peaceful transition of ten central and eastern European countries from the tyranny of communism to democracy. These prizes which are worth celebrating and recognising are often blithely pushed to one side by critics.
This might all seem like old news to some. However, I am resigned to the fact that in the coming months we will hear plenty of accusations about opaque processes, faceless bureaucrats and impacts on national life. It is worth reminding ourselves in the face of such inflated baseless charges of the truly profound, historic and progressive dynamic created by European integration which has helped to transform our continent and make peace a reality and war a thing of the past. It has set standards that people near and far wish to emulate.
I would be the first to acknowledge that the European Union is not perfect. An organisation made up of 27 member states with their own national interests and traditions is certain to experience hard fought debates and different viewpoints. However, the Union has shown time and again that national interests can be accommodated and that our shared interests are strong.
I have not mentioned the overwhelmingly positive impact EU membership has had on this small country. Our economic, political, social and cultural horizons have broadened since we entered the European Union. The economic union has contributed immeasurably to Irish life. The economic contribution is, perhaps, the best and most documented aspect but it is not the whole story. The Union has opened doors to us at home and in the wider world. One of its most important impacts is that it has given us a confidence as a nation that we did not previously have. Far from threatening our culture, it has helped us to be more proud of what we are. It has given us an opportunity to bring our distinctive views to the table of the most important political and economic bloc in the world and provided Ireland with an important new context in which to address the Northern Ireland conflict and build better relations between all the people on this island. It has made our Border redundant.
The reform treaty is an important achievement for the European Union. It responds to the needs of the Union with its increased number of 27 members and aims to equip it to meet the emerging challenges of the 21st century. The new treaty will allow the Union to leave behind this business of institutional reform and focus instead on delivering tangible benefits to the citizens of Europe. It draws much of its content from the European constitution agreed in 2004 during Ireland's Presidency. While the essential substance and balance of the constitution are preserved, the new treaty takes the form of a series of amendments to existing treaties, as opposed to a single consolidating text.
The reform treaty contains a number of institutional provisions designed to bolster the coherence and efficiency of the European Union and give it a stronger voice on the world stage. For example, there will be a new full-time President of the European Council who will co-ordinate the Council's work. If anything needed co-ordination, that is it. As the Union's highest level forum, the European Council deserves the attention of a dedicated chairman who will be in a position to direct the Council's discussions and provide continuity. The new post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is set to increase the visibility and influence of Europe in international affairs. This is an essential development, as many of the challenges we will face in the coming years will be external. A concerted European response to such issues as energy, security, climate change, development and immigration will be vital in the years ahead.
We are particularly pleased that the institutional packet has been agreed. A new system of double majority voting will give proportionate weight to population, while protecting the interests of small and medium-sized member states. This will be achieved by specifying that qualified majority in the norm will require 55% of member states and 65% of the European Union's population. This means that only those measures that genuinely command majority support can be adopted at EU level. We have also succeeded in ensuring all member states will have equal access to membership of the Commission. I have always regarded this as having huge symbolic importance. Until now the big member states had two members, while the small member states had one. From now on equality is the reality. There will be one Commissioner for each member state until 2014. Thereafter, a national from each member state will sit in two Commissions out of three on the basis of strict equal rotation. The principle of equality between member states, regardless of size or population, is a vital one. It is an important achievement for small and medium-sized countries such as ours and now firmly enshrined in the reform treaty. The symbolic importance of this should not be overlooked.
The enhanced role of the European Parliament will further strengthen the democratic character of European legislation. The reform treaty extends the number of areas in which the Parliament is now co-legislator with the Council. That is welcome. It enhances and underlines the fundamentally democratic nature of the European Union. The Parliament's budgetary role is to be amended and expanded.
We will all welcome the enhanced role for national parliaments, one of the most significant features of the reform treaty. For the first time national parliaments will have a direct input into the evolution of European legislation. I see this as an important part of the solution to Europe's perceived democratic deficit. I use the word "perceived" because the reality is that EU legislation is elaborated on by democratically mandated governments and the Members of the directly elected European Parliament. Nevertheless, there is a gap that needs to be bridged and this will help. Under the reform treaty, national parliaments will be able to bring their influence to bear by offering reasoned opinions on the appropriateness or otherwise of proposals coming from the European Commission.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which the Chairman played a valuable role, was initially agreed in 2000, but at that stage it was a political declaration. The reform treaty marks a significant development in this area, as it gives the charter legal status. I have often stated prosaic language is the characteristic of drafts coming from the European Union, whereas the charter elevates. It outlines what it is to be European and the values and principles that will inform us in our deliberations in the years ahead. Ireland strongly supports it as an important statement of our values as a Union and the rights of citizens in their dealings with it.
A new treaty provision will give the European Union scope to deal with the menace of climate change. This language was inserted at Ireland's request. It is the first time the issue will be covered in an EU treaty, a fact in which I take some pride, as we all should as a nation. We are happy that no attempt was made to press for changes in areas of special sensitivity to Ireland such as defence and taxation. Unanimity is preserved for all decisions in these areas.
The reform treaty will better equip the European Union to deal with the challenges not just of today but of the future. It is, therefore, vitally important that it be ratified by all 27 member states. Ratification will be a priority for the Government which will put every ounce of energy into the ratification process because it is significant for us and the Union. It is a matter for each country to determine how it will ratify the treaty. Most, if not all, of our EU partners intend to do so by parliamentary means. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has requested formal legal advice from the Attorney General on whether ratification of the treaty will require a referendum but that is simply a legal formality. The reality is that Ireland will hold a referendum and the people will have the opportunity to speak on the treaty.
In advance of a referendum, a referendum commission will be created to inform the public about the reform treaty and encourage citizens to exercise their right to vote. As was the case in the last EU referendum in 2002, the referendum commission will be properly resourced to enable it to discharge its role in an effective manner. I have already looked at the issue of its budget. The Government will also undertake its own information campaign to explain the contents of the treaty and its importance for Ireland. This will be a challenging task, given the inevitable complex character of the treaty which has to meet the needs of 27 member states. Nonetheless, it will be an important opportunity for us to have an informed and comprehensive debate about Ireland's role in the European Union and the Union's role in our lives. To this end, work is under way on producing accessible material that explains the main elements of the reform treaty in plain language. More detailed information on the treaty is available on the Department of Foreign Affairs website. Public representatives have a special responsibility to promote constructive, well informed and truthful debate on issues of such national importance. In that regard, I urge Members of the Oireachtas, irrespective of their viewpoint, to engage with the public on the treaty and foster public understanding of the important issues involved. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has an especially important contribution to make in that task. There is wide public appreciation of the European Union's importance to Ireland and the role we play within the Union. The public should be spared the scaremongering and misinformation that have marred past campaigns. During the years the people have rejected alarmist suggestions about the Union, but these keep being repeated, even when it has been shown there is not a shred of justification for them.
It is revealing to look at those who have lined up against the reform treaty across the Continent. On the whole, they tend to be politicians with extreme views, whether to the right or left. People of moderate views tend to be moderately pro-European, recognising what the European Union has achieved, but not aspiring to any kind of unrealisable European super state. That has not and has never been the intention. The treaty is not about creating a Utopian future for the Union. It is about enabling the Union to do what it has done for the past 50 years in helping us to deliver continued peace and prosperity to a changing Europe in a rapidly changing world. That is the Union's agenda and I believe it is also Ireland's agenda.
With my colleagues in the Government, I look forward to playing an active role in informing the public about this important treaty. I relish the prospect of engaging with the electorate on issues about Ireland's and the European Union's future. I want to listen to what the people have to say about these issues and make sure their views are reflected at European discussions.
I have written to all Members of the Oireachtas supplying them with an information note on the key features of the reform treaty and urging them to play their part, irrespective of whether they are for or against, in encouraging a big turnout for the referendum. I will be available to Deputies and Senators on all sides of the debate. I will make the information available as dispassionately and factually based as it is possible for somebody who feels as passionately about Europe as I do can. I will ensure truthful and factual information is made available because that is the imperative of every democrat. I will be happy to take questions on the reform treaty and the ratification process.
With the Chairman's permission, I will turn to the agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which is a heavy one. As members of the committee will be aware, the November Council traditionally deals with European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, issues. Consequently, it is attended by both Foreign and Defence Ministers. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, will be in Brussels next Monday for the discussions.
It is also the practice for Development Co-operation Ministers to attend one meeting of the Council during each Presidency. This month the Council will consider a range of issues relating to the European Union's development co-operation policy. My colleague, Deputy Michael Kitt, Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation, who has done us so proud in this area will represent Ireland during these discussions. He will brief the committee following my statement.
