Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 2008

EU Presidency Programme: Discussion with Ambassadors.

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the priorities for the programme of the European Presidency for the next 18 months, as jointly agreed by France, the Czech Republic and Sweden. I welcome His Excellency, Mr. Yvon Roe D'Albert, French ambassador to Ireland; His Excellency, Mr. Josef Havlas, Czech ambassador; and His Excellency, Mr. Claes Ljungdahl, Swedish ambassador.

We will begin with a presentation by the delegates after which there will be a question and answer session. I advise delegates that while committee members enjoy absolute privilege, witnesses appearing before the committee do not. I ask members and guests not to mention, in a derogatory fashion, anybody outside the House who might be identified by the context in which they are mentioned.

H.E. Mr. Josef Havlas

In my capacity as ambassador of the Czech Republic to Ireland, I am honoured to be invited to today's working session of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, to share with the Chairman and his esteemed colleagues what will be at stake in the first half of 2009, in other words, what the Czech Presidency of the Council of Europe will mean for the Czech Republic and for each one of us.

The Presidency is an ideal opportunity for my country to make itself known and to prove to our colleagues in the European Union and worldwide that we can take care not only of ourselves, but of others. For six months, starting on 1 January 2009, the Czech Republic will lead a body comprising nearly 0.5 billion Europeans. The way we tackle this task may have an impact on our reputation and status for years to come.

Needless to say, this does not mean we will be able to do whatever we want — quite the contrary. We will act in the European spirit and chair a debate involving 27 countries. The world will thus perceive the Czech voice as the voice of the Union. Our people will manage difficult negotiations that should lead to solutions acceptable not only for the Czech Republic, but for the other 26 EU member states.

Naturally, it is vital to be well prepared to tackle such a role. That is why, already in 2007, we started to co-operate with France and Sweden, experienced partners with whom we share the rotating EU Presidency. We are jointly preparing an 18-month working programme for our Presidencies to cater for the priorities of each country and to ensure continuity of operation of the European Union. With a view to the latest development regarding the Lisbon treaty, we are now preparing for various possible scenarios concerning the Czech Presidency.

There will be plenty of work ahead of us in the few remaining months leading up to June 2009. The Czech Republic aims to showcase itself as a country that can listen to other member states, anticipate their opinions and play the role of mediator and as a country that will come up with its own initiatives and will leave its imprint on contemporary Europe.

The motto of the Czech Presidency is "Europe without Barriers". By this motto, approved by the Czech Government in February 2007, the Czech Republic expresses its will to remove barriers that still exist among EU member states, notably in the field of the internal market and free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, including the complex legal regulations of the EU and member states. These barriers do not allow for the potential of individual countries and the European Union as a whole to be fully utilised. The motto also stands for the external openness of Europe towards the whole world.

In 2009 we will also commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain and five years since the largest European Union enlargement in history. That is why the motto of the Czech Presidency has such a symbolic dimension.

The three countries — France, the Czech Republic and Sweden — which will hold office between July 2008 and December 2009 have been co-operating on the 18-month programme of their successive Presidencies with the aim of ensuring better continuity of work at the Council of the EU. This mainly involves agendas that these countries will mutually inherit and that cannot be solved within one Presidency.

The Czech Republic officially launched negotiations at political level with its partners in September 2007 in Prague. However, individual ministries have already been intensively co-operating with their French and Swedish counterparts since spring 2007. The work on the 18-month programme of the Presidency of the Council was symbolically completed on 27 May 2008 when the French and Swedish Ministers for Foreign Affairs arrived in Prague. The joint programme was presented to the Council of the European Union on 16 June 2008 and afterwards it was officially declared and published today at the beginning of the French Presidency. All three states will cooperate to fulfil the programme.

When selecting its priorities, the Czech Republic followed not only its own preferences but took heed of the plans of the European Commission and the interests of France and Sweden. Besides, it had to take into account both the long-term direction of the European Union and the most recent global political and economic developments.

As early as February 2007, the Czech Government approved a working document as a basis for discussion that would deliver the Czech Presidency's priorities, which would be pro-reformist but consensual. Deputies and Senators on the joint committees of both foreign and European affairs were invited to participate in the debate together with the Czech Members of the European Parliament, Association of Regions of the Czech Republic, Union of Towns and Municipalities, social partners and experts from academia, NGOs and businesses. Their comments have given rise to a revised document on priorities for the Czech Presidency, adopted in October 2007 by the governmental EU committee.

The Czech Republic will take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union at a time when crucial questions concerning further development of the EU appear, namely, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, EU budget review, modification of the Lisbon treaty process, further enlargement of the EU and so on. In 2009 elections for the European Parliament and of the new European Commission are also to be held.

The main motto of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union is "Europe without Barriers" and in this connection the Czech Republic had determined five priority areas presented in the document.

The key sphere is "Europe competitive and open", which aims at enhancing the Internal Market and liberalising trade policy. The other four priorities are as follows: sustainable and secure energy; a budget for Europe's future; Europe as a global partner; and a secure and free Europe. Other important topics connected with the selection of the basic priorities of the Presidency are: further development of liberty, security and freedom; liberal trade policy; development of transatlantic relations; the western Balkans and further development of the European Union; European neighbourhood policy with orientation to its eastern dimension; and institutional reform of the European Union.

An official visit of the President of the French Republic, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, to Prague on 16 June 2008 took place on the day when the Joint Programme of French, Czech and Swedish presidencies was presented to the Council of the European Union in Brussels.

The declaration on Strategic Partnership between France and the Czech Republic was signed on the occasion of the visit. The French President also attended the Summit of the Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group held in Prague on the same day.

During the Presidency, the ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic will organise around 200 events on various levels. An informal meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the European Union countries, Gymnich, will take place in Hluboka Castle and a ministerial meeting of the European Union — Rio group will be held in Prague. Four summits will be organised during the Czech presidency. The official web portal of the Czech Presidency is at www.eu2009.cz. The web pages are available in Czech, English and French. Target groups will include most notably the media, experts, civil servants from the EU member states and third countries and the general public. An up-to-date operation with all the necessary information will then be launched on 1 January 2009. Before then information on the lead-up to the Czech Presidency can be found on the web pages of the Office of Government of the Czech Republic at eu.vlada.cz.

