I am pleased to be able to introduce this short Bill in the Seanad and to commend it to the House. It is not complicated legislation but it is important because it is a further step towards enabling Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Nice and allowing the historic process of enlargement of the European Union to proceed as planned. I will explain the contents of the Bill and why they are necessary, and then say a few words about the wider background to the legislation.
The decision to ratify the Treaty of Nice was taken by the people in an historic referendum on 19 October last. However, a few technical measures must legally be taken before the State can ratify the treaty. Passage of this legislation is one of those measures. A fundamental aspect of European Union law is that Community legislation has direct legal effect in each member state. This was recognised and allowed for in the original constitutional amendment enabling Ireland to join the European Economic Community, as it then was, in 1973. The European Communities Act, 1972, listed the treaties and other Acts which would have direct legal effect in the State, and allowed for further implementing regulations to be made by Ministers.
As the original communities have grown and developed through successive treaties, it has been necessary in each case to amend the European Communities Act accordingly to take account of each of these new treaties. On each previous occasion, before Ireland has ratified an EU treaty, it has through legislation made relevant provisions of the treaty part of the domestic law of the State so that at the time of ratification, it is fully able to discharge its obligations. That is the purpose of the legislation.
The Bill contains two sections and amends the 1972 Act. Section 1 is the principal operative part of the Bill. It adds the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Nice to the list of treaties and other instruments contained in the definition of the "treaties governing the European Communities" in Section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, as amended. These are Articles 1.15 and 2 to 10, together with annexed protocols. For ease of use, the 1972 Act, as amended, contains a table with a complete list of "treaties governing the European Communities". Section 1(2) of the Bill adds a reference to the Treaty of Nice to that table.
Section 2 contains normal provisions concerning the Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement. It provides that the Act will come into operation on such day as may be appointed by order made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That day will coincide with the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice.
It is worth outlining briefly the logic behind the selection of the Articles of the Treaty of Nice which, through the Bill, are to be made part of domestic law and to explain the basis on which the decisions were made. Article 1 of the Treaty of Nice amends aspects of the Treaty on European Union. Measures adopted under that treaty in the foreign policy and justice and home affairs areas differ from directives, regulations and decisions adopted under the Community treaties in the mainstream social and economic sectors. The major difference is that they do not have direct legal effect. The obligations created are essentially intergovernmental.
For the most part the European Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in these areas. Because of this the Bill does not include reference to Articles 1.1 to 1.14. Article 1.15, however, amends provisions relating to those limited areas under the Treaty on European Union in which the European Court of Justice does have a role. It is, therefore, necessary to include it in the list of provisions of the Treaty of Nice II which, through this Bill, are being made part of the domestic law of the State.
In the area of justice and home affairs, some instruments, once adopted by the Council, require subsequent legislative implementation by member states. In preparing this legislation consideration was again given to whether provisions relating to JHA matters should be brought within the terms of the European Communities Act. Such an arrangement would allow for JHA legislation to be given domestic effect by regulation rather than by primary legislation. However, as was the case when the matter was last considered as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, it was felt that these matters were of sufficient weight and sensitivity to merit implementation through primary, rather than secondary, legislation. Therefore, they are not included in this Bill and remain outside the scope of the European Communities Act. As Members will recall that this specific process of using 1973 legislation, to bring into effect by secondary legislation Acts of the European communities, was debated and criticised, what we have done here is a positive move which should be welcomed.
Articles 2 to 10 of the treaty, together with annexed protocols, represent the main body of the substantive amendments to the European Communities Treaties provided for in the Act. Article 2 amends various aspects of the treaty establishing the European Community. It is the most substantial of the Articles. Article 3 amends provisions of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. Article 4 amends aspects of the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Article 5 amends the protocol on the statute of the European system of Central Banks and the European Central Bank. Article 6 amends the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. Articles 7 to 10 are part of the treaty's transitional and final provisions and provide, inter alia, for certain repeals consequent to the new provisions of the Treaty of Nice. All of these Articles are, therefore, included in the Bill.