I propose to address, first, the items on the general affairs side and then those relating to external relations issues. The General Affairs and External Relations Council will begin with the presentation by the Presidency of the draft annotated agenda for the European Council on 13 and 14 December circulated by it earlier this week. No discussion is envisaged at this stage. The key areas for discussion will include a global approach to migration; jobs and growth; energy and climate change. A number of external relations items will also be discussed at the December European Council, including Kosovo and the forthcoming EU-Africa summit.
Commissioner Borg, who has spoken at the committee, will present the Commission's communication setting out a vision of an integrated maritime policy for theEuropean Union, together with a detailed action plan containing a programme of work for the coming years. Ireland is broadly supportive of these proposals. Many of the themes raised in the proposed policy are consistent with current Irish policies and strategies in the areas of transport; research and development; fisheries, aquaculture and seafood; and tourism. From Ireland’s perspective, the success of an integrated European maritime policy rests on the degree to which it facilitates greater trading activity, enterprise development and sustained economic growth, and addresses environmental concerns and the development of coastal and island communities.
The Commission President, José Manuel DurãoBarroso, will present the Commission’s legislative programme for 2008to the General Affairs and External Relations Council. It sets out major political priorities and identifies legislative initiatives, executive and other acts that the Commission intends to adopt in the year ahead. The 2008 programme is very detailed but focuses on four priority areas: building a sustainable European Union; an integrated approach to migration; putting the citizens first; and the European Union as a world partner. Ireland is generally comfortable with the Commission’s priorities. However we will, as always, monitor carefully the legislative proposals in all areas.
A very busy and comprehensive session on external relations will begin with Ministers taking stock of preparations for the forthcoming EU-China summit on 28 November and the EU-India summit on 30 November. The EU has placed specific emphasis for both summits on issues of climate change, because both countries have an important role to play in this area, and in the area of energy. The EU will also take the opportunity presented by the summit with China to continue its dialogue with that country on development and Africa, and to encourage the more positive role which China has been playing of late in regard to the Darfur crisis. The EU will be represented by the Troika at both summits and will avail of the opportunity to stress again the need for continued pressure on the Burmese Government for a credible and inclusive process of democratisation.
Ministers will discuss preparations for the EU-Africa summit which will take place in Lisbon on 7-9 December. This will be an important meeting, demonstrating the strong links already existing between Europe and Africa as well as the desire to move this relationship to a new, more productive footing. Discussion at GAERC is likely to focus on a number of practical issues which remain to be ironed out, including speaking order and decisions on the keynote speakers on the five main summit themes. There may also be some discussion on the political declaration as well as some final work in regard to the EU-Africa strategy, the first action plan of which will be adopted at the summit.
Invitations to the summit are expected to issue during the course of this week. A decision on who will represent Ireland at the summit will be taken once the formal invitation is received. Obviously, partnership with Africa is a priority for the Government and people of Ireland, as well as a focus of our foreign policy.
The regional conflict in Sudan and Chad will be discussed during the joint session of foreign and defence Ministers. Any discussion is likely to focus on preparations for deployment of the EUFOR Chad-CAR mission in eastern Chad and north-eastern Central Africa Republic which the Council approved at its meeting in October. The committee will be aware that EUFOR Chad-CAR is under the operational command of Lieutenant General Pat Nash of the Defence Forces and it is intended that Government and Dáil approval will be sought shortly for a substantial Irish contribution to this important mission. Ministers are also likely to discuss prospects for the resumption of the UN and African Union-mediated Darfur peace talks in Sirte, Libya, next month as well as current difficulties in implementing the 2005 north-south comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan.
As the committee will be aware, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has made the political and humanitarian crisis in Darfur a personal priority. The Minister is currently visiting the region to express Ireland's concerns about this tragic situation directly — this is why he is not present at this meeting. He will meet representatives of Government and the UN, as well as humanitarian organisations, in both Sudan and Chad this week. His primary purpose in visiting Chad is to meet Government and opposition representatives and examine the situation of the 400,000 displaced persons in eastern Chad in advance of the possible deployment of Permanent Defence Force personnel with the EUFOR Chad-CAR mission. He will also be in a position to brief his EU colleagues on his visit at the GAERC on Monday next.
As I noted, the November Council traditionally also includes a joint session with Ministers for Defence to review the European Security and Defence Policy. The ESDP aims to give the EU the capacity to undertake humanitarian and crisis management operations, both civilian and military, dealing with the whole range of so-called Petersberg Tasks. The UN-authorised EUFOR Chad-CAR mission, with its crucial humanitarian objectives, will be the largest ESDP peace support operation to date.
Since the first ESDP operation was launched in Bosnia in 2003 — the ongoing EU police mission — the Union has launched 20 ESDP operations, both civilian and military, across Africa, the Balkans, eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Currently, 11 operations are ongoing — nine civilian and two military. The Council will agree a new civilian headline goal to guide planning for such missions in the period to 2010.
It is intended that Ministers will have an opportunity to review recent developments in Pakistan over lunch. The Council will also review developments in the Middle East peace process over lunch and will emphasise the European Union's strong support for the international meeting to be held in Annapolis in the coming weeks. That topic was also discussed at the recent Euro-Med meeting.
While we work for progress at Annapolis, the EU has stated clearly that all parties must desist from actions which are illegal under international law and which undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. We are particularly concerned about the situation in Gaza and have called for an end to all violence in that territory. We also call for the re-opening of crossing points for people and goods and the ending of policies aimed at isolating the people of Gaza. Ministers will also discuss developments in Lebanon and reaffirm the European Union's absolute support for the independence and humanitarian integrity of the country.
Although it is not expected that the Council will adopt conclusions on Iran, there will be an important discussion on the handling of the issue of Iran's nuclear programme. Iran continues to refuse to comply with its international obligations, as set out clearly and unanimously by the UN Security Council. The European Union remains firmly committed to the search for diplomatic solutions in this regard. The Presidency has invited the Foreign Minister of Iraq to join Ministers for a discussion of the political, security and humanitarian situation in that country. Detailed conclusions will be adopted.
Discussions on the western Balkans will focus on the current situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. The Minister for Foreign Affairs visited the region last week and met with key political figures in both Bosnia and Kosovo. He will brief European colleagues on his assessment of the situation in the region. Bosnia and Herzegovina will be discussed in light of the measures recently introduced by the high representative. Discussions on Kosovo will focus on the final status process and the current state of play in the Troika-facilitated talks between Belgrade and Pristina. The next meeting takes place on 20 November, so the process is moving forward quickly.
Ministers will discuss the situation in Georgia, following last week's political unrest which raised questions over Georgia's commitment to the path of democratic reform. Heavy-handed police actions in breaking up peaceful opposition demonstrations there on 7 November were followed by the declaration of a state of emergency. Following international pressure, President Saakashvili has called early presidential elections for 5 January 2008.
No discussion on Burma is envisaged by Ministers, although the Council will adopt, as "A" points, conclusions and a new Common Position on Burma, following its discussions on this issue in October. The Council will also give its approval to the appointment of an EU special envoy to Burma who will, inter alia, act to support the ongoing mission of the UN Secretary General’s special envoy, Dr. Ibrahim Gambari.
I now hand over to the Minister of State with responsibility for development issues, Deputy Michael Kitt, to address those issues.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive statement and the Department of Foreign Affairs for its solid and informative briefing documentation. I now call on the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt. There is some crossover between the responsibilities of both Ministers of State and members will note that the responsibilities of this committee have extended into the general relations area, which will give us interesting material to pursue over the next five years.
I thank the Chairman and the new committee for inviting me here today and join with Deputy Roche in wishing them well in their deliberations in the coming years.
Next Monday and Tuesday I will attend the EU development Ministers meeting in Brussels where the following matters are on the agenda: security and development; effectiveness of EU external action; fragile states; policy coherence for development; economic partnership agreements; African agriculture; the future of relations between the European Union and Cape Verde; and ratification of Cotonou partnership agreement. The most important item will be the economic partnership agreements, known as EPAs, with which I will deal first. The actual negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations on the economic partnership agreements are being conducted by the European Commission. It is true to say that the talks have been difficult and progress slow. There is a looming deadline of 31 December 2007. However, this was not imposed by either the EU or the ACP. Under World Trade Organisation rules, the existing trade preferences must end by 1 January 2008 and must be replaced by something which is compatible with WTO rules.
My understanding is that the European Commission is now looking at signing stepping-stone agreements. Apparently the intention is to do this at regional level where feasible. Where that is not feasible, the Commission will seek to sign agreements with sub-regional groups — for example, the Indian Ocean group — or even bilateral agreements with individual countries. These stepping-stone agreements would focus on having WTO-compatible arrangements in place by 1 January 2008. Negotiations may then continue on any outstanding aspects to conclude full EPAs.