Chairman, members of the Joint Committee on European Affair, there is plenty of work ahead of all of us in the months to come, but in the end we all will fulfil our duties successfully to strengthen the whole European Union project.

Thank you, very much, ambassador. I now invite His Excellency, Mr. Yvon Roe D'Albert, the French ambassador to make his presentation.

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you most sincerely for the opportunity to address the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Information about Europe is essential. This committee plays an important role not only in informing the public and fostering debate on European issues, but in reinforcing the influence of the Houses of the Oireachtas on the EU development policy and legislative process.

Before setting out the priorities of the French Presidency, I will say a few words about the Lisbon Treaty. The French Presidency comes at a significant time for the European Union. We have taken note of the Irish vote on 12 June and we respect it. We regret that the people of Ireland did not share our analysis of the advances in the Lisbon Treaty, but that is the way it is. Our recent experience in France leads us to particularly understand and appreciate the current situation.

The European Council of 19 and 20 June took note of the results of the Irish referendum and indicated that 19 member states had ratified the Lisbon treaty and that the ratification process was still ongoing in other member states. The Taoiseach expressed the wish to be given time so that Ireland can organise a debate on the outcome of this negative vote. We all understand this request.

What is the situation today? We have to make a few observations. The treaty has not been ratified by all signatories. It is not in legal force but it exists. Member states in which the ratification process is ongoing have announced their intention to continue with this process. As the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, said, this referendum does not mean that Ireland wants to turn its back on the European Union.

What can we do? We must listen, understand and analyse. This is why the President of the republic will come to Dublin on 11 July, to listen to the Taoiseach, to take the time to analyse and debate and not to rush things. When we have achieved better visibility, we will together envisage the options offered to us. This is the meaning of the agenda set for the European Council in October.

Until then, we must take account of the message sent by the Irish people which corresponds to the one expressed in 2005 by the French and the Dutch. We are all aware of this message. Europe must respond better to the concerns of citizens, beyond information and pedagogy. Europe must be able to react to restore the confidence of Europeans and provide concrete answers to concrete problems, on climate change, energy security, immigration, food safety and on the best way to protect Europeans in an uncertain world.

These challenges are on the agenda of the French Presidency. At the moment, the best response we can give to the current institutional difficulty is to show that, notwithstanding this difficulty, Europe continues to work and make progress.

Concerning the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister have set four main priorities for the second half of 2008.

The first one concerns the energy/climate package and EU energy policy. The French Presidency's ambition, determined by the conclusions of the last European Council meeting in March, is to reach, at least, a political agreement at the Council on the entire package this year and, if possible, at the first reading in the European Parliament. This is a key element of the exemplary nature we want to set for Europe to strengthen its driving role in the international climate negotiations in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference in 2009. In addition to the energy/climate package, the French Presidency will make energy security proposals concerning both the European Union and its relations with major partners, especially Russia.

The second priority concerns migration. Europe is subject to substantial demographic and economic pressures. This raises the necessity to better co-ordinate the actions of member states and ensure their consistency with policies of the European Union as a whole. We need to see how far we can improve harmonising and sharing our policies on asylum applications, the reception and integration of asylum seekers as well as concrete actions both to combat illegal immigration and foster development in countries of origin. This is why the future French Presidency would like to see political commitments made in the form of a European pact of immigration and asylum to be adopted by the European Council, in full consideration of the legislative agenda and the Commission's recent communications. We are aware of the importance of the issues surrounding the area of freedom, security and justice. It is a major political consequence for Europe to have common principles governing the response to growing migratory pressures. We are, therefore, paying particular attention to the other member states' concerns and suggestions regarding this pact, in view of the next Justice and Home Affairs informal meeting in Cannes where the draft will be officially tabled.

The third priority concerns European security and defence. We should not enter theoretical debates or aim at achieving grandiose but unrealistic objectives. The idea is to reinforce, in a concrete and pragmatic way, the operational capacities of Europeans to be in a position to better act together when we decide to do so, as we did with EUFOR, a European operation led by an Irish general. Besides, Europe — which is a major industrial, agricultural, economic and financial power — is not the global player it should be in the world today. In keeping with the conclusions of the European Council meeting of December 2007, the European security strategy should be updated to take account of EU enlargement since 2003 and new concerns such as food security, energy security, non-proliferation and cyberdefence. The increase in the number of crises also calls for Europeans to step up their military and civil capabilities to contribute, in particular, to humanitarian missions under the aegis of the United Nations. The lessons learned from the ESDP operations show that, despite the work already done to develop these capacities, member states need to do more in this area.

The fourth priority will cover the Common Agricultural Policy. First of all, the CAP health check is a particularly topical subject since the Commission published its proposals. We hope to complete this task during the French Presidency with a view to implementing the revised acts by 2009. Beyond that, we would like the Europeans to agree on several major principles for the future of the CAP, because Europe needs a strong and lively agriculture. We would like to see consensus emerge among the 27 member states on several key objectives for the future. These are to ensure the food security of Europeans, to take part in the world food balance, to participate in the fight against climate change and to ensure the balance of territories. Let me be clear. This should not be the launching of a new discussion about the CAP budget, which should be premature before 2013.

I obviously cannot cover all the issues at this point and, if committee members have no objection, I would like to leave as much time as possible for their questions. In what has been a stormy environment for the financial markets since last summer, our ambition will be to make progress with the principles of transparency and the responsibility of financial players. We will also pay close attention to building the competitiveness of the European economy and especially its SMEs. This is precisely the purpose of the proposals recently made by the Commission in its small business Act.

Another core policy for France will be to boost the social dimension of EU action, our research policy and the cultural dimension of Europe. We would like to take concrete initiatives to mobilise the energy of Europeans, for example, to fight Alzheimer's disease or to foster the mobility of young people, including trainees. I would also mention the Mediterranean co-operation that France wishes to deepen, along with the Commission and the other member states, to give it fresh momentum. In keeping with the conclusions of the last European Council meeting, France will hold a union for the Mediterranean summit on 13 July with a view to developing concrete regional projects involving the member states and the southern Mediterranean countries on a voluntary basis.