Articles 11, 12 and 13, also part of the treaty's transitional and final provisions, concern matters of international treaty law. They provide that the treaty is concluded for an unlimited period, set out how it is to be ratified and when it is to enter into force, and list those languages in which it is to be equally authentic. It is not, therefore, deemed necessary that these aspects of the Treaty of Nice become part of domestic law.
There are four protocols to the treaty, which form part of the Bill. Two are particularly important. The protocol on enlargement sets out the new arrangements governing the European Parliament, the weighting of votes in the Council and the composition of the Commission. The protocol on the statute of the Court of Justice makes significant changes to the functioning of the court, intended to allow it cope with enlargement and its greater caseload.
In keeping with past practice, the terms of the Bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that only those provisions of the Treaty of Nice which it is necessary to make part of domestic law prior to ratification are made part of Irish law. The Government has not sought to go any further than is necessary in order to achieve that aim. This is the prudent and proper approach. Once the Bill has been enacted it will be possible for Ireland to draw up and deposit its instrument of ratification with the Italian Foreign Ministry in Rome, the depository of all the treaties.
The terms of the Treaty of Nice state it will enter into force "on the first day of the second month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited by the last signatory state to fulfil that formality." As Ireland will be the last signatory state to take that important step, if we deposit our instrument of ratification before the end of this year, as the Government expects, the treaty will enter into force at the start of February. The timing of this could not be more significant. As Senators are aware, there are 12 countries currently negotiating to join the European Union, ten of which are expected to be ready to sign an accession treaty later in the spring. In a real way Ireland will be opening the door to allow them in.
The enlargement negotiations for the ten countries concerned are drawing to a close. The meeting of the European Council in Brussels at the end of October – in welcoming the outcome of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty – endorsed a Commission paper which stated the ten countries in question – Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia – fulfilled the political criteria and would be able to fulfil the economic criteria to assume the obligations of membership from the beginning of 2004.
The Council decided to allow the Union to present negotiating positions to the candidate states on all outstanding issues by early November, with a view to concluding enlargement negotiations at the European Council in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December and signing the accession treaty in Athens in April 2003. This process remains on track, as was confirmed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council earlier this week.
We should not lose sight of the fact that all of the candidate countries have made enormous sacrifices to come this far. Achieving the standards necessary to join the European Union has forced all of them to make difficult choices and take tough decisions. Despite the attempts of a great many people to offer reassurance, there is absolutely no doubt that the result of the first referendum on the Nice treaty was a serious blow to the aspirations and hopes of these states. It threw into doubt the European Union's ability to achieve the timetable to which we had all been working. The result of the second referendum was, therefore, particularly welcome in the ten countries concerned. The decision taken last month is widely appreciated within these states as being of major significance to them. There is a sense of deep gratitude to the Irish people. I come across this gratitude on every occasion I visit a Council or convention meeting and the degree to which the Irish are held in high regard is astonishing. The vote by the people is seen as a generous act of solidarity of a small nation with which they have much in common.
In all the discussions we have had on the future direction of the European Union – whether in the debate that preceded the referendum, in the National Forum on Europe or elsewhere – there has been an overwhelming national consensus in favour of enlargement. Irish people, who have themselves felt the pain of conflict and division, see the expansion of the Union and the ending of the unnatural division of the European continent as a project of historic importance. When Ireland deposits its instrument of ratification, one of the final few pieces of the jigsaw will fall into place.
The Government is conscious of the reason Ireland will be the last country to ratify the treaty. Had the people not voted "No" in the first referendum, we would have expected to have completed the necessary procedures more than a year ago. However, while this would clearly have made our lives considerably simpler, we would not have had the thorough and detailed debate on the future of the European Union and Ireland's role in it that led up to the second referendum. We have all gained from the experience, difficult as it was.
