Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1994

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Durkan

The Bill is a short one, as are the sections. However, that should not be seen as an indication of its significance. It is one of the most important Bills to come before the House, and certainly before this committee, for a long time. It is historic in the sense that it relates to the first major enlargement of the European Union for a number of years, a development that is to be welcomed. However, this is not the end of that process. We must face up to the fact that the European Union will be enlarged further in the years to come.

The significance of this enlargement is not lost on the world outside. It comes at a significant and important time in Europe's history. Other European countries are waiting to see how the Union takes on board the new membership because what happens in this case will give some indication of how other countries will be absorbed later. I have no difficulty in supporting this section.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome the Minster of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to this committee. We already have agreement on the first section, or main provision, of the Bill.

We had an excellent debate in the Dáil on the implications for Ireland of the accession of the four countries concerned with particular reference to the Common Agricultural Policy. Most of the states currently seeking membership have had more support from their national Governments than Europe has given to its existing members. That is bound to have implications for us. It is something we should bear in mind in the context of the criticisms that have been made of Ireland as to the extent to which we have benefitted from the Common Agricultural Policy and otherwise. One hopes, however, that the incoming countries will be net contributors to the union and as such will be of benefit to us in the long term.

These aspiring members also have other common similarities with us. The three that are neutral nations could be expected to hold views similar to ours on the subject of defence which will be a major source of debate between now and 1996. Having the benefit of these additional neutral states in the European Union will give us the opportunity to have a proper, open and frank debate in that regard — what neutrality means and how it will be defined or redefined between now and 1996. These countries will be of benefit to us in a consultative way as well as being there as allies, if that is the correct word to use in this instance.

The Nordic countries will also add much to the culture of Europe. During the briefing session, Senator Taylor-Quinn asked if all these people accepted the full implications of Maastricht, particularly the Social Chapter. It was confirmed that they fully aspire to that. We know that much of their existing legislation far outweighs what Maastricht has laid down as a minimum for the existing 12 member states, particularly in the area of the Social Chapter. There are many similarities between those incoming countries and ourselves. They will be of tremendous benefit to us as a nation. That is why there was a broad welcome across party lines in the House for the Bill.

I welcome this section. The Minister and the Tánaiste are anxious that as a nation we should be ready to sign the treaty of accession of the four countries concerned.

Senator Lanigan

I join with the other speakers in welcoming this Bill and section 1 in particular. As has been said, three of the countries coming in are neutral nations. However, they are not neutral in the way Ireland is neutral. Different definitions of neutrality can have implications for many people. The definition of neutrality in Norway, for instance, is different from its definition in Ireland, and the same can be said for Finland, Austria and Sweden.

This debate provides an opportunity to remind people that within the next couple of years there will be a major discussion on neutrality both as a concept and in its historical context. That will provide an opportunity for us to define our defence policy within Europe. A White Paper on Foreign Policy is being prepared and people have been invited, via newspaper advertisements, to make suggestions in that regard. By way of broadening the idea of the section, I urge those who are interested in this legislation to respond to that invitation. Ireland and the three other neutral countries may be able to reach a consensus on how we adopt to what is, or is not, the current policy on defence within Europe.

Our observer status at the Western European Union is another subject that has to be addressed. I attended a meeting of that body and was struck by the profound different interpretations by the various nations as to what the Western European Union is, its relationship with NATO, as well as individual countries' acceptance or otherwise of the Western European Union. These are matters that will have to be carefully explored over the next few years.

It has been mentioned that what we are providing for is the accession of four countries who will be net contributors to the EU, thereby making it easier for other countries to accept them, and that, conversely, it might be difficult for them to join since they would be seen to be net contributors. Two of the nations have, thankfully, already held their referendums. Norway and Sweden will hold theirs on 23 and 30 November, respectively. It is hoped that both will vote to join the European Union.

Of the two countries that have already voted to join, interestingly one is from central Europe and the other from the periphery which shows that people on opposite sides of the Union, geographically, have decided to come in. That is important. The next widening of the Union will involve small countries like Malta and Cyprus, as well as the major one, Turkey, in respect of which serious questions will have to be addressed. Regardless of how anyone may view Turkey, it is a major player in politics in the east, the near east and in Europe.

The question of membership for the countries of eastern Europe should prove more difficult than the case of countries in western and north western Europe.

While I welcome the Bill, major debates will have to take place if there is to be any further enlargement of the European Union. We are going through what I consider to be the easiest part of the enlargement process with the accession of the four countries in question.