The French Presidency intends to uphold the continuity of the successive Presidencies' work. The Slovenian Presidency of the Council, with its noteworthy diligence and high quality, has co-ordinated with our Presidency on a good number of subjects. In addition, as is now customary, France, the Czech Republic and Sweden have established a trio programme to structure the Council's work over an 18 month period and ensure its consistency through the institutional reshuffle. This document sets out the combined programme of the French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies covering the period from July 2008 to December 2009. The three Presidencies will work closely with each other with a view to achieving the objectives set out in the programme. To this end they will also co-operate with the other institutions of the European Union, in particular with the Commission and the European Parliament, on the basis of their respective competences. Thank you very much.

H.E. Mr. Claes Ljungdahl

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to present Sweden's priorities when it takes the European Presidency in autumn 2009. It will be an exciting time for the Swedish Presidency. Elections to the European Parliament will have been held in June 2009 and a new Commission appointed. There is also uncertainty as to the fate of the Lisbon treaty. There will be further developments during the preceding two Presidencies of France and the Czech Republic. Sweden will be prepared to take care of unseen events in its Presidency.

Sweden will have a business-like approach to the presidency. The aim is to handle the issues on the agenda as effectively as possible. Sweden is very satisfied with the 18-month co-operation with France and the Czech Republic, as well as with the 18-month programme itself. Co-operation provides for better continuity as regards the EU agenda and a more effective handling of the issues.

A detailed programme for the Swedish Presidency will be developed during the coming year and finalised in May 2009. The programme will be based on two basic principles — reform and bringing Europe closer to its citizens. Sweden hopes to be able to concentrate on substantive issues that are of direct interest to the citizens of Europe.

Sweden has identified five priorities for the 18-month period, which are all in the programme. These will focus on concrete and specific challenges of interest to the citizens such as globalisation, growth, employment, competitiveness, climate, energy, environment, a more secure Europe, regional co-operation and relations, enlargement and a strengthened role for the EU globally.

Climate and energy policy will be one element of the programme with climate having the highest priority. During the Swedish Presidency, there will be focus on securing the negotiation of a post-Kyoto protocol. The EU must continue to show leadership in this area. It is necessary to conclude a climate and energy package during 2008 for a successful international negotiation and get China, the US, India, Brazil and Russia on board.

Energy is high on the agenda. It will be important to safeguard an environmentally sustainable, competitive and secure access to energy. The environment will also be high on the agenda with a review of the sustainable development strategy, biodiversity, environmental technologies, chemicals, and so on.

The second priority will be the continuation of the Lisbon strategy for jobs, economic growth and competitiveness. Sweden wants to set high ambitions for sustainable growth and employment. We need to continue implementation of the Lisbon strategy and to focus on future challenges. We must then work to ensure sustainable growth through getting people back into work, deepen the internal market, ensure external and internal openness, focus on sustainable industrial policy and ensure that the energy and climate challenges are effectively met.

In this context, the budget review is a high priority. It will be an important file during the Swedish Presidency. We need to discuss all expenditure and income, including that of agriculture, and all this should happen in parallel. It is essential to reform the EU budget and to re-prioritise expenditure. We need a modern EU budget to meet future challenges such as growth and transition, which will be beneficial for all.

The third priority will be a more open and secure Europe. The next Hague programme for the period 2010-14 is a priority dossier. We will work towards an ambitious, extensive and forward-looking programme covering criminal law, civil law, police co-operation and asylum and migration. The fight against terrorism and cross-border criminality should continue but should be balanced with measures to strengthen legal security and the rights of victims of crimes.

The fourth priority in the Swedish Presidency will be the Baltic Sea strategy. The Commission has been commissioned to forward a proposal in 2009 to be adopted during the Swedish Presidency. The main components would be competitiveness, the Internal Market, infrastructure and the environment. The Baltic Sea strategy should cater for better co-ordination and use of funds available to the EU and the region. The parts of the strategy — which is focused on the internal EU dimension, together with the northern dimension, which focuses on the external dimension of the process, including Russia — should be seen as complementary, not duplicating each other.

We will also focus on implementing the eastern aspects of the European neighbourhood policy and possibly lay ground for the next step. The ambition is to conclude agreements and develop co-operation with countries like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and, political conditions permitting, Belarus. Work on further developing the strategic partnership with Russia will obviously be of great priority.

The fifth priority for the Swedish Presidency will be continued enlargement and to strengthen the EU on the global scene. It is important the EU stands by and fulfils its enlargement commitments. During the 18 month period we have been discussing with regard to this programme, the aim must be for concrete progress on the ongoing negotiations with Turkey and Croatia, as well as concrete steps in the EU integration process for the countries in the western Balkans.

Priority will be given to the European security strategy, the development of ESDP and an increased capability to act in international crises, as well as promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The same would apply to an active free trade policy as a contributor to growth, employment and the environment, a more efficient development policy and to strengthen the EU's role as an actor in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.

Thank you. I call Deputy Mary O'Rourke. I will then call Senator Feargal Quinn and Deputies Costello, Treacy and Timmins.

I thank the ambassadors for attending and for presenting their programmes. It shows the depth of the preparations they are making for assuming the Presidency of Europe.

I like the motto of the Czech Republic, "Europe without Barriers", which is very evocative of the country, of what it has been through and what it has managed to make of itself. I have read in the newspapers that the Czech Republic is having difficulties coming to a conclusion on the Lisbon treaty. I do not know if it is true, as not everything one reads in the newspapers is correct. I believe it is a matter for the constitutional court. Can the ambassador elaborate on that? Does he see this as a barrier to taking up the Presidency? When does he expect a result of the deliberations? We are very interested in the outcome. The Czech Republic is making excellent preparations and I wish it good luck when it assumes the Presidency. We have a close sense of kinship with the Czech Republic. We admire its culture, its poetry and writings.

France has already taken over the Presidency, today being its first day. The President of France is coming to Ireland on July 21, though the date may have been changed.

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

It is under discussion.