It is vitally important to secure arrangements which will allow trade to continue without interruption and that whatever arrangements are put in place do not disadvantage the developing countries. That is the basis of my approach to the General Affairs Council.
Along with other member states, Ireland has been following developments closely. The approach to the economic partnership agreements talks must be one of partnership. Of course, no African, Caribbean and Pacific country will be expected to sign an economic partnership agreement if it does not wish to do so.
We have been adamant in all contacts with the European Commission that the development aspects of economic partnership agreements must take priority. Our partner countries should not be disadvantaged with the introduction of the economic partnership agreements. Next week, I will be pressing the Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, to ensure that no developing countries will be in a worse position come 1 January 2008. This is particularly important for those developing countries which will not benefit from the fall-back position known as everything but arms or EBA.
As well as the EPAs, we will be looking at other agenda items. Development and defence Ministers will come together next week in formal discussions on security and development. We will focus on developing the link between sustainable development and peace and security. Ireland supports these efforts to improve security and development co-operation and welcomes the discussion involved. Ireland considers that Africa is a natural starting point for the EU to engage additionally with the issue. More than a third of African countries have suffered conflict in the last four decades and the results of these are plain to see in real terms. Lives are lost and resources are diverted from invaluable infrastructure and production. Security and stability are essential for development and, likewise, development is essential for both security and stability; both go hand and hand.
The Portuguese Presidency wishes to have a general debate on the effectiveness of EU aid, which will be in the context of the proposed new EU-Africa strategy and action plan. The discussion will be about the consequences of the new strategy. The strategy will refer to the need to forge a new and stronger partnership providing a solid framework for long-term cooperation. It gives a political vision for future co-operation between the two continents in existing and new areas.
The right to development is one of the principles which guide the partnership and one of the four main objectives is to ensure that all the millennium development goals are met in all African countries by 2015.
The purpose of these discussions is to reaffirm the EU's commitment to working with key partners, including the UN, World Bank and African Development Bank on situations of fragility, and to underline the importance of an holistic approach to such complex and challenging situations. We will welcome the recently appointed president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, who will address us on the topic.
Given the range of tools at its disposal — political and diplomatic, development, humanitarian, security and crisis management — the EU is uniquely placed to address the sources and consequences of state fragility. Ireland has its own role to play in this regard. The White Paper on Irish Aid refers to the risks, challenges and long-term implications of situations of fragility. We need new ways of working here. Situations of fragility often result from protracted conflict and instability, and provide a barrier to long-term development, security and prosperity.
Coherence is a key concept as it tries to ensure that policies in one area do not have a negative impact in other areas. The Commission has produced a report on policy coherence for development, PCD, which Ireland welcomes. Policy coherence requires political commitment and a clear approach to identifying the impact of all EU policies on developing countries. At a national level, we want to adopt an integrated approach to development among Departments and offices. This is one of the priorities for Irish Aid in the new programme for Government.
On agriculture, the discussions will be about the crucial importance of broad based sustainable agricultural growth for poverty reduction and food security. We will work to produce Council conclusions to reaffirm our support for agriculture. I will support this renewed emphasis on agriculture and rural development. Three quarters of the world's poorest people live in rural areas. Their livelihoods depend on agriculture which still dominates Africa's economy. Irish Aid is also committed to providing increased assistance for rural development.
We may also briefly discuss the future of relations between the European Union and Cape Verde. Ireland welcomes the promotion of closer links between the European Union and this small island.
Under the heading "Any Other Business", the meeting will examine the ratification of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. Ireland ratified the convention earlier this year but many member states have not yet done so, thereby possibly delaying the coming into effect of the tenth European Development Fund, EDF. I expect all these member states will be urged to speed up their ratification efforts.
I thank the Chairman and members. I will be pleased to listen to their views and will try to answer any questions they may have.
I thank the Minister of State for his excellent presentation. I ask members to refer to the relevant paper when making specific references to the presentations.
I thank the Ministers of State for their comprehensive presentations. I will first address a couple of issues relating to the reform treaty. I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, who, like me, is a passionately committed European, will share my concern at the findings of an opinion poll published in The Irish Times last week. The large number of respondents who were undecided about the treaty or expressed no opinion on it and appeared not to be knowledgeable about its contents is a matter of concern. A number of issues arise in this regard.
Despite the lengthy proceedings of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Irish Presidency, the negotiation process preceding the draft constitution for the European Union, the two subsequent referendums in which the proposed constitution was defeated and the additional process which resulted in final agreement on the reform treaty, the entire process appears not to have captured the imagination of the people. What action does the Minister of State propose to take in this regard? He indicated the referendum commission would carry out a well resourced information campaign and that the Government which negotiated and is responsible for the treaty would also ensure, through its activities, the people were informed. The clock is ticking.
I was disappointed that the Taoiseach announced when he intended to hold a referendum on the reform treaty to a convention of journalists. He should have addressed the issue in Dáil Éireann. While he indicated the referendum would be held in the first six months of next year, it would be helpful if the timeframe were made clearer.
The majority of Opposition parties favour the reform treaty. It is good for Ireland and the peoples of Europe. It is good in dealing with integration, the enlargement that has happened and potential further enlargement. If we are to facilitate this and put our energies into and focus on ensuring ratification of the treaty, we need the co-operation of the Government in ensuring we can do this within a specific timeframe. I would like the Minister of State to clarify the position because this is very important. When will the referendum commission be established and for how long will it operate? I am aware that there are suggestions in committee reports and that legislation is in place, but we need a clearer idea. This is a good opportunity for the Minister of State to share the information with us.
I am concerned that media reporting of the reform treaty has so far been biased and negative. One issue that has arisen time and again is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is a good idea and imperative that it is included in the treaty. It would be helpful if the Minister of State were to address the misleading arguments being made in regard to it.
Various sectoral groups vigorously and energetically supported the Nice II referendum campaign, which led to a successful outcome. A number of these groups are now less enthusiastic about the European project. I would like to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on this, particularly on the agriculture sector. I am concerned about how people in rural Ireland will vote. I believe the negative impression of the European Union is caused largely by Ministers who blame the Union when things go wrong. That has been a tendency for many years in regard to such issues as the nitrates directive. The Union was blamed for the delays and the difficulties encountered when, as we all know, it was the Government's fault. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on how it is intended to deal with that problem, in particular, and with other groups in the economy which are less enthusiastic than they were.
I propose that we group the questions. The first four speakers will be Deputy Lucinda Creighton who has spoken, Senator Terry Leyden and Deputies Joe Costello and Mary O'Rourke. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt.
As a new member of this committee, I believe a seamless approach between this Parliament and the European Parliament is particularly important. Our Ministers are the key link between us and the European Union. Our MEPs are also very important.
In regard to the new European reform treaty, does the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, intend to outline the additions to the agreed Maastricht and Nice treaties? Does the European reform treaty encompass all that has been agreed and implemented by the European Union since the passing of the Nice II treaty?
In regard to the ring-fencing of the 12.5% corporation tax rate, it is vital to make a clear statement that under no circumstances will the reform treaty allow the European Union, the European Commission or the European Council of Ministers to make changes in this vital area. I know that it is only by unanimous vote any change can occur, but it must be copper-fastened. If necessary, it should be included in the treaty or, at least, included by way of addendum to it because it is the issue that will be of most concern. The passing of the reform treaty is not a fait accompli. It will not be straightforward. This is the last major decision of the people so far as the European Union is concerned. That is why it is vitally important to clarify the issue and put it to bed.
Membership of the Commission is of vital national importance. I am concerned that after 2014 there will be a rotation system. Perhaps, the Minister of State would elaborate further in this regard. I cannot see why the principle of one member from each country should not be fully enshrined in the constitution. I regard this as a very important issue. We should have a member in the Commission looking after European interests and keeping an eye on Irish interests. Our Commissioners were always aware of where they had come from. I ask the Minister of State to outline the current position.
In regard to the referendum, is it absolutely necessary for us to fund an alternative voice? If there are people who are opposed to the treaty, I am sure they are in a position to make their case. I do not know why we have to express that other point of view. If Sinn Féin or the Greens do not agree with it, let them make their own case. I do not see why we should actually have to pay to undermine our own case.
Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP
It is not the Senator's money, but that of the taxpayer.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, brings to his portfolio enormous experience, as he has been involved in Third World issues. In regard to his negotiations on trading rights, I am concerned about the special position Israel holds and the fact that we are not exerting more pressure on it as regards its treatment of the Palestinians. We stand idly by and allow the situation in Gaza to continue and the Israeli Government to have a special trading arrangement with the European Union. We never seem to exert any pressure on it from a trading point of view to ensure recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their own country. Given the Minister of State's experience, he may be in a position to exert more pressure on behalf of the State on the Israelis through the European Union.