Senator Taylor-Quinn

It is easy to extend a welcome for this Bill because what we are providing for is the accession of four states, each of which has a good economic record which make them net contributors to the EU in the long run. Apart from that consideration there are specific reasons for Ireland to welcome the four countries and three in particular. As Deputy Ferris said, three are neutral states. It will be important for us to forge allegiances with these countries in their new status within the European Union.

Another important aspect is that they will all be smaller member states, which means that they have something else in common with us. As we approach the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference there will be much discussion about institutional reforms within Europe. Although there has been an accepted status quo up to now, there is a danger that smaller member states — which receive high political recognition in comparison to their size — might have their institutional political representations reduced. That is another reason we should forge an alliance with these smaller countries. It is important that the political and institutional representation of member states, such as our own, is not diminished in future negotiations.

As many speakers have said, we will have a debate in the future on further enlargement. The next big question will be whether to give priority to the applications from Cyprus, Malta and Turkey over those of Poland and Hungary. We will need to know what will be the attitude to those applications at EU level, and whether they will be treated jointly? We must recognise that member states on the east of the EU, like Germany and Austria, will have particular concerns about economic and political security on their eastern borders. While that will be a priority for them, as a country we should have a view as to who we think should get priority, or whether all should be treated jointly although we know the applications from Malta and Cyprus were in ahead of those from Hungary and Poland.

Ireland appears to be a net beneficiary rather than a contributor. We should not apologise for that because it is well recognised that while we may not have huge political or economic clout, we do have an intellectual and cultural influence that outsmarts many of the European member states. It would be opportune today for us to compliment Irish representatives in Brussels, as well as those in the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments who over the years have forged effective and successful relationships with important people in Europe and in so doing have achieved much for Ireland. We should continue to ensure that we have good, intelligent people in Europe.

Deputy Durkan

I intended to make a comment on that section. We must all bear in mind that this enlargement has an effect on neutrality and economic matters. The economic criteria applicable to membership and prospective membership are well recognised and I accept them. Members and the general public are aware of the remarks made by the president of the Bundesbank recently which seemed to suggest that Ireland is in some way falling short of those criteria. There was also a reference to a two speed Europe. This is most important and we should consider it.

The possibility of a two speed Europe would not be in Ireland's interests, no matter how it is justified. I accept the Government is totally opposed to that concept which will develop at some stage. For instance, on neutrality, a group of countries who happen to be neutral may form a group of their own. We must ensure that we do not become one of a group of countries which would constitute a two or three speed Europe, by virtue of the fact that we happen to have common ground on some issue.

The German Chancellor when he met Members recently, was forthright about the way he wants Europe to develop. He clearly indicated that he wants Europe to develop at as fast a pace as possible. He is not in favour of a two speed Europe, but it would appear that he is thinking about saying to the rest of us Europeans that it is a matter for ourselves to ensure that we are in the single speed in every way possible. That was a significant statement because if anything were to happen over the next couple of years or if in some way the whole thrust of the enlargement of Europe was to be altered, there would be grave danger that we could find ourselves sidelined in some fashion and become part of another group. That is dangerous and it happens it will be to our detriment.

We should not be afraid of other countries joining in that they are all Europeans. We cannot as Europeans tell others who are outside the circle at the moment that they cannot join. They are all Europeans. We need to be very careful. The historical significance of this enlargement will probably only be seen in years to come.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy T. Kitt)

The Chairman has outlined the provisions of the Bill clearly in his opening remarks. As he rightly pointed out this is a short technical Bill. I welcome the comments of the Members who have spoken. A number of important points have been raised. I will briefly respond. I note that there were no major queries on the Bill.

The Bill allows for certain provisions of the Treaty for the accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden to become part of the domestic law of the State. It also allows for a position where one or other of these countries does not decide to ratify the accession Treaty. If that happens it will not be necessary to renegotiate the accession Treaty. I made that point in the Dáil. Finland has decided in favour of joining by 57 per cent. In Austria 67 per cent of the electorate are in favour and there will be a consultative referendum in Norway on 28 November. There will be a referendum in Sweden on 13 November.

I am simply echoing the sentiments expressed elsewhere in hoping that these countries will become part of a 16 member European Union. I also share the views of the Members who have expressed the need for an intense debate on the whole process of enlargement. I acknowledge, as I did in the Dáil, the work of this committee in producing a very helpful report on the whole process of enlargement. I also acknowledge the need to at all times be vigilant on the question of the equilibrium between small and large states. As Members know from statements I made, and also in statements that the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach made, this is central to the Government's approach to this debate on enlargement.