President Sarkozy said on French television last night that he wished to meet with the Irish people who had disagreed with the Lisbon treaty. Can the ambassador elaborate on how he proposes to meet with those people? Will he attend meetings? Will he talk to people on the streets? There is no point in simply speaking to his counterpart, though he will do that anyway. How will he discern what went wrong? I agree with the ambassador's statement to the effect that he respected the vote but we feel it went wrong. How does the President intend to communicate with the people? Having discussed the matter informally with the Chairman before the meeting started, I know this committee would be very keen to talk with him as we were positive about the treaty, in contrast with those who voted "No".

Another country has expressed misgivings today. Which country was it?

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

Poland.

Representatives from Poland are not present and the ambassador cannot answer for them. Our misgivings seem to have ignited similar feelings in other countries so the treaty will not be plain sailing going forward. I believe the six-month French Presidency will be increasingly taken up by the Lisbon treaty. By the time President Sarkozy returns from Ireland, having met the people he intends to meet, he will have a better idea of what went wrong and will have a new armoury of ideas. While France has sensible aims for the Presidency, it will be increasingly involved in trying to put the crossword together again. I know I am asking questions on which the ambassador may not have the authority to speak, but I am particularly interested to know how the President will meet the people. He stressed this in a very vivacious way last night on French television. Perhaps that is his normal manner, but he seemed very exuberant and vivacious when making the point.

I thank the Swedish ambassador for his presentation. He is preparing for the Presidency, even though Sweden will not host it for some time. Early in his preamble he stated Sweden wished to bring the European Union closer to the citizens. I was thinking about European affairs when I was watching President Sarkozy last night. It seems every Presidency starts off with a fine motto such as "We want to bring Europe closer to the citizens" , but it does not happen. Perhaps the Swedish ambassador, in pursuit of that laudable aim, will be able to tell us how he thinks the Union can be brought closer to its citizens. Is that possible? I do not think it will be achieved by a system under which 1 million people can petition the Union. I always thought that was a no-go and noticed that nobody made anything of it during the Lisbon treaty debate because it is silly to try to find 1 million people to do so. I know one can do it on the Internet, but I still think it is a pie in the sky notion. As the Swedes are such practical people, I thought Sweden would find a real way to link the Union with its citizens. That is the kernel of all our difficulties. People living in towns and villages in Ireland do not believe the Union belongs to them or that they belong to it. It is fashionable to say there is a disconnect, but there is because individuals do not feel they are European.

I thank the French, Czech and Swedish ambassadors for coming before the joint committee. We are honoured by their presence. We have the benefit of hearing about their forward plans, which will be useful.

I welcome the three ambassadors. I know all three countries quite well. I got to know the President of the Czech Republic some years ago and we have kept in touch during the years. He impressed me. When I was speaking of my enthusiasm for the European Union, he said: "I am not quite as enthusiastic as you are. You must remember that I had a big brother in Moscow for 40 years and I do not want to substitute a big brother in Brussels for that big brother in Moscow."

We had a big brother for 800 years.

I thought it was very impressive. He clearly wanted a European economic union but had some concerns about a union that was ever closer together. Perhaps his concern was that it would be a super-state, of which he was afraid.

I know France well. We have five children whom we sent them to school in France before they were 14 years old because we were told that if one learns a language before one is 14 years old, it is possible to speak it sans accent. Our two daughters fell in love with French men at the age of 14 years and both are now married to French men whom, I think, Ambassador D’Albert has met on occasion. I travel to France a lot and have a close relationship with the country. Ireland and France have very strong agricultural backgrounds. I am not sure that the weight of the agricultural viewpoint which is very important to us in Ireland takes into account the importance to consumers — even more so to the Third World where so many die from starvation every day — of trading with countries outside the European Union. The accusation is that we in Europe, particularly in France and Ireland, are responsible for building a barrier against imports.

I wrote a book a few years ago which is now in its fourth edition in Swedish. I agree with Deputy O'Rourke's comments on the views of the Swedish ambassador, Mr. Claes Ljungdahl, on an ever closer European Union which is also closer to its citizens. I would like to ask the ambassador because he is the only one who concentrated on enlargement whether he believes Croatia and Turkey are likely to come through as members of the Union within the 18 month period about which we speak here. My main point, however, is that those of us who have been enthusiastic Europeans — I include President Klaus in this — are concerned about the gap that has appeared, in our case over a period of 35 years, since we joined the European Union, between the institutions of the Union and its people. Some of us saw that gap and realised the lack of understanding of what the Union could do because of the gap that we were allowing between the institutions and the people. Seven years ago in 2001 I was delighted when I read the Laeken declaration. Let me read two paragraphs from it. It gave me huge enthusiasm because, for the first time, the nettle had been grasped and the problem was recognised. I quote:

Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by some as a threat to their identity. More importantly, however, they feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny.

We have not gone near solving that problem which was so clearly identified. I ask the ambassadors, with all their very good priorities, to put ahead of all the other challenges the challenge of getting the European Union's institutions closer to its citizens. Let me spell out an exciting role for the Union in what was a new globalised world that was emerging at that stage. I again quote from the Laeken declaration:

The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heartrending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

I thank the ambassadors for the priorities they have given us and encourage them in that regard. I ask them, however, to place above all else the need for subsidiarity, a concept we came to understand but seem to have lost sight of, the concept of decisions being made much closer to the citizens than they have been in more recent years. If we can achieve this, we will find a European Union supported by its citizens with enthusiasm because they will understand the decisions are made closer to where they are rather than by a centralised big brother in Brussels.

I thank the three ambassadors for attending and giving us such a fine presentation of their priorities on the major issues due to arise in the next 18 months. It is a very good initiative of the European Union that three countries should put together a joint continuity programme under which to operate. It will bring continuity and cohesion to the work of the European Union in that respect. I like the various mottoes too — Europe without barriers from the Czech Republic, reform and a Europe closer to its citizens from Sweden, and France's approach to the Irish question, as one might call it now, in terms of listening, understanding, analysing and debating. They are all appropriate to their time. Individual and distinct elements have been put in by each of the countries. The Czech Republic is anxious to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the removal of the Iron Curtain and the fifth anniversary of its accession, with so many other countries, to the European Union. France emphasises the Mediterranean union and Sweden its Baltic Sea strategy. Each country's emphasis is peculiar to its own geography and priority.