I welcome the Ministers of State, Deputies Roche and Kitt. I welcome also the debate that has started on the reform treaty. I seek clarification on how we will proceed on this issue because, undoubtedly, it will be the major one for this committee in the next six to eight months, if that is to be the timescale involved. Certainly, it was difficult to get any information from the Taoiseach in the Dáil as to when the campaign would start. He said nothing could be done until after 13 December when the formal signing of the treaty would take place. He could not answer any questions on the campaign and what the Government was going to do in the Dáil about the treat, yet he was able to attend the convention of European journalists and make categorical statements on what he proposed to do. We need more respect for the Oireachtas in matters of this nature.
I am still confused about what the Taoiseach did say on that occasion. As I understand it, he said the enabling legislation would be passed in January and that the campaign would then start.About two Dáil and Seanad sitting days will remain after the signing of the reform treaty on 13 December. Given that the Dáil will not resume until 30 January, I cannot imagine the enabling legislation being passed in that month. For the first time we have heard from the Minister of State that there will be a White Paper. Will it come before or after the legislation? Will we have a campaign before or after the enabling legislation is passed? We need a clear timescale. The Taoiseach was not sure when the referendum would take place, but it was likely to be held early in the summer.
The first question is whether there will be a referendum. Has the Minister of State or the Taoiseach received advice on this from the Attorney General? We have not heard the outcome of the request from the Attorney General to give his advice on whether a referendum will be held. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the position.
What is the timescale for publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the enabling legislation and when will the information campaign take place? Also, when will the reform commission be established? Will every citizen in the country receive user-friendly, legible documentation in this regard? All of this is essential because Ireland may be the only country that will hold such a referendum, yet there is no timescale in place in this regard. Perhaps the Minister of State could provide clarification on all of these matters.
I agree with the points made by Senator Leyden in respect of Palestine. The EU has a special trading arrangement with Israel. However, when the democratic election took place in Palestine 18 months ago and Hamas received an overall majority the European institutions unilaterally cut off all aid to the new Government. I do not believe that is proper institutional accountability on the part of the European Union. This is a serious matter.
While I support the reform treaty I want to ensure that the institutions when in place will act in accordance with the proper values and objectives. The situation in Palestine was exacerbated by the insensitive action of the European Council of Ministers in the first instance. I would like if the Minister of State could respond on this matter. These issues are likely to arise in the course of the debate on the reform treaty. If more power is being given to the institutions, even though they appear more democratically aligned, we must be satisfied they will operate in a proper fashion. The Minister of State might, in passing, refer to the number of soldiers assigned to the Chad force which, I understand, will be led by Ireland under Lieutenant General Patrick Nash.
My next question is for Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. I welcome his statement that the Portuguese Government will, during its Presidency of the European Union, place particular emphasis on the effectiveness of overseas aid. I have a problem in terms of aid effectiveness in respect of Ireland and the European Union. While we are doing quite well in moving towards the 0.7% United Nations GDP requirement, the biggest threat to overseas development aid is the arms race. Approximately 15 times more money is spent on weapons which end up in regimes which do not use them very well or in places where there is enormous poverty and internal conflict. Ireland and Europe are providing large quantities of aid to these areas. Up to very recently the Irish Government denied we were involved in the export of arms. It has only acknowledged this in the past three years. It is very hard to get anything out of the Government.
The European Union is a massive producer of weapons which end up in sub-Saharan Africa and throughout the world in countries whose regimes have poor track records in human rights. How can we establish the effectiveness of European Union and Irish aid going to those regimes while giving an imprimatur to the export of arms, which are the greatest factor undermining attempts to build up the stability and development of those economies?
I congratulate you, Chairman, and the committee secretariat on having the Ministers of State attend today, so early in the life of our committee. We are pleased he could attend.
We share the passion of the Ministers of State. Shared passion can be a very good thing, in a diplomatic sense. It was very clever of the Taoiseach to speak to journalists about the forthcoming referendum. What better people to talk than journalists? The Taoiseach was addressing European journalists and it was proper that he should give his thoughts on the referendum. We have mountains to climb because a sea of inertia and boredom lies over the issue of Europe. Despite efforts to put a patina of sexiness on the issue, it does not rise to the bar. I do not know how to cultivate a sense that we have something really good to sell and engage people with the topic.
Deputy Creighton referred to the habit of blaming Europe. Is it reasonable for Ministers to accept responsibility for thinking up fiendish plots from the fertility of their own minds? I understand that directives are given for the greater good of all the member states. I do not carp about directives. However, it is not reasonable, for example, for the Irish Government to take complete responsibility for the nitrates directive or for the prohibition of turf cutting in the bogs of the midlands. I accept that the bogs are precious and should be maintained but it is not reasonable for the Government to accept responsibility for telling people to cease cutting bogs or for the nitrates directive. Measures must be explained but there is a vast difference between explanation and blame. It is up to everyone to clarify where a directive emanated from.
We must also acknowledge the good that has come from Europe. This is how I deal with the question of Europe at public gatherings. Last week, I attended a large public meeting on the question of bog cutting. I asked the meeting how many of their children had received European Social Fund or agriculture grants and how many roads in their areas were constructed with the help of EU money.
People are, in the main, fair and if issues are presented with their pluses and minuses they are willing to accept what is put forward. There needs to be constant and improved explanation and we will have to provide it. I take the point about the blame game but we must also explain ourselves clearly and inform the public of all the benefits that have emanated from our years of membership of the European Union. The country has raised itself in that period and the European Social Fund is a clear example of where we have gained. The institutes of technology around the country would never have attained their current status had it not been for the intervention of Europe through the fund.
The Chairman, or perhaps Deputy Costello, spoke about the crossover into international and foreign affairs, which has always been part of the European brief. He mentioned Iran and Iraq and said the diplomatic route would be continued in regard to the former. We heard that before, with regard to Iraq, and we know the state that country is now in. I have a sense of foreboding that we will follow the same path over Iran. I hope the predatory path followed by the US will not be allowed to flourish and that the diplomatic path will be eagerly pursued.
I take Senator Leyden's point and am very pleased at the ring-fencing of taxation we have gained through the negotiations. It is particularly important in the case of corporate taxation, where the attractive regime we offer has allowed us to cajole many industries into coming here. I would like to see a further protocol or some such mechanism for emphasising that we intend to hold what we have gained in that regard. It was a fine measure to have taken and it warrants retention by way of ring-fencing.
I support Deputy Costello in his call for a detailed timetable for the committee's business. I have great faith in the Chairman and his sagacity but we need a timetable for what we do as a committee to set an example to the community groups, institutions and colleges we visit to talk about Europe. We should be able to say we will work to specific dates. The future of Europe is safe in the Chairman's hands and the campaign will be very exciting. We in the midlands are delighted that Deputy Michael Kitt is Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The greatest mountain we have to climb is to embrace plain language so that Europe does not become so opaque that none of us can explain it. I hope whatever material the Chairman relies on for the seminars in which he takes part consists of plain speaking and of language everybody can understand. We do not want gobbeldydook, though I do not say the Chairman speaks gobbeldygook because he speaks plainly. However, when bureaucrats get hold of such material they may try to cloak it in grandiose language which the normal citizens think is nonsense. I wish him well. I would appreciate it if he would furnish us with the timetable of which Deputy Costello spoke.
I will call on the Ministers to reply shortly but the points raised by members have been very pertinent and it is critical we know certain things so that we can plan what we do. As discussed with the secretariat, I expect the committee to play a major role in providing information to the general public in a fair and balanced manner. Deputy Mary O'Rourke pointed out the importance of dispensing with "eurospeak" and speaking in plain language.
Exactly
The use of language will be of critical importance in the upcoming campaign. The remit of the European affairs committee has expanded considerably which will put a great deal more work and responsibility on it. I have no doubt that members will accept the increased responsibility with vigour. Interestingly, some of the items we campaigned for years ago now are part of the reform treaty. It will be interesting to see the degree to which the general public will be able to glean information that is not contradictory during the campaign. After Christmas we will draw up a programme depending on whether the date of the referendum is set for early summer or the autumn. It will not be possible for the committee to undertake a long campaign throughout the country. The committee also proposes to embark on an information campaign in the regions. We hope to co-ordinate our efforts with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the various other groups.
I agree that simple, clear, concise language is the most important weapon, in fact, eurospeak is the worst enemy of comprehension. I circulated an 11 page note, which should be in members' pigeonholes, giving a general oversight of the issues. I am looking at innovative ways of disseminating information. The common theme of the contributions from Deputies Creighton, O'Rourke and Costello and Senator Leyden is that the campaign must be simple, truthful and clear-cut.