Successive Governments had, perhaps, tended to take it for granted that the generally strong support which most Irish people continue to feel towards the European Union would automatically translate into a favourable outcome in any related referendum. As a result of the outcome of the first referendum, we have all had to reassess that position and learn that there was no room for complacency. That we did so and responded in a positive and active way to concerns raised was reflected in the outcome of the second vote.
Without rerunning the referendum campaign, there are a few points worth making. Last year's result made it very clear that we were not engaging the people sufficiently well in wider debates about the future of Europe. That was a fundamental mistake. Many were of the view matters were changing in a way that gave them little opportunity to discuss what was happening and make their views and opinions heard in a meaningful way. In response to this concern, the Government established the National Forum on Europe which, under the excellent chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes, has already made an enormously valuable contribution to furthering national debate on European issues. When I discuss this aspect of our referendum in either Council meetings or at the convention, there is considerable interest in the workings of our national forum, in particular in the manner in which it handled the broad process of education and debate on Europe. It will be a model for similar fora in other jurisdictions.
I particularly commend the efforts of the forum to take the debate out to the people. All too often discussion of Europe is perceived to be a matter for elites – whether political, academic or bureaucratic. It has not generally been seen as something that shapes and touches peoples' lives and the places where they live. The forum road show has brought debate to more or less every corner of the country. It has taken it out of the rarefied halls of Dublin Castle and into the suburbs, the countryside and the provincial cities and towns in which the people live their lives. As a result, the debate has acquired a much more localised and genuine flavour.
Discussion of the future shape of the European Union is continuing, with the involvement of the European convention, a subject to which I will return. The Government is very pleased that, having played such an important part in facilitating discussion on enlargement and different aspects of the Treaty of Nice, the forum will again be playing a central role in ensuring the Irish people continue to have a full say.
The first referendum outcome also reflected a feeling held by some that EU legislation was somehow being imposed without their representatives in the Dáil and Seanad having the opportunity to examine it properly. As the House will be aware, the Joint Committee on European Affairs is now at the centre of new scrutiny measures which ensure every legislative or policy proposal coming from the European Union can be given appropriate consideration in the Oireachtas. Work began in July and, through the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002, the arrangements have now been put on a statutory footing. Our arrangements are now on a par with those operating in any member state and infinitely superior to those in most.
The committee's work is a significant step towards addressing the democratic deficit sometimes associated with Europe. I pay particular tribute to its members who are doing such an excellent job in a new and challenging area. People's doubts about Europe have also sometimes included a sense that it will be difficult to preserve what makes Ireland distinct and different, particularly in an enlarged and much more populous Union.
Although I have always believed that our individuality has been enhanced and enriched through our membership of the European Union, I know that for many there was a fear that, in particular, our distinctive national policy of military neutrality could be encroached upon without the people being given the chance to decide the matter for themselves. In the declarations at Seville earlier this summer the Government and our partners in Europe made it very clear this was not the case. The necessary assurances were certainly contained in the declarations. Nothing in the treaties in any way impinges upon Ireland's neutral status. However, to offer further assurance that no change would be made without the people's say-so, the wording of the second referendum proposed a constitutional prohibition on Ireland joining any EU common defence without first having the ratification of the people. I am pleased that, as a result of last month's vote, this position is now enshrined in the Constitution, the appropriate place for it and the best guarantee the people can have on the issue.
Looking back at the journey we have made, the single most important lesson learned is that the Government and elected representatives generally need to listen more carefully and respond more actively. The message on Europe must be communicated in respect of which the media as well as political leaders have a role to play. As we saw in the recent referendum, civil society must more actively engage with developments in Europe. As a nation, we must learn to become far more confident about our place in Europe, our capacity to mould the community and the significance of our involvement and contribution. We sometimes sell ourselves short. When I speak to people from other European states, I recognise the high regard in which we are held. People, who have been involved in European affairs for a long time, have considerable regard for the ability of the Irish people to deal with complex issues relating to Europe. We have always punched above our weight as a nation, but the degree of understanding Irish people have of European affairs is probably greater than we sometimes give ourselves credit for.