The idea of a Mediterranean union will raise a few eyebrows. We have a European Union, and a Mediterranean union within it will require some fancy footwork and diplomatic activity if it is to be handled correctly. However, it is important that France has a major impact on the Mediterranean basin and I would welcome such a development, as I would welcome Sweden having a similar effect on the Baltic. It is only two decades since the Iron Curtain was a major part of the European divide and it is important to mark its demise. I note the areas of commonality. All three ambassadors emphasised the issues of climate and energy, sustainability, home affairs, security, the Common Agricultural Policy, enlargement and the social dimension.

We have been presented with an interesting framework of the activities and priorities of the European Union during the next 18 months. This is very valuable for this committee.

The Lisbon treaty is our first priority. France did not anticipate having to address this issue in the manner in which it must be addressed. In the course of the referendum debate, many of us in Ireland felt that certain remarks about tax harmonisation coming from France were less than helpful. Former President Giscard d'Estaing made unhelpful statements and waited until the vote had taken place before correcting them. He should have corrected them in advance of polling day because they were trotted out repeatedly by the "No" side and were quite misleading.

President Sarkozy is reported to have referred to a deadline of mid-2009 for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. Deadlines are not helpful if we are to listen, understand and debate. He may, of course, have been indicating a date which would be desirable from his point of view. Throwaway remarks can be misleading and can cause much trouble.

Many European countries are suggesting, even at this early stage, that while a period of reflection will be allowed before the Irish Government presents its case at the October summit, a re-run of the treaty rather than a new treaty is expected. When France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty in 2005 it was not suggested that those two larger countries would re-run their referendums. Ireland rejected the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and essentially had a re-run of the referendum. It would seem that unless there are very substantial protections and caveats, the situation could be presented as one law for the large countries and one law for the smaller countries. I am putting that very bluntly, but it is better to bring these things into the open.

The Czech constitutional court must make its decision on the Lisbon treaty. Is there a timeframe for that decision? I understood that the decision was to be made in September, but there now seems to be a suggestion that the Czech Government would like to wait until after the summit in October.

I welcome the witnesses. I apologise for not being here earlier, but I followed the debate on the monitor. I wish the French Government well in the Presidency, and the Czech and Swedish Governments after that. Am I correct in saying that President Sarkozy has deferred his visit to Ireland?

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

No. Before the election he came to Ireland, but not officially. This will be his first visit as President of France and his first visit in which the French hold the Presidency of the EU.

I thought that President Sarkozy had intended to visit Ireland, and now he has deferred it due to work commitments.

He is coming to Ireland on 21 July. He has deferred the visit by ten days due to a clash of diary commitments.

He is very welcome here as President of France and as a representative of the country that has the Presidency of the Union. I find it a little depressing that some of the "No" campaigners, as opposed to the "No" voters, were out of the traps very quickly to intimate that they would be holding a protest against him. These intimidating utterances depict an intolerance and a warped mindset. Nobody has a difficulty with peaceful protests, but it is depressing to see "No" campaigners getting publicity for themselves whenever an international figure comes to Ireland, rather than deal with any other issue. I would ask them to desist from such short-term populist and media-seeking activities.

Irish military personnel are serving with the French in Chad at the moment, dealing with the refugees spilling over from Darfur. Concern was expressed in some quarters about the demarcation lines between French foreign policy and the role of the UN in Chad. Does the ambassador have a view on that? He mentioned the southern Mediterranean countries in his speech. What countries is he referring to? The French are proposing to hold a voluntary meeting with the member states and the southern Mediterranean countries. It is almost 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell, but it seems like yesterday.

One of the main issues in the Czech Republic is a concern over land ownership and unclaimed property. How has this problem been addressed in the past 20 years? What is the Swedish ambassador's view on enlargement? He spoke about enlargement involving Croatia and Turkey. What about the Ukraine and Georgia? If their countries were to have a popular vote on the Lisbon treaty — there may well end up being one in the Czech Republic — would the ambassadors hazard a view as to whether it would be successful?

Chairman, Excellencies, colleagues and friends, I want to be associated with the words of welcome to the ambassadors. I thank them for presenting the work programmes for the respective EU presidencies. I note the co-ordination in the programmes.

Europe never needed political leadership more. Political leadership is vital for the future of the Union. It is vital to give reassurance, confidence, cohesion to the whole thrust of the European project. I am pleased Mr. Yvon Roe D'Albert spoke about listening, understanding and analysing. I would tend to say festina lente rather than quam celerimme. It is vital we have a period of reflection as to where we are, how we got there and how we can get the train out of the station.

It will not be simple. I agree with Deputy Costello that deadlines are very dangerous. Politicians, diplomats and leaders must appraise the situation and work together to ensure a more efficient, effective and less bureaucratic union. I am committed to the European project for greater integration and cohesion. It is in the interest of the common good of each member state and the Union. It is important, however, we take cognisance of the fact that three countries by popular vote have rejected how we should proceed together.

We are disappointed with the outcome of the referendum. However, we are democrats, we have a written constitution and the people are sovereign. We must respect that. We must find a common understanding with all our people as to how we can manage our country's future within the Union, contribute to its progress and get out of the dilemma in which we now find ourselves.

Ireland is not in this dilemma alone. All 27 member states are in that same dilemma. France, the Netherlands and Ireland have a particular dilemma. No member state has a recipe for resolving this problem. We need the support of the other 24 member states. It is critical to strengthen the European communication initiative. There must be greater co-ordination with public representatives, MEPs, the various Presidencies and Commission officials to utilise the Union's resources. We must get a new message across to the people of Europe on the historical contribution that has been made by the Union over the years, the capacity it has to improve the quality of life and the resources and the opportunities for all of our people and for future generations, and, from a global context, the role that a stronger, more cohesive and efficient Europe can play in global affairs.

This will not be simple. It will not be done in six or 18 months. In my estimation, it will take two to three years to bring about a change in mindset to get a common understanding in all EU member states and among their citizens. We must manage this carefully and the three Presidencies have a major role. We cannot be rushed into getting back on the track while being uncertain as to how or where we might be going. Quo vadis — where are we going, and how do we get there together? These are big questions on which we must seriously challenge ourselves and for which we must find solutions.