I agree with Deputy Creighton that the opinion poll showing that 60% of the people did not know or were undecided is disappointing, but it is hardly surprising. If one follows the daily newspaper reports, as I now do, it is hardly surprising. Deputy Creighton made a very telling point on the charter and the perverse attempt by some people who are opposed to the EU to suggest that the charter, which gives us rights, is a negative. A very substantial article attacking the charter was carried in one of the national newspapers recently. I wrote and offered an opposition editorial but unfortunately it has not been printed. Much as I would like to think that I have some influence in the newspapers, I do not govern what they print. There was also an attack on the charter in one of the Catholic newspapers from the same source. Again I made a submission to that newspaper and I hope in the interests of balance and fair play that it will be given space. We all know the difficulties.
Deputy Costello picked up the same theme and suggested that it is right and proper that the Dáil should be involved. I remind the Deputy there was a very comprehensive statement in the Dáil immediately after the reform treaty was agreed. It would be my view that all sides would work on this. I hold the strong view that Members and the general public who are opposed to the treaty are entitled to access briefings from me and my officials. I have made it clear to all parties that this is the case.
I agree with Deputy Creighton who made the point that some sectors seem to be less positive than they were in the past. I was reminded today that a few years ago I was lucky to get out of the ploughing championships with my skin. We had just announced the campaign in respect of the second referendum on the Nice treaty. I have said many times while in the company of the Chairman that the role played by the leaders of the farming organisations was fantastic. It was both brave and courageous, which is as it should be. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will again play a similar role. Issues remain to be addressed. Those involved in agriculture, particularly farmers, have a right to be annoyed, as they have bona fide arguments about issues such as the importation of Brazilian beef and so on. However, I hope these frustrations will not be visited upon the treaty, but I will not be taking any chances. Therefore, I will be engaging in discussions with the leaders of the trade unions and the business and farming organisations which are critical in this regard. I hope that answers the question raised by Deputy Costello. He asked if I had received legal opinion on the matter. Legal opinion has been requested and will be delivered shortly. However, I am not awaiting it, as it is my wish a referendum will be held.
Senator Leyden made a number of interesting points in respect of full briefings at this committee. I intend that this will be the case. He also asked if the new treaty would encompass the changes made in the Nice and Maastricht treaties. They have been transposed.
Senator Leyden and Deputy Creighton asked the interesting question of how the document would be comprehended. It is a rather perverse reality that at the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe and the Irish Presidency we had a substantial tome which was a compendium of all treaty law. Unfortunately, because the decision was rejected in two countries, what is known as "the treaty approach" is being adopted. The new treaty will cross-reference other treaties. As it is far less comprehensible, this presents us with a challenge. Deputies are correct in saying this makes life difficult for us.
Senator Leyden and Deputies O'Rourke and Costello raised the issue of tax sovereignty which I am sure is an issue of concern for many but on which the treaty is crystal clear. It remains an issue of unanimity. I am often asked elsewhere in Europe about taxation in Ireland, an issue closely tied with our sovereignty. I argue that the reason people threw the tea into the harbour in Boston was they believed there should be no taxation without representation. That is true. People elsewhere in Europe often take the view that we are Euro-sceptics because we take this view, but we take it because we are democrats. The contributions made by Ireland through our representatives from all parties at the convention, the arguments made during the Irish Presidency and those now being made provide clarity in this regard.
On the Commission, one of the great prizes in the negotiation of the constitutional future of the European Union and at the convention was equality. This was of enormous benefit to small and medium-sized countries. Anyone who reads the book entitled Accidental Constitution: The Making of Europe’s Constitutional Treaty, will see that that was one of the prizes won. Previously, large countries had two Commissioners, while small countries had only one. Up until 2014 each country will be represented by one Commissioner. Beyond this date, rotation will come into play, but I have no fears in this regard. I fear a large Commission could become unwieldy. I do not wish to embarrass any Commissioner but it is clear to me, having met a number of current Commissioners, that their jobs are less than comprehensive. The reality is that increasing the number of Commissioners to 33 would make it difficult to operate the Commission. What is important is equality. We have never been fearful of fighting for it.
Deputy Costello asked for my views on the campaign. It is prudent not to say precisely when the referendum will be held. This is not withholding anything from anybody. We must think the issue through carefully. I have a view that it will be held in the first half of the year, but members will forgive me if I do not give a specific date because I have not persuaded my boss as to what the date should be.
That could take a while.
As we all know, he is very good at picking dates.
The information must be delivered differently on this occasion. There will be a White Paper which will probably be published electronically. Very few read the White Paper. It is more important, therefore, that we provide, in plain English and Irish, a guide which makes clear what is happening, as the National Forum on Europe did previously. I intend to produce a pamphlet in December which will be available in public libraries. I will also make copies available to Members of the Oireachtas and other public representatives. It will be very short. I hope to provide a pocket guide to the treaty in January.
The National Forum on Europe will engage in a series of town hall meetings. This is a good way of bringing the debate to the people. I built a strong liaison arrangement with the social partners during the debate on Nice ll and I intend to do the same on this occasion. This is not an issue for politicians only but for the society as a whole. It is one for trade unions, IBEC, business and farming organisations and those involved in social Europe. This is an important treaty because it touches every part of our lives. There is a burden on everyone to engage in the debate, whether for or against. We must debate factually, truthfully and comprehensively.
There is a specific responsibility on journalists to be balanced. I share Deputy Creighton's view that it is easier to write cynical observations than insightful articles. However, there are sufficient people within journalism who have the time and are prepared to make the effort to express themselves on the issue. I hope their editors will allow them the space to do so.
There will be a comprehensive campaign. The legislation will be introduced early in January, after the formal signing of the treaty, but the campaign will be under way before this happens.
There is a specific role for the National Forum on Europe. I am delighted that this committee and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny will play a leadership role. I spoke with Deputies Kenny and Gilmore and was delighted with their positive responses. Discussions are continuing in the Green Party but the comments made by its Ministers, Deputies Gormley and Ryan, have been positive. In every party there are people who take somewhat differing views from each other.
Senator Leyden asked what would change. The first change will be to symbolism. The constitution is no longer a reality. It was, possibly, a mistake that the word "constitution" was used. At the Convention on the Future of Europe I mentioned to President Giscard that I had an allergy to the use of the word. The symbolism of the flag, the anthem and the use of the word "constitution" had connotations of a super state and it was imprudent to include them, innocuous though they were.
The treaty has been recast in the form of a treaty as opposed to a constitution. The explanation of this change will pose practical difficulties. However, it has a significance and symbolism for many countries which are very important.
The charter will be legally binding. Therefore, I ask people to read it. It is a wonderful expression of the values we espouse, as Europeans and democrats. National parliaments will have a more comprehensive role; there are minor changes in substance in the draft treaty, but by and large it is the same.
Deputy O'Rourke made the very important point on the threat of legal and military action in Iran. If we have learned anything, the idea that military action solves problems is a fallacy, diplomacy is the way ahead. The Government and its European partners are clear that the diplomatic approach is the correct approach to Iran.
Deputy Costello asked about Chad. We have approximately 350 to 400 personnel, including Irish personnel at headquarters. Lieutenant General Pat Nash is an inspirational choice for this mission.
The situation in Israel and Palestine was raised. It is a pity that some European meetings are not televised. I was at the Euro-Med meeting last week. I was sitting next to Tzipi Livni from Israel and across from us were representatives of the Arab League. It was great they could sit and then dine in the same room. The exchanges were robust but there was dialogue and when people are speaking they are not fighting. That is progress.
We should never lose sight of the fact that Europe is the largest single donor to the Palestinians and is the greatest supporter, but Hamas had made a decision not to commit to the peace process. It would be difficult, if not impossible to put funding directly into Hamas. To give the committee a flavour, the EU aid to Palestine was €700 million last year. Tragically, much of the capital that was invested in infrastructure for the Palestinian people was destroyed subsequently, but the figure for this year will be more than €800 million. The Irish contribution is approximately €7 million so there is significant support from Europe.
Diplomatically, a marvellous role is played by Mr. Javier Solana. People who are worried by the role of the High Representative should look at how Mr. Solana is operating as an intermediary. He is very well received and is trusted on all sides. If he is to be a successful interlocutor, he must be trusted.
Who made the decision to discontinue the European Union aid to the new government? Was it Javier Solana or the Council of Ministers?
That is a Council of Ministers decision.
Our Minister would have been part and parcel of the decision that was made. Was it an unanimous decision?
Decisions on joint action are always unanimous. Unanimity is required. Europe has not stopped facilitating and supporting the Palestinian people. Europe had a problem with Hamas because it was not committed to the peace process. If we are to have a two state solution, which is the only solution that is available, it is incumbent on both sides, on Israel and the other side, that peace and a recognition of each other's rights is the way forward. While those debates still resonate outside the region, I hope that the positive attitude, the balance and the willingness to sit down and talk in the interests of both their people which was reflected at Euro-Med will be reflected at the forthcoming Annapolis conference and that we will make progress.
