asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis on which decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers of the EEC and the circumstances that decide whether the majority should be a simple one or a qualified one or that the veto may be used.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Decision Basis.
17.
Articles of the three Treaties establishing the Communities —ECSC, EEC and Euratom—specify the circumstances under which the Council shall take decisions by majority vote, whether simple or qualified; or unanimously.
However, the practice followed in the Council is that where very important interests of one or more of the member states are involved decisions are taken unanimously. It is for each individual member state to decide whether in its case a very important interest is involved in the matter under discussion.
Is it not true that at the last session of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg the three Deputies of the Minister's party voted on an amendment which was proposed in order to alter this situation——
This is a separate matter.
Did they not vote in order to deprive the Minister of the eventual right to veto which would protect the interests of this country?
This is a separate matter.
The Deputy is not up-to-date with the information.
He should read the report.
I have not had a reply to my question.
The Chair doubts the relevance of the question.
I can only deduce that the Minister knows that what I am saying is right but that he is ashamed to say so.
I was prepared to deal with the question but the Chair said with justice that it was a separate matter. If there are questions on the issue raised by the Deputy he should table them separately but if he wishes I will endeavour to reply to the supplementaries.
I would prefer a separate question on this matter.
The Minister indicated that the decision to use the veto rested with the Ministers of each country. Can he give a guarantee that this will continue to be the position for the foreseeable future?
Not necessarily. It is a question of where our interests lie. There are different views on this. It could very well be the case that the interests of this country could be frustrated by the use of the veto by other countries in matters concerning us. The balance of the advantage must be weighed. It is a question of determining in each case whether the balance of advantage lies with the veto being retained so that it might be used against us or got rid of so that it would not be available to us in certain circumstances. I would not wish to generalise on that.
While what the Minister says may be true will he accept that in general the veto is necessary especially for the weaker countries such as ours?
Normally vetoes are used by larger countries whose interests are so great and so wide-ranging that they consider themselves free to use the veto with impunity because it is difficult for the smaller countries to counteract such usage of it.
In practice, smaller countries find more difficulty in using it and use it more rarely but in general the veto helps larger countries. However, in certain circumstances it might be in the interest of this country to maintain the veto.
Arising——
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
Is it not true that recently the Minister threatened publicly to use the veto in relation to regional policy?
That is correct and is an instance of where the veto is very important because this regional policy is being devised under Article 235 of the Treaty which involves an extension of the Treaty into new areas. That is an area in which at this stage of our development it is in our interest to have a veto.
The Minister should advise his Deputies of that.
I suspect from the Deputy's comments that he has misunderstood the position. I am talking of the veto on the introduction of the policy but he may be talking of a different matter which I think the Chair said would be a separate question, that is, the question of the use of a veto after the policy has been adopted, if it is adopted, in relation to the areas and regions to be covered by it.
The Minister is trying to cover up for his Deputies.
Will the Minister not agree that one of the ways in which we sold the EEC to the people was by emphasising that by the use of the veto we would be as powerful as the bigger states? Would he not agree that this is a very important matter since it gives us equality with the bigger states and that, therefore, we should retain it except, perhaps, in certain circumstances which the Minister may outline from time to time?
No doubt we all sold—in inverted commas—the EEC in our own different ways, I remember one occasion in Mullingar when the then Deputy Lenihan sold it to the people on the grounds that the fisheries policy could be reversed by the use of our veto at the end of the ten-year period. In all honesty I had to correct him on that point. When what was said by some Deputies during the campaign was misleading I endeavoured to correct it where possible.
Is the Minister aware——
Perhaps Deputies would have regard for the other questions on the Order Paper.
——that since March last no proposals were put forward by the Irish on the many occasions on which the regional policy committee met to discuss the Delmotte Report? The representatives on that committee were of the Fianna Fáil Party.
We should not engage in argument.
Mr. Kitt
We still have not been told why the Fine Gael delegates voted against their own Minister.
The Chair has called Question No. 18.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons rose.
I am sorry, Deputy. I have already allowed a great deal of latitude and I have called Question No. 18.
Would the Minister agree that——
The Chair has called Question No. 18.
——he implied that we supported the EEC on a wrong basis and indicated that the vote was a very important aspect——
I have given a great deal of latitude and I have called Question No. 18. Would Deputy Dr. Gibbons please obey the Chair?
If I may reply, the Deputy implied the vote should be retained in all cases regardless of whether it was to our benefit or not. Perhaps it was unwise in the campaign.