I commend His Excellency, Mr. D'Albert, on giving us a very strong priority for the Common Agricultural Policy, which is vital for the future of the Union. It is a common pillar but it has taken a bashing in recent times, particularly as a result of our decision on Lisbon. There is a serious global challenge pertaining to food prices and there is serious concern among citizens on this island that the cost of food is getting out of hand for the ordinary families of the nation. Food security is a serious challenge for the Union and we must be seen to lead that situation and ensure we give sustainability to our own producers within our own markets, and that we protect the Union's markets at the world trade talks. These are major challenges and the Union has a serious role to play to give reassurance and confidence to our farmers as well as our consumers, which is important for the future. We salute Mr. D'Albert for the priority he has given this issue, as well as the other priorities to which he referred.

His Excellency, Mr. Havlas, gave us a very clear programme for the Czech Presidency. If there is time, I would like him to expand on that. I believe we need to revisit the budget for Europe's future, which is a challenge for every one of us as taxpayers and as citizens. We expanded the European Union and this is where we have had a big challenge and where we now have a problem. It was expanded by 12 member states, which was a very big decision, but we have no regrets and believe it was the right way to go. The Irish Presidency played a key role in driving that agenda and we still believe the Union can be expanded in the future. However, we must understand we cannot run the Union on the same budget that was in place heretofore. We have to find sufficient resources to create new instruments, measures and programmes that will give an opportunity to everybody in society, with European support, to ensure their livelihoods and quality of life, a standard of living and jobs in a modern Union.

There is a key role for Europe to play as a global partner. We have yet to exert a key capacity in the global environment, where never before has there been a need for a greater balance or a greater demand for peace, prosperity and democracy. We have only to consider the situation in Zimbabwe and various other countries where there is conflict, deprivation and poverty. The generosity of the Union and its member states has made a huge contribution to overseas development aid and the EU leads the world in this regard. These are issues the ordinary citizen is not aware of and does not seem particularly concerned about. It is important we get these messages across in the future.

The European neighbourhood policy is an ingenious policy which is very important to the future, particularly on our eastern flank. We need the co-operation of those countries along that flank and they need our support. That is a major requirement for the future. It is very important also that we maintain constant contact and communication with Russia in order that it can play its part as a key player in the region, to ensure that the value of the European neighbourhood policy can have real impact on the ground for the citizens of aspiring nations that want to be part of a greater union in the future.

I believe the European Union has been more than harsh in the way that Croatia was treated in the past, particularly during the period 2005 to 2006, when the powerful states in the Union felt it was necessary to discipline Croatia and halt its progress to full membership. There was an attitude that Croatia was harbouring desperate people and the facts now prove that was not the position. Croatia has been unfairly treated and I think it should be treated in an individual way and its desire for full membership should be revisited. I hope that during the Presidency it may be possible to do that.

I admire the programme outlined by the Swedish ambassador, Mr. Claes Ljungdahl. Perhaps he will expand on how he hopes to develop the Lisbon strategy from jobs, growth and competitiveness. Again the budget review is important. There is an opportunity with all three working together to ensure there is sufficient resources for the Union to make a significant contribution and instill confidence in each citizen that he or she is not just a member of the Union but beneficiaries of the great Union that it is, has been and will be in the future. With strong political leadership in the short to medium-term, we can again capture the positive spirit that has been the hallmark of the Union through its solidarity over the years. With new impetus, we can restore the Union. I wish the ambassadors well during their country's Presidency and I thank them for their co-operation and contributions as diplomats in Ireland. I wish them continued success.

That was an interesting response. This is a very important time for the onward progress of the European Union. It is down to the three ambassadors and their countries how this is likely to proceed. I believe there is a lack of vision at present and the vision that was evident in Europe ten years ago seems to have evaporated. The responsibility for that will fall on France, the Czech Republic and Sweden. I have no doubt they are capable of rediscovering that vision. Some member states, including powerful member states, now regard a loose economic arrangement as being the ultimate. That was not the vision some years ago. I wonder why that concept is being pursued. In fact, the Eurosceptics in the UK are attached to that proposal. For Europe to succeed and to achieve its objectives, it requires a greater commitment and a recognition by each member state, large and small, that it cannot cherry pick. Each will have to make sacrifices and each will have the benefit of those sacrifices and the negative impact of the decisions, if they do not encompass the collective, co-operative spirit that was originally the vision.

We need to bear in mind the need to cultivate a deeper friendship with Russia than exists at present. That may be anathema to many people. It is extraordinary that Russia should be looking elsewhere for its markets when 75% of the population of Russia live on the continent of Europe. That applies to Moldova and a number of other countries

During the discussions in Monaco in the past few days, it became apparent there is a difference in emphasis in the degree to which individual European countries see Europe in the future. That is dangerous, because once the vision is removed, the concept becomes vague. As a result, the concept may falter. It would be extraordinary if things were to falter for this generation, given that the previous generation worked so hard and made such sacrifices. That would be a reflection on all of us, whatever the extent of our commitment to the original concept.

Suggestions about a two-speed Europe are fatal for the European concept. The one thing of which we should all be aware is that Europe has always been dominated by division. Once division appeared on the scene, there was usually a follow up that was less than positive. We need to keep that in mind and to pick up the threads from where they lie. I am not too sure that Europe has distanced itself from the people, although the people may have distanced themselves from Europe. We must examine all aspects. Somebody correctly mentioned that the people are sovereign, and we all recognise that. A year ago, the people gave a mandate to 166 Deputies, but this time many people took advice from those who were not elected and who saw deep, hidden problems within the European concept. That takes a bit of careful analysis and explanation.

Every word and every sentence had to be parsed, so that it did not come back and destroy us at a later stage. We need more trust, and the practice of quoting out of context is very damaging to everything for which we worked and which was seen as a good idea ten or 12 years ago. It would be a shame if any of us retreats from those laudable objectives and I have no doubt that under the guidance of the French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies, we will not go that way. I now call on His Excellency, the Czech ambassador.

H.E. Mr. Josef Havlas

Thank you. I will outline our position. I was very pleased when Deputy O'Rourke kindly mentioned our relations with Ireland, but I am sure that is in her nature. One thing we might have in common is the constitutional assessment of the Lisbon treaty in the Czech Republic. There are countries in which the ratification of the treaty is still under way, one of which is the Czech Republic. The Czech Government is awaiting the outcome of its assessment in the courts. I saw some of the assessments given by lawyers for the Czech Government, and these are very optimistic. I cannot give any predictions, as I am not a prophet.