This is an enduring lesson that we will all do well to remember, particularly as the debate on Europe's future begins to take shape at the European convention. The people must be informed and involved. The convention has undertaken an ambitious task. Under the declaration at Laeken it is to look at the key questions facing the Union at a time of great challenge and change in its development. It is to examine how Europe can be brought closer to its citizens, something with which we can all identify. It will examine how Europe can play a full and active part in a rapidly changing, global environment and how it can be better organised to meet these challenges.
The convention, which brings together representatives of Governments and Parliaments from the member and applicant states together with MEPs and representatives of the Commission, has been meeting since February, but its work has recently begun to gather pace. In last week's meeting of the forum, Senator Maurice Hayes made a very appropriate comparison. He suggested that something that started out like the west Clare railway line was now coming down the tracks like a TGV. The convention's process is unique. It involves, not only representatives of the member state Governments, but also representatives of the member state Parliaments and the European Parliament. It also involves representatives of the Parliaments and Governments of the applicant states. It is a uniquely open body in that all of its papers are available on the Internet. The criticism made about the process of producing previous treaties will no longer be valid in this case. What is taking place is happening in the open and those who wish to be engaged can have access.
Six of the ten working groups operating within the convention have produced reports. The four remaining groups will complete their reports before Christmas. At the end of October the convention president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, brought forward what he called a "preliminary draft constitutional treaty." It sets out, in very outline form, the areas he sees being included in a future treaty. The convention is working towards completing its task and bringing forward a set of recommendations by consensus early in the summer of 2003. These recommendations will be a key input to the Intergovernmental Conference that will follow.
It will be for Governments in the Intergovernmental Conference to make decisions and reach final conclusions. However, the outcome of the convention will be highly significant. I am pleased to be representing Ireland as the Government representative. I also pay tribute to the Oireachtas representatives, Deputies Pat Carey, John Bruton and John Gormley, and Proinsias De Rossa MEP, who are playing an extraordinary role and have given a huge amount of time and energy. Sadly, their active role has not always been appropriately recognised.
Guided in no small measure by our recent experience, we are stressing within the convention the need for an approach which takes full account of what people feel about and expect from the Union. Our approach is informed by a sense that Irish people are broadly comfortable with the current distribution of competence between member states and the Union. They do not want to see massive steps forward towards increasing integration, nor do they wish to retreat to simple inter-governmentalism. We believe that the Irish people are also broadly happy with the way in which the institutions work and do not want to see the current careful balances between them upset or set aside.
We believe that genuine and meaningful steps can and should be taken towards giving people greater ownership of the European project through, for example, making the treaties simpler and more accessible or through making the principle of subsidiarity more effective in its application – without resort to gimmicks such as changing the name of the Union. On this latter point, while Giscard d'Estaing's draft makes four suggestions, I firmly believe that people are comfortable with the title European Union and that there is little support for change. There is certainly no support for it to be called the United States of Europe, with all that title conjures up.
Overall, it is a question of striking the right balance – protecting what is good about the Union while preparing for the challenges ahead. I hope that, if the right approach is taken, it should prove possible to reach an outcome that will endure and stand the test of time and that the sense that the Union is constantly being modified and reconstructed will be at an end. The Union has been like a building site for 50 years and it is time that process was bedded down. The convention and the treaty that follows should do that.
That is all for the future. I know the Seanad will continue to follow matters with great interest and to make an intelligent and meaningful contribution – as it always does – through its debates. Today the task before us is to take a further step towards ratification of the Treaty of Nice. As I hope I have explained, the Bill is a simple one, but it is significant and I warmly commend it to the House.