It is like those pilgrims who follow the pilgrimage to St. Willebrand, where they take two steps forward and one step back. Unfortunately that is the way, but ultimately the pilgrims get to St. Willebrand's memorial in the monastery. Hopefully, in spite of all the frustrations in the Middle East they will get there as it is the only hope they have of reaching the peace that the rest of us enjoy.
I thank the Minister of State. I am sorry the meeting has gone on a bit long but it is a particularly important one. It is our first meeting and is at a crucial stage. I will call all other speakers and will then bring the meeting to close. There will be some housekeeping work at the end of the meeting. I call the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt.
Senator Leyden raised the question of Palestine. He was one of the Members who set up the ad hoc committee, the Friends of Palestine. Ireland has supported and will continue to be a generous donor to the Palestinian people. In particular, we support rural development and education in the occupied territories. We are also giving substantial funds for humanitarian purposes. Senator Leyden and Deputy Costello said the European Union did not do business with Hamas but we continue to provide humanitarian relief through United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
On the arms race, which Deputy Costello mentioned, and it harming development, I accept what he said. I have spoken about this many times. It is one of the aspects of security and development which we will discuss at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Ireland has a good record in seeking arms reductions across the board. We will continue to press for that.
I agree with the point made by Deputy O'Rourke about acronyms and gobbledygook. The meeting next week is called the GAERC but if I do not use that acronym, I must refer to it as the General Affairs and External Relations Council. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We would like to explain as best we can what is going on, even if it is gobbledygook. I will not use such words again until next Monday or Tuesday.
Many of the questions I wished to ask have already been answered. There is no doubt all eyes in Europe will be on Ireland next year during the campaign on the referendum as it will probably be the only country to hold one. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, referred to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing who said the reform treaty is more or less the same as the EU constitution treaty. How will he overcome those difficulties with negative campaigners saying it is the same treaty but with a different name and some symbols, flags, etc., removed? Has the Minister of State looked at the reasons the EU constitution treaty was rejected by France and the Netherlands?
My next question is for the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, and relates to his meeting with EU Development Ministers in Brussels next week and advancing African agriculture. How does he believe Ministers will reaffirm their support for agriculture? The Minister of State said agriculture is a huge part of what is happening in Africa and the livelihoods of people there. Given what is happening in Africa with human rights, unrest, wars and extreme climate change, how will the EU will reaffirm its support for agriculture?
I thank both Ministers of State for their interesting and broad-ranging presentations. I would like to begin by putting a question to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. I echo some of the concerns articulated by other speakers about the Government's forthcoming referendum campaign. The eyes of Europe and much of the rest of the world will be on Ireland, because it appears that no other member state will hold a referendum on the reform treaty. The Government's experience with the Nice treaty suggests that a vigorous information campaign will be necessary if we are to communicate the arguments in favour of the treaty to the citizens of this country. The Minister of State agreed with Deputy O'Rourke when she stressed the importance of using simple language. We are so accustomed to eurospeak that we sometimes do not realise that it can alienate ordinary people. I am pleased the Minister of State accepts that the information campaign will need to be conducted using the simplest and most user-friendly language possible.
I would like to ask the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, about the manner in which the debate will be conducted. The Green Party has actively participated in previous EU treaty referendum campaigns. It has been a deeply unpleasant experience at times because feelings tend to be strong on both sides when EU treaties are being debated, unfortunately. There can be a tendency for such debates to become emotive and polarised. I hope the Government will lead by example during the forthcoming campaign by seeking to persuade people of the merits of the treaty in a reasoned, factual and non-emotive manner, particularly when it is disseminating information. The political contestation of ideas is good for the public. It is good for voters to hear points on both sides of the argument being articulated in the public domain.
Propaganda and inaccurate scaremongering are often features of both sides of these arguments, unfortunately. Does the Minister of State agree that the Government could set the lead in this regard? The organisations which support the treaty will be encouraged by the Government to participate in the campaign. It would be good if this referendum campaign were to be characterised by a reasoned, moderate and factual approach to putting arguments forward, rather than more emotive and personalised forms of argument.
I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, about the involvement of citizens in the ratification of the reform treaty. The original impetus for the treaty was the Laeken Declaration, which set out the need to bring the EU closer to its citizens. As the ratification process in most countries will unfortunately not involve a popular referendum as it will in Ireland, there is a perception that the citizens of the EU are not as involved in the decision-making process as they feel they should be. It is clear that we must respect the constitutional requirements of other countries. President Sarkozy has proposed that a council of wise men be established to discuss the overall question of the future of the EU. While the Green Party would support a widespread debate on the future of the EU, it hopes that any committee established to that end will involve wise women as well as wise men.
We have an opportunity to open to the citizens of Europe the debate on the future of the EU. Are the Minister of State and the Government as a whole in favour of the establishment of EU-wide citizens' forums to debate the key issues which will affect the future of Europe? When we debate the question of enlargement, for example, we will have to consider where the EU's borders should eventually lie. When we discuss the eventual political form of the EU, we will have to take into account the concern that the Union may develop into a centralised superstate. Some alternative models, such as a multi-level system of governance in which regional, national and EU levels of governance have meaningful and important roles to play in the overall functioning of the Union, may be much more attractive to citizens. Does the Minister of State believe that citizens' forums are desirable as part of an EU-wide debate on the future on Europe?
I would like to raise an issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt. I welcome the fact that the EPAs are being discussed at the next Council meeting. The difficulties have been recognised and many of the ACP countries are of the view that a hardline position has been adopted by the European Commission. I know that Commissioner Mandelson is a strong advocate of the EPAs. Reference has been made to World Trade Organisation rules but the WTO rules do not differentiate. Many are concerned that they do not recognise the special and different status of developing countries and their weak and undeveloped economies. Such countries will not be able to withstand the assault of market forces in the same way as more developed economies.
It seems from what the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, said that the Government supports alternatives being offered to the ACP countries, to those countries which are not willing to sign up by this deadline of the end of this year. Such alternatives would be offered to the ACP countries in the absence of any threats being held over them, such as higher tariff payments. It would appear that most of them are facing the prospect that if they do not sign up to the EPAs by the end of this year, they will be forced to accept the payment of higher tariffs.
I wish to ask the Minister of State whether the Government supports the idea that ACP countries who do not wish to enter in further negotiations about services or new issues such as investment, would have their wishes respected. This is another live issue for the ACP countries and one which Ireland, with its track record on development aid and development policy, should support.
Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP
I also thank the Ministers of State for their presentations. I have several dozen questions but I will not detain the committee with each of them, out of concern for my personal security, if nothing else.
I feel like a gooseberry at this meeting. Deputy O'Rourke referred to passion and excitement. I too am extremely passionate about the European project and I am also a very proud European. I am somebody who will campaign against the reform treaty because I do not believe — and notwithstanding the Minister of State's contribution — that it represents an effective democratisation of the Union. I do not believe that it sufficiently safeguards key national interests for Ireland. It represents a route map towards further ongoing integration and an inevitable emergence of a federal state which I do not support. In my view many Irish people will worry about these matters.
There always seems to be a gear change when debating European matters in Ireland compared with a discussion in Europe. There is a wide acceptance at European level that the objective of this project, as declared by Monnet and Schumann, is further, deeper integration pointed in the direction of a federal Europe. This is an openly accepted objective. The question then arises as to what extent individuals, or individual groups or parties, are in favour of this objective.
Sinn Féin is for a Europe that is to do with full co-operation between European states. Our position is not one of eurosceptic but rather enthusiastic and pragmatic, given the globalised world in which we live. However, this reform treaty falls short on many of the stated declarations from Laeken to which the Senator has referred.
I have specific questions for the Minister of State. Ireland has decided to operate an opt-in and opt-out clause on justice and home affairs issues and this is to be reviewed in three years' time. I have the impression from the tone of the remarks from the Government that it will be reviewed in a positive way but I ask the Minister of State to give the specific details of that review and to say, if Ireland were to choose an opt-in, how it would happen.
The issue of taxation has also been raised. It is important people understand that the Commission is crystal-clear in its desire to create a common consolidated European tax base. The ambition is clear and there is no doubt about that. Mechanisms in the Nice treaty, which were slightly amended in the reform treaty, might make possible a scenario where a group of states could forge ahead with such a proposition. At European Parliament level, we have dealt with reports on corporation tax on numerous occasions. Fine Gael and Labour Party MEPs have voted in favour of such a proposition while we have not. Tax collection and the setting of rates are matters for the national authority to ensure everybody pays a fair contribution.