During the Irish referendum in June, I was at the press centre in Dublin Castle. When the counting of the referendum votes began, I was asked by a broadcaster what I believed would be the outcome. I did not answer because I am not a prophet but, privately, I was optimistic for a "Yes" result. I recall the success of the Irish Presidency of the EU in 2004. These times are not boring and we must encourage the people across Europe to think about common issues.

I thank Senator Quinn for his kind remarks about the former Czech President, Václav Havel. He is in good condition and active again. When I meet him I will pass on the Senator's kind wishes.

Deputy Costello spoke on the cohesion and co-ordination of the three Presidencies. There is a concentric core process regarding the Czech work programme. We believe the programme may be on the table by early September. There is no deadline but the Czech Government wishes to have this finished by 15 October. I do not know why this date has been chosen. It is a Wednesday and usually the Council sits on a Thursday.

I thank Deputy Timmins for his remarks on the forthcoming Czech Presidency and its priorities. Land ownership is another headache and has not yet been resolved. Some 20 years ago, the State was the main owner of land. While the Czech Republic is not a very religious country, there are attempts to resolve the issue of the confiscation of lands previously owned by the church and others. There is an active procedure in place and I hope it will be resolved.

I am glad Deputy Treacy referred to the EU budget. A budget is needed for a peaceful and prosperous Europe. The Czech Republic will probably shorten the five priorities and modify them.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation.

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

Thank you, Chairman. The first question concerned the visit of President Sarkozy and whether it will take place on 11 July or 21 July. We do not know yet and are still discussing which day would be more appropriate.

In response to Deputies O'Rourke and Timmins, it is true that this is the first visit of President Sarkozy as President of France and President of the European Union. After 12 June, President Sarkozy spoke with the Taoiseach and during those discussions he made a commitment to come to Ireland to show his solidarity with the Taoiseach because he knows this is not an easy situation. We had a similar situation in France in 2005. He also recognises the importance of showing the Irish people that we are all in the same family and that their vote is respected, even that of the people who voted “No”.

Members asked if the President will speak to those who voted "No" but I do not know the answer to that yet. This is something we must discuss with the Irish authorities. Ireland is a sovereign State and the French President cannot come here and decide he wants to speak to everybody. That would not be the correct way to behave. We will see what kind of contact we will have with the people who voted "No" but the President wants to speak to a wide variety of people. It is hoped that people can explain what happened because we want to understand the issues and to be as helpful as possible. This is the main reason for the visit of President Sarkozy. I am sorry I cannot answer the question more definitively. However, the visit will not be a short-tempered one and the President is not coming here to engage in lobbying. He simply wants to be as helpful as possible in these difficult times.

Members also raised the issue of a deadline. I wish to explain that when Mr. Sarkozy was quoted, he did not mean to introduce the word deadline. What he was trying to say was that we should know before the next European Parliament elections in June 2009 whether we are going to vote under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty or the Nice treaty. We should know by that time under what rules we are operating. It is not that we must solve the problem before June 2009 but that we must know under what rules the elections to the European Parliament will operate. That is what I understand from President Sarkozy's remarks. I am sorry I cannot answer for my President, especially a few days before his visit. This is not a very comfortable position for an ambassador. I am doing my best but I cannot really answer for him.

The issue of deadlines is contentious but we must take our time because this is a difficult question. We need to understand the situation, together, as a union, rather than having 26 countries on one side and Ireland on the other. We must come to an understanding and a solution together. We all agree on that point.

Deputy O'Rourke asked if the French Presidency will be increasingly involved in dealing with matters concerning the Lisbon treaty. That is true. It will not be easy but I am sure we will also deal with other priorities because they involve finding answers to concrete problems. I agree with what Deputy Treacy said about the gap between the European population and their leaders. This was because the leaders were not strong. We must be stronger and must not forget the important priorities of climate change, the common agricultural policy and so forth. We cannot forget about these matters just because we have an institutional problem. We must deal with the hard issues and wait for the appropriate time to solve the institutional problems that have arisen.

I thank Deputy Treacy for stating that the system cannot be changed in six months. It will take time and it would be dangerous to rush the matter. It is a matter for the others to deal with it, during the Presidency of the Czech Republic and Sweden. In life, there are times when one can solve a problem and other times when one has to wait. This is the situation we are experiencing.

What will be discussed at the summit in October? I do not know. However, we will not rewrite the Lisbon treaty. There is no division between the large States and the small countries.

In 2000, we had the Nice treaty. I am one of the few people who read the Lisbon treaty.

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

In 2005, this was a constitution and this involved the sovereignty of the people. That is why the treaty is not the same situation. In another way, in France we did not vote again on the constitution, but when Mr. Sarkozy was elected as President of the Republic of France, many people had in mind that he promised to solve the problem that France and the Netherlands had created in 2005. There has been an attempt — not using the same text — to solve the problem.

Ireland and France have been close in sustaining the Common Agricultural Policy and fighting for food security in the European Union. This is important and President Sarkozy stated that we will not agree to a bad agreement under the WTO negotiation because France does not accept an agreement where we should reduce production of agricultural produce by more than 20%. We do not want to cut the export of agricultural produce to countries outside the European Union by 10% when we know there is a problem of food shortage in the world. We must find some way to achieve balance.

When Georges Pompidou was President of the Republic, we spoke about the same problem and President Pompidou stated that the real problem is not that we will have too much food but the risk of shortage of food. We are conscious of the many people starving to death around the world. I am sure Europe has an answer to that problem. We need Ireland as well as other countries to cope with the challenge.

CAP is one of the central pillars of our policy. We hold a common view that we want to maintain trust in our products. We want to take the health of our consumers into account. We want to maintain sustainable development in Europe. We know that agriculture is not only the production of agricultural goods. It is a way in which society is organised, and is deeper than simply agricultural produce. This is something we must develop in common and the French Presidency will have that in mind. We do not want to anticipate what will happen in 2013, because we will need a new policy then. However, there should be a reflection of that common vision for the future of agriculture.