There are two initiatives, one of which was taken today, the Tánaiste's initiative at UCD on the consultation process in regard to the White Paper on foreign policy. I will be concluding that forum. It is necessary that there should be a consultation process on the White Paper not just among parliamentarians but among the general public who are interested. There will also be a seminar on European Union on Saturday, 19 November in Limerick University.

As Members will be aware I have also been involved since early this year in a "communicating Europe" initiative. I met with some Members as part of that initiative. I consulted with political parties to see what views they had on how we should deal with this issue. We have all acknowledged that there is a fear and apprehension about Europe. There is a need to cut through the Eurojargon. We need to address the lack of understanding. I will be publishing a report on this later. I cannot give a specific date. I thank Members for their co-operation on that matter. Those two important initiatives are necessary in the run up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 when we will hold the presidency of the European Union.

Occasionally it is hard for us to excite people about Europe but whether we feel like doing so or not we have to do it. As Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs I assure Members that I will continue to try to promote interest and debate on these issues. I thank Members sincerely for the work they have done on this committee. We are all agreed that we need to do more to inform the public and ourselves about what lies ahead.

Deputy Briscoe

Two countries have yet to hold referenda. What happens if either or both of those countries vote not to join? What happens to this Bill once we have approved it? Will it come back to us for amendment?

Deputy T. Kitt

We will proceed. If two countries decide not to join we will go ahead with a 14 member European Union from 1 January next.

Deputy O'Malley

I hope the four applicant states will decide to ratify. All four will be hugely beneficial to the Union. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the next time such a Bill comes before this committee or the Dáil, we may not have the same degree of unanimity because these are the last four countries about whom we could be enthusiastic. After that it will be, in economic terms, at least more problematical. While it may be more problematic in economic terms, the political need will be even greater. That is something we will have to weigh up, although we have not had to do so until now.

The necessity for a full debate, not only a formal one, on the lead up to the Intergovernmental Council of 1996 is evident. There should not only be one debate. I would like a full debate on all the implications of what will be decided in 1996, not only in the Oireachtas, but throughout the country. The last time such a treaty was debated, the committee will recall that a lot of arrant nonsense was spoken, printed, repeated and believed by a proportion of the people. Much nonsense about conscription whereby every mother's son would be conscripted within a year into a European army and be burned in nuclear holocaust was taken seriously by a proportion of the people because the debate was inadequate. We will probably have a replay of that and of moral disasters which will hit us, but which have nothing to do with the European Union. The sooner the debate starts, the sooner such matters can be clarified and malicious propaganda can be put to bed, if I may use that phrase.

Defence and security considerations will be important and I am glad the Institute of European Affairs has started the debate on that. Last week I attended a seminar it held on that topic. It was the first time official spokesmen from NATO and the Western European Union were here. It was extremely interesting and will be the forerunner of a debate which will need greater participation than the 40 people who were there last week. The papers delivered should be circulated and read so there is a better understanding of what is at stake. NATO as it is now developing is different to the NATO of the Cold War era. The Western European Union is also changing into something different and its relationship with the EU will need to be developed over the next two years. I hope we will not wash our hands or turn our back on that and that we will face our responsibilities. If we are part of a meaningful Union we have an obligation to contribute to its defence and I hope we will be prepared to do so.

If one looks at security in the broader sense, not just military security, we will need to look at the Union-wide necessity to try to fight crime because some of the most serious crime is, by its nature, international. Our ability to fight the drugs scourge, for example, would be improved if it were done on a Union — wide basis rather than each of the 12 or, I hope, 16 member states trying to cope with it individually where they all have an up hill task. Our problem of an extensive coastline makes it as difficult as it is anywhere else in the Union to deal with this.

It is a happy day that these four countries, all of whom are long standing and valuable European democracies are about to join the Union which will be immeasurably strengthened by their accession. I hope on 1 January we will be a Union of 16 member states rather than 12.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

TITLE.

Deputy T. Kitt

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 6, after "THAT" to insert "CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF".

The amendment adds the words "CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF" to the long Title of the Bill as published. As members are aware a motion was passed in both Houses of the Oireachtas on 30 June granting leave to suspend Standing Orders to enable the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1994, to be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs prior to its being read a Second Time. This motion was passed prior to the finalisation of the text of the Bill and the long Title as originally certified now requires amendment in the light of the text of the Bill as finalised and introduced.