The referendum campaign in France was far from lethargic. People involved in the campaign say it was the most lively period in French politics since the late 1960s. I hope Ireland can replicate that level of public engagement. I agree with committee members who say that requires us not to indulge in gobbeldygook and eurospeak, so to speak. We need to speak plainly and honestly. I agree there should be no scaremongering and I very much hope the Irish people will not again be threatened such that if they should have the hard neck or the audacity to adopt an independent position, their standing in Europe would be terminally damaged. That tactic has been used and overplayed previously.
I refer to the information campaign. Why should the State fund an opposing view? Exchequer money will be invested in the campaign and, on that basis, it should be balanced and accurate. What can be read as a positive provision in the treaty from one political perspective can be viewed as weak or negative from another. Will the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, shed light on how he intends to roll out the campaign?
I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, the best of luck in his discussions with Commissioner Mandelson on the economic partnership agreements. He will find the Commissioner is a complete champion of open markets, with an utter disregard for the potential impacts on developing and emerging economies, which is a matter of great concern. The Minister of State referred to the millennium development goals but policy coherence will come to zero if it is not recognised in the first instance that necessary protections are required by developing and emerging economies if the goals are to be met and if basic public infrastructure is to be put in place on a sustainable basis. I offer the Minister of State that observation and genuinely wish him good luck in his dealings with an austere Commissioner.
Palestine was mentioned. Bulldozing the homes of extremely poverty-stricken people does not represent a commitment to a peace process. Funding for the Palestinians has been mishandled at European level and this raises fundamental questions about who calls the shots and how the policy direction is decided when the Council of Ministers meet. This decision was unanimous and, therefore, Ireland was comfortable was with it. I suspect that in the realpolitik of that discussion, a number of the larger states put the case, championed it and brought others on board.
Those of us who will campaign against the reform treaty are not extremists. We are Europeans who have a legitimate view and we look forward to a robust, fair and respectful debate.
I also welcome the Ministers of State to this committee and thank them for their thoughtful and informative presentations. Deputy O'Rourke made the point that people from the midlands are happy that the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, is here. People from the west are also happy that he is here.
My concerns are similar to those expressed by previous speakers, especially that of a lack of understanding of this debate. This issue is a challenge for us all and we are assisted by the guidance of the Minister of State. It is important to separate to some extent the debate from the campaign. If we wait until the campaign begins properly, the perception may be different from what we would want it to be. It is important that this debate begins now and that the Department and the Ministers use clear, user-friendly language in this issue to equip all of us who wish to campaign on it. Notwithstanding what my colleague, the previous speaker, said, I am sure her party will put forward its perspective on the reform treaty. It is important that both sides of the debate are put forward within the political environment to allow for a clear understanding of what the reform treaty involves and, more particularly, what it does not involve. The only way that will be done is with clear and concise language that tackles and challenges the misinformation about the reform treaty that exists. I am not suggesting that the opponents of this debate are involved in spreading misinformation but there is a lack of clear and concise information on the issue.
What is the view of the Minister of State on the fact that ours is the only country that will have a political campaign on the reform treaty? How will he seek to address the fact that a number of other individuals from Europe will concentrate on our political grounds to further their ideas? I refer in particular to recent comments made by Mr. Le Pen and some descendants of Mussolini who have indicated their willingness to come here and campaign on this issue. That concerns me greatly, given their backgrounds and views. Our campaign on the reform treaty, with the information on it put forward in a clear and concise way, should be fought within the political environment in this country.
I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin has indicated its opposition to this reform treaty because it sets the scene for having a debate more quickly than if we were to wait for the campaign to begin properly. Therefore, we can have an enlightened debate. It is healthy that there is opposition in Ireland and that those who are in favour of the reform treaty can put forward its strengths and those who are against it can put forward what they perceive to be its weaknesses. However, I object absolutely to the notion of Mr. Le Pen and Ms Mussolini coming to Ireland to campaign on an issue that relates to our nation, albeit in a European context. If they have issues with the furtherance of the European project, I respectfully suggest they deal with them within their own borders and not on our island or within our jurisdiction. I would welcome the Minister of State's views on those points.
I will be canvassing in favour of the EU reform treaty. In light of that I would like the Minister of State to close off an issue as best he can that I believe will be raised as a hare during the campaign, namely, the question of the tax status. Currently, our two biggest trading partners are the United States and the United Kingdom. The euro has appreciated considerably and we are now heading into a deficit on our trade balance. If this is allied with a change in the taxation policy for foreign direct investment companies, it will leave Ireland at a severe disadvantage. I ask that we get clarity on this issue and such clarity will be needed before the treaty is put to the people and the Minister of State undertakes negotiations in Europe to ensure our vital national interests in this area will not be affected by the changes or the reform treaty.
Before I call the Ministers of State to reply, I make the point that we should look forward to a debate that will be healthy, factual and engage the people. For my part, I will be prepared to give the public honest and clear answers to the questions raised, and I am sure Members on all sides of the debate will be as well. The only reservation I have is that someone might discover a minute detail from a document about 12 years old that appears to be nebulous, for want of a better description. This may suddenly be presented as a major departure from what is being proposed. Such incidences are not helpful to any debate and create all manner of difficulty.
On Deputy Dooley's point, obviously I will be campaigning in favour of the treaty and, while not having any problem with those who are opposed to it, I am quite anxious and ready to engage with them. The Minister of State might bear in mind this point. I am concerned about harmonisation in taxation. Benefits can accrue to the consumer but there are negative aspects as well. It is not all just one way and there are pros and cons. At present, as Senator John Hanafin has said, it could be precarious for some aspects of trade and industry in Ireland if certain things happen in a particular way. However, one should always remember that it remains within the ambit of a sovereign state to create different emphases on taxation policy at any time by way of credit restriction, credit control or whatever the case may be. That is within the ambit of every member state at any time. It could and should be used at times when other procedures are not available to a member state. However, it is over to the Minister of State now.
I thank the Chairman and I shall be as quick as I possibly can. On the issue of tax, there is a grave danger that we in Ireland will talk ourselves into a belief that somehow or other the situation has changed. It has not. Unanimity is still a requirement for tax. It is in the treaty and does what it says on the tin, namely, that it is unanimity. When people ask for clarification I just draw attention to that fact.
Another point which is critically important to clarify is that Ireland is not isolated on the tax area. We have many allies. In fact the Commission is not crystal clear on the issue. I was talking to at least one Commissioner last night, and I spoke to three separate Commissioners last week, and it is simply not true to suggest that the issue is other than it is. In any event, the issue in this treaty is that unanimity is and shall remain the reality, and we are concerned to be truthful and factual. Deputy Pat Breen was right in saying that all eyes were on us and, indeed, Senator de Búrca made precisely the same point. It is very important that we fight the campaign on the basis of the issues that concern us.
Deputy Dooley made the point that forces from outside this country will be interested and will attempt to play a role. People sometimes say one has to be very careful. When people such as Jean-Marie Le Pen suggest that this treaty was a criminal conspiracy, to use his words, all one has to do is tell the truth. The best way to deal with mendacious statements is the truth. This treaty came out of a constitutional convention made up of more than 200 representatives from all the national parliaments of Europeans well as the European Parliament, and the Commission had two members on it. It was the most democratic process that could be envisaged. It is not possible to find enough room to bring 450 million people together, but certainly bringing the representatives of the people together, as happened, was a good process.
Like Deputy Dooley, I take the view that we should be left to do our own business here. Certainly, if gentle people such as Mr. Le Pen, Ms Mussolini and some of the more extraordinary and exotic individuals show up on our shore, we shall just have to deal with any of their mendacity by simply telling the truth.
I agree with Senator de Búrca's point about a simple user-friendly approach. It is a great pity that we moved from the constitutional treaty single document to the new treaty format because it leaves it open to people to pick holes in it. The debates have been emotive and polarised. However, it is worth reminding ourselves that neither the Government parties nor the political parties that support a "Yes" vote put up pictures of tanks on poles in Dublin, Wicklow or elsewhere on the last occasion.
The Government will give the lead as it has always done. I agree that citizens must be involved, which is why citizens' groups like unions, regardless of whether they take the "pro" or "anti" side, and business organisations have a role and must be encouraged to get involved.
I agree with Senator de Búrca that the model of the National Forum on Europe, which was created in Ireland and is still a uniquely Irish institution, could be replicated elsewhere. It is not up to us to tell any other country how to do its business but I know that in the next week or two, a number of Ministers from different states will come here. Many people have visited the forum, which is a good location where people can have civilised discussions even though they have radically differing views.
I have told Commissioner Wallström that it is a great pity that more energy is not invested in the Communicating Europe initiative, which was created during the Irish Presidency. It was at one stage called the Kilcoole initiative. It is a great pity that Europe does not invest more money in plain language. It invests enough money in the different languages we use but we should possibly add an extra one, namely, plain language.