Mediterranean countries in Europe are interested in the project for the union of the Mediterranean states. We initiated the Barcelona process to create something, but it was not enough. Everybody gave the impression that we should go further. We explained to our northern and central European friends that we were not against the other priorities of the EU, but the Presidency will always take up a few personal projects. As a Mediterranean country, France is trying to do something in this area, although it is very difficult. Have I gone on too long?

My apologies, but there is a vote in the Seanad. Please excuse me.

Some Senators will have to leave.

H.E. Mr. Yvon Roe D’Albert

Fine. Every country will be welcome at the summit. At least one country has refused to attend, but we should try to get as many countries as possible to come. We should try to create some concrete projects for the Mediterranean area. There is a project for central Europe and one for northern Europe as well, so we could create something in those areas as well. Europe is not alone. We must be open in our relationships with Russia, the US, China and others, so that we can deal with our common problems.

I want to answer Deputy Costello's questions about the unfortunate quoting of some French authorities. The main French authority is the President of the French Republic. President Sarkozy did not say anything awkward during the treaty campaign. When the words of Christine Lagarde were misunderstood, President Sarkozy had a meeting with an Irish MEP and he said exactly what had to be said about that. President Sarkozy will tell us all in a few days what should be said.

I must also comment about the EUFOR force in Chad. This is not about having troops in Africa, but rather is about a humanitarian problem. There is a great refugee problem in that area, so we decided to do something about it. Ireland joined the group because of the UN authorisation, the European decision and Ireland's own decision. I do not know what will happen in the future. This is not a situation that will stay around for many months. There will be a meeting with the UN to see how it could take on what has been done by EUFOR. This will be discussed by everyone involved. We do not want to be involved in this part of Africa. We will deal with this with the UN. It is better to give the UN a role in that part of the world.

Instead of examining the European process over the past three years, it should be examined at the beginning at the end of the 1960s. We must be proud of what has been achieved in the European project. It has not been bad for peace, prosperity and democracy. The problem of modifying the EU institutions can be best described as that of a child growing up. Sometimes, we do not know whether to change the child's clothes or adapt them to fit. We must solve the problems of the EU institutions together. The next six months or year and a half — I do not know — could be difficult. We will take our part of the burden. Five years from now, when we look back at this situation, we will be able to prove Europe has been able to meet the challenge and succeed on this difficult position.

H.E. Mr. Claes Ljungdahl

Sweden's basic aims during its Presidency will be reform and bringing the EU closer to the people. These are also the aims of the French and Czech Presidencies. It will be difficult to achieve and the Union has been trying it for many years. It is important to focus on the substantive issues of which the people are thinking. For example, we must work out how we can meet the challenge of globalisation and make it beneficial to us. We must have a close dialogue with and listen to the people on this and have a transparent system. This must be improved and developed rather than just putting it in a work programme. If more of this could be done, the Swedish Government believes the people would feel more aware of and involved in the process.

People do not really discuss or think about the institutions as such. They are more concerned about whether there is something in it for them, about whether they can get a job, for example. Such concrete matters are more important for individuals than whether Ireland has 12 or 13 votes, and so forth. That is our basic approach to that issue.

Senator Quinn and Deputy Timmins spoke about enlargement and asked specific questions about our views on that process. We hope that Croatia will be in the system within the next 18 months. It could happen during our presidency, the Czech Presidency or even the French Presidency. This is something on which we are working and we hope to see it come to fruition. We certainly hope to see progress in the negotiations for Turkey's membership and, at the very least, a number of chapters must be opened in those negotiations. We expect and hope to see steady progress made on that issue.

Several countries are relatively close to starting negotiations with the European Union on membership. We hope, for instance, that countries like Macedonia will be engaged in the process within 18 months. There might well be a negotiating start for countries like Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and other countries in the western Balkans and from our perspective that would be very welcome. Deputy Timmins also asked about countries such as Ukraine, Belarus and others, but they are a longer-term prospect and nothing will happen in the next 18 months in that regard. We also hope to see developments regarding policies related to neighbours of the Europe Union and enhanced co-operation.

I note Deputy Costello's support for the Baltic strategy. Obviously we also believe it is important that the Baltic region maintains contact with Russia. Deputy Treacy asked about the Lisbon strategy, as opposed to the Lisbon treaty and it is much easier to talk about the strategy than the treaty. We are faced with quite difficult challenges in Europe in several areas which must be addressed. We expect to see an increase in global competition and globalisation, which will present challenges. We must achieve our ambitious aims in the areas of climate change and energy. We must also increase economic growth in Europe and take care of our aging population. We must recognise the possibility of being faced with a shortage of labour in Europe. In that context, we would need a strategy that would combine sustainable growth with full employment and a low CO2 economy. Perhaps I should not be too definite in what I say here, but we would like to see an increased focus on certain policy areas and specific measures that would improve the global competitiveness of the EU. I am sure that is also the Irish perspective. Free trade and functioning markets are important, as well as measures to increase the labour force through employment. It also creates a position where one could combine the economic growth and development with lower damage to the environment.

There are several issues we would prioritise in this area of the strategy. Sustained public finances would be important and the Internal Market must develop. We have had it since 1992 but it could still be improved in terms of standardisation and harmonisation. The services sector could also be developed further with the services directive.

We have measures that would improve the structure of sustainable industry, including horizontal measures. There could be measures that would get more people to work, regulatory reform and open trade policy. In a way this is an ambitious outcome of the DDA negotiations, which is balanced to the benefit of Europe and the developing world. There is also the European research area and a review of the youth strategy on how to minimise damage related to alcohol. These are measures we will see later in the programme and they will be discussed during the Presidency.

Those were the comments directed to me specifically. I hope we will have a good Swedish Presidency and we will deal with all the matters left over from the French and Czech Republic. This will allow us to hand over a clean table to our Spanish friends.

Thank you, Your Excellencies. We wish you well in the work ahead. It is a crucial time in the European sphere and the degree to which our interests are linked with your success should be obvious to everybody. We thank the delegation and look forward to positive signs.

Whatever else happens at a crucial time like this, people should refrain from statements that are divisive or unhelpful and defer them, whatever their innermost thoughts are. That includes us as well.

Top
Share