The current amendment proposed by the Government reflects the fact that only those parts of the Accession Treaty which relate to the European Communities will become part of the domestic law of the State, hence the words "CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF" are inserted into the long Title to accurately reflect the position that on ratification not all of the Accession Treaty becomes part of the domestic law of the State.

This is necessary because the motion was passed prior to the finalisation of the text of the Bill. Deputy O'Malley's comments on issues such as foreign policy, security and justice are not covered by this Bill, which relates to certain provisions of the Treaty, although they are important. On the question of security and defence, I agree with Deputy O'Malley and others that these are issues which must be addressed and debated.

Deputy O'Malley

While I understand what the Minister said and it is correct that the amendment be made, the position will be that the long Title will provide that certain provisions of the Treaty will be adopted into our law. Section 1 (1) (r) does not refer to certain provisions, it refers to the Treaty concerning the accession. I would have thought — it must have been the intention in this legislation previously — that if only some of the provisions are to be imported into our law, it would say that specifically. Subsection 2, paragraphs (o) and (p) of section 2 refer not to the whole treaty or Act, as the case may be, but to certain provisions which it specifies. Paragraph (o) states "the following provisions of the Single European Act done at Luxembourg. . ." and lists them. Paragraph (p) states: "the following provisions of the Treaty on European Union, namely, Titles II, III and IV; in Title VII, Articles L, M and P.....". There is a potential conflict between the Long Title and paragraph (r) as it is inserted into the main list under section 1 (1).

Deputy Ferris

Paragraph (r), as inserted under section 1 (1), states "on the 24th day of June, 1994, in so far as that Treaty relates to the European Communities.". The Title does not reflect that reservation about the Treaty, in as far as it relates to the EU. The amendment to the Title takes account of what is in the section. The initial wording of the Title did not take account of that. That is as I understood it and perhaps the Minister would clarify that.

Deputy T. Kitt

Deputy Ferris is correct. The words "in so far as that Treaty relates to the European Communities.". accommodate the concerns of Deputy O'Malley. He rightly refers to the fact that a number of treaties are listed, from (a) to (r). There is obviously a case for consolidation of the European Communities Acts from 1972 to 1994. That is something which needs to be addressed. Due to the requirement to complete ratification procedures before the end of the year, it is considered prudent to look at the issue of consolidation at a later date. The reference to the European Communities in paragraph (r), to which Deputy O'Malley referred, ensures that the Bill is technically correct, and also the amendment which I have just proposed.

Deputy O'Malley

What, in present circumstances, are the Communities? The old European Economic Community is gone. It is now the European Union. The only communities in the old sense are the European Coal and Steel Community and EURATOM. The coal and steel community will go out of existence fairly soon. I forget the exact date, I think it is 1999 or 2000. That will leave EURATOM as the only community. Is not the reference, therefore, in paragraph (r) to the European Communities dated or spent?

Deputy T. Kitt

Here we are getting into Eurospeak and Eurojargon. We are talking about the first pillar under the Maastricht Treaty. The Deputy is talking about all of the treaties listed in the Bill. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the second pillar is a common foreign security policy and the third pillar is justice and home affairs. We are referring to everything except the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. As I said earlier, this is very much a technical Bill. When we refer to the European Communities, we refer to that element of the European Union under the Maastricht Treaty.

Deputy O'Malley

I am not sure that is quite the point which I was making. There were three communities. Now there are two communities and soon there will be only one. The phrase "community" in this slightly technical sense, as it was used in 1951 and 1957 in the founding treaties, has been superseded by the advent of the Union. The Minister of State is talking about the elements which go to make up the Maastricht Treaty which is a different matter, with respect.

Deputy T. Kitt

Section 1 (2) (p) states:

The following provisions of the Treaty on European Union, namely, Titles II, III and IV; in Title VII, Articles L, M and P, and the other provisions of that Title in so far as they relate to any of the treaties governing the European Communities as defined by this subsection; together with the Protocols (whether expressed to be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, or to the said Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Communities), done at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992.

I hope, in legal terms, that explains the legal background to what I said earlier.

Deputy O'Malley

I hope it does.

Amendment agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Report of Joint Committee.

Acting Chairman

I propose the following draft report:

The Joint Committee has considered the Bill and has amended the Title to read as follows:

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT, 1972, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY CONCERNING THE ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY, THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND AND THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN TO THE EUROPEAN UNION SHALL BE PART OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF THE STATE.

The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

Is that agreed?

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m.