I disagree with Ms McDonald, MEP, although I respect her view, when she says that the treaty does not represent an effective democratisation of the Union. The reality is that under this treaty, 98% of all the business in Europe now comes from co-decisions. The European Parliament which, when first elected in 1979, dealt with less than 10% of the entire area of Europe, will now deal with 98% as a result of this treaty. For the first time, one of the big gulfs I have seen in all of the treaties will be addressed with the beginning of a role for the national parliaments.
As a student of Schumann and Monnet, I believe it is worth reminding ourselves what they actually said because it is often forgotten. They said their great objective and dream was to make war in Europe not just unthinkable but materially impossible. This is why they focused on the coal and steel community and why we can look back all these years later and say, as John Hume has said, that Europe has been the greatest peace process the world has ever seen. I accept that there are frustrations, bureaucracy and intolerable gobbeldygook spoken by Europe. However, when one factors all of this out and thinks that 65 years ago, the people of our Continent were involved in the most barbaric war that humanity has ever inflicted upon itself, one sees that it is impossible to think of this now. It is better for all of us to work to make Europe better than pull the edifice down.
The justice and home affairs opt-out is a very flexible mechanism to allow a member state to participate in those areas where it is important to do so but where there is no threat to any fundamental aspect of its law. Two aspects of the treaty allow this. First and foremost, it contains the emergency break, which is an Irish invention. We put it together here. When the Justice and Home Affairs Council is working on a justice and home affairs issue, the emergency break would allow a member state in the Council who feels a fundamental issue of its law is in any way threatened, to request that the issue goes to European Council level. The European Council will then decide on the basis of a unanimous decision which will, effectively, give member states a veto. So we are protected in this regard.
Our decision came about because of the issue that arose when Great Britain decided to opt out and because we share a common law system with it. Everyone here knows that I am not necessarily the greatest fan of our common law system. After all, I walked out of the Old Bailey with the Birmingham Six as an official observer. It is not the most perfect system ever invented but because of our concern that we would find ourselves disadvantaged, we prudently decided to use the opt-out, while making it clear that we would opt out where there was a fundamental issue at stake. The Government declaration makes it clear that our predisposition will be to opt in and involve ourselves. No one in any political party in Ireland wishes to opt out of the fight against human trafficking, international drug trading or pornography, for example. It was prudent to take the course of action we took. After three years we will examine the position but we will not use the opt-out often. We do not know what will happen. In the area of police co-operation, when we see its operation day-to-day, we may find there are no difficulties.
Members are aware of my robust view on the common consolidated corporate tax base, which is not an issue that arises in this instance. We have created alliances on the issue of tax since joining the European Community and will do so again. I hope Mr. Kovács will pick up on what has been said here because there is a unanimous view that he is wrong. It is crystal clear the issue does not arise under the treaty.
The final point, raised by Ms MacDonald, MEP, concerned the Palestinian Authority. Perhaps I was not clear enough. The Europeand Union continued to provide assistance for the Palestinian Authority through the President's office. It also developed a temporary mechanism to deliver aid and salaries directly to the Palestinian people. If we agree on nothing else, we agree that bulldozing poverty stricken people's homes is not the path to peace. Neither is the erection of great fences. As we know on this island, the path to peace is through dialogue because it is only when people talk to each other that we can forge a lasting peace. I made this point at the Euro-Med dinner recently. If anything comes from our experience on this island over 800 years it is that force does not succeed but talk does.
I will take up Deputy Breen's point on agriculture. The Council will reaffirm the importance of supporting agriculture in Africa. It recognises that the vast majority of small-scale African farmers are women and that it is of the utmost importance to apply a gender perspective and encourage the empowerment of women through its conclusions. Despite its problems, agriculture accounts for half of the developing countries' GDP. It is a major element of Africa's trade but still undervalued.
Ireland is involved in projects in Ethiopia, supporting the rural travel and transport programme, water management systems and access to markets for dairy and fruit products. Since 2005, it has spent over €4 million supporting these activities. In Lesotho we supported rural development with access roads funding, as well as funding for footbridges and river crossings. In the Limpopo province of South Africa we support local economic development programmes and the tourism sector. We will continue that support, which will be an issue at the next meeting.
Senator de Búrca referred to the EPAs, a matter we debated in the Seanad on Tuesday as part of the debate on Irish Aid. I am aware there are difficulties and that threats exist in respect of the opening up of markets. However, we must also consider the question of increasing trade. By increasing trade we can sustain the economic growth of the world's poorest countries. Developing countries require assistance to enhance their capacity to produce, deliver and sell goods.
As the Senator is aware, the markets in ACP countries are small. On their own, they do not present an opportunity to become competitive in a global trade situation. We want, therefore, to see stronger regional connections which will make it possible to increase production and open up markets to the EU and other international partners in the long term. EPAs could spur trade by ensuring that we could go that route if reliable rule-based structures are put in place. However, after 25 years of EU trade preferences, we have not spurred the ACP countries into economic development.
We will be discussing this issue at our meetings. The negotiations relating to EPAs have been ongoing for five years. There must be a conclusion to all negotiations and in the next six weeks there will be many intense discussions taking place in respect of these matters. The 31 December deadline is real. Something must be done to permit trade to continue after that date. As stated previously, the arrangements that are put in place should not disadvantage developing countries.
Some ACP countries, for example, those in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, are happy to accept services as well as goods. However, we are of the view that other regions should not be forced to accept these new conditions if they do not wish to do so.
I thank Ms McDonald, MEP, and Deputy Dooley for their good wishes. I must inform Ms McDonald MEP, that I met Commissioner Mandelson at a development ministers meeting in Portugal in September. We had a good discussion in respect of EPAs. I also had good discussions with like-minded ministers from other European Union countries. I travelled from Portugal to Mozambique, where I discussed the question of EPAs with the Deputy Foreign Minister. It was interesting to listen to his concerns and to hear him say that his Government is examining opportunities relating to freeing up a trade environment. The latter would really help Mozambique, which is one of the least developed countries.
We will be resuming the discussion on this matter next week. I thank members for their good wishes. The most important thing is that there will be a full discussion on Monday and Tuesday regarding EPAs. I will put forward at our meetings the points of view I outlined here and in the Seanad on Tuesday last.
I thank the Minister of State. I do not want to invite any further questions. I had intended to table a number of questions but I do not propose to do so now. However, I will circulate those questions to the Ministers of State and perhaps they might issue us with written responses in respect of them.
I thank the Ministers of State and their officials for attending and for being so open and helpful. We look forward to working with them during the campaign that will take place over the next six to eight months. The committee expects to become involved in attending meetings in the regions. We would like to liaise with the Departments, the Taoiseach and Opposition leaders in order to ensure that we do not all end up in the same place at the same time. Such an event might be socially enriching and rewarding but there might not be a great deal of benefit in the context of getting the message across.
Members have now had a taste of what is to come. They will have an opportunity to engage with the European institutions at their locations in the not too distant future. One such occasion will be 11 January in Brussels where we will have an opportunity to meet people from various institutions who will have a bearing on the work of this committee. I expect committee members to attend.
We will be invited to attend a number of meetings outside this jurisdiction. This cannot be helped and I expect members to attend. They will have a responsibility to do so. An interparliamentary meeting or a parliamentary meeting of the European family taking place at an inconvenient location for us will not be an excuse for our absence. We will be expected to attend and display an interest and competence. The media are critical of committees or ignore them to a major extent. We should invite members of the media on trips we make to these institutions to let them see what the committee does. They can learn from what takes place at such meetings.
An extremely intensive schedule has been arranged for 4 December. We expect a minimum of six in any delegation and can handle eight. It will be extremely important to have a full delegation on this occasion, that the entire committee familiarises itself with the institutions and activities of the European institutions and that members are actively involved as quickly as possible.
There is no sense in complaining about something a member state should have said, done or where it should have intervened. We represent a particular level and the interests of a member state in our sovereign Parliament. The media will also criticise us for wasting public money, as they see it, in travelling to locations outside the jurisdiction. That is tough, but it goes with the territory and cannot be helped. That is the media's agenda. Perhaps we will bring members of the media along and rub their noses in it on a couple of occasions. It might be helpful to get them to recognise that this is an important job which must be done. The fact it is ignored is detrimental to the interests of our sovereign Government and State. We have particular and specific responsibilities and propose to discharge them.
I chaired this committee on a previous occasion and the tradition has always been to go into private session to discuss travel arrangements and other such matters. I am not too concerned about this. I do not mind discussing these matters in the full, open glare of a public meeting. When I held this position previously, it is what I did. Doing so has pros and cons. It is the choice of the committee. Is it agreed that we will go into private session? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.50 p.m. and adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 28 November 2007.