On that point, a Cheann Comhairle, perhaps you will check the letter you sent me on the same issue because I received precisely the same reply.
The selection of a nominee for the Presidency of the European Union Commission was billed as the centrepiece of last weekend's Euro-drama which turned out to be something of a damp squib. Faced with a choice of three conservative candidates, the assembled leaders divided along expected lines: the Franco-German entry, Jean-Luc Dehaene, received the support of eight member states, including Ireland, while three backed Mr. Lubbers, whose neo-liberal credentials are impeccable. John Major donned the ill-fitting mantle of Eurorebel and fought a lonely rearguard action on behalf of his party colleague, Leon Brittan, before supporting Mr. Lubbers' candidacy and stoically vetoing M. Dehaene with one eye firmly fixed on the Euro-sceptics back home. Mr. Major's position at least has the virtue of consistency and transparency.
The Taoiseach, who generally assumes the role of Puck on the European stage, is said to have informed the assembled media that he is playing his cards close to his chest. This comes as no surprise to those who recall his singularly inept handling of such Euro-sagas as the GATT and the Structural Funds. On both occasions the Taoiseach mistook serious negotiations for a game of stud poker and on both occasions Ireland lost.
The Taoiseach should now inform the House whom he intends to back for the Commission Presidency, given the new cast of characters likely to be presented at the extraordinary summit. He should also inform us of the political basis for his decision. In his statement tonight he said that "the person chosen, regardless of nationality or political background, should have the dynamic and visionary leadership qualities that characterised the Presidency of Jacques Delors, from which Ireland and Europe have benefited so much over the past ten years". Surely the Taoiseach realises that it was precisely because of Jacques Delors' capacities and political background that Ireland benefited so much from his Presidency.
If the only criterion is visionary leadership qualities and dynamism, as stated by the Taoiseach, it is difficult to see why he is standing so firmly against Peter Sutherland. Whoever is chosen to succeed Jacques Delors will have a major role in deciding the direction of Europe at a critical point in its development. The new President of the Commission will preside over the preparations for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and Maastricht revision and he — so far there are no female candidates — will be responsible for the implementation of what remains of Jacques Delors' White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment.
Mr. Delors has had a distinguished tenure as Commission President: his commitment to the ideal of a social Europe has been matched only by the zeal with which certain member states have attempted to thwart that objective. It is regrettable that Mr. Delors is likely to reject the Greek request that he stay on another year.
The weekend deadlock has been met with a measure of glee in certain quarters. Those who view European issues through the lens of parochial politics argue that now is the time to put forward our own candidate, someone who, or so the subtext goes, will fight Ireland's corner in Europe. I am all for fighting Ireland's corner. Indeed, I wish the Government was rather more adept in that regard and had a more comprehensive view of those interests. However, I do not believe that Ireland's, or Europe's, interests would be served by appointing a conservative Commission President who will place the demands of the market above the rights and needs of citizens.
Two names have so far emerged from the Irish hat. Peter Sutherland's undeclared candidacy has been running for over a year, while Ray MacSharry made a fleeting appearance in the headlines over the weekend. Bearing in mind the far-reaching implications for Europe's future — at the risk of being labelled "unpatriotic" by certain Members of this House — I cannot share the general enthusiasm for Peter Sutherland's candidacy. While Mr. Sutherland's intellect and ability are undoubted, so is his enthusiasm for deregulation and unrestrained markets. Those in this House who support Mr. Sutherland's candidacy should explain their stance to the Aer Lingus workers who are bearing the brunt of the decisions taken by Mr. Sutherland while Competition Commissioner, and to Telecom workers who may well reap the harvest of the deregulation seeds sown by Mr. Sutherland in the 1980s.
Mr. Sutherland's missionary zeal on behalf of the unrestrained market, carried out with the blunt instruments of deregulation and privatisation, would pose a grave threat to the European Union. It would lengthen Europe's growing dole queues still further and would adversely affect those 52 million Europeans already living below the poverty line. Ray MacSharry's shadow-candidacy represents the triumph of optimism over realism among Fianna Fáil stalwarts who would dearly love to see a green jersey at the Commission table but who baulk at the thought of being outflanked by Fine Gael.
Unless common sense prevails — it rarely does when politicians look to their electoral fortunes back home — the forthcoming extraordinary summit to be called by Chancellor Kohl may well end in disarray yet again. If that is the case, it could provoke an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Indeed, the President of the European Parliament, Dr. Egon Klepsch, has warned that any delay could prevent the new Commission from taking up its duties in 1995 as envisaged. Dr. Klepsch also reminded leaders that the Parliament expects the Presidential nominee to appear before the Parliament's July session, and to arrange for the new nominee Commissioners to appear before the appropriate parliamentary committees. I am delighted the Parliament is flexing its newly acquired Maastricht muscles. I hope its efforts will not be thwarted by Council bungling of the kind displayed over the weekend.
I find it unacceptable that the Commission Presidency should be decided by the heads of government meeting in secret conclave until white smoke emerges and a successor to Mr. Delors is appointed. Once again, Europe's citizens are being asked to stand aside as transparency and accountability are sacrificed to national posturing. This matter may not be very interesting but the Taoiseach should at least have the courtesy to pretend he is listening.
The Presidency of the European Commission should not be determined solely by national preoccupations, but primarily by the issues facing Europe as a whole. I believe that trust in Europe's institutions and procedures could be restored by allowing the European Parliament to decide on Mr. Delors' successor when it reconvenes in July, and in this regard I welcome the suggestion made yesterday by Commissioner Van der Broek. I would urge the Taoiseach also to take this approach.
The weekend's events have spawned a diplomatic flurry of activity, which will see German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, making a whistle-stop tour of European capitals while member states form ad-hoc coalitions. In particular, there is now the potential for the four Cohesion countries — Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal — to come together on the basis of shared social concerns. Democratic Left has long argued that Ireland's best interests would be served by forming closer ties with these countries, countries which share not only funding priorities but which also have common social and infrastructural problems. Unfortunately, this Government's institutionalised myopia is likely to prevent Ireland seizing the diplomatic initiative in this regard. Each summit has to have a storyline, whether real or imagined. Ostensibly the Corfu storyline was the appointment of a new Commission President.
The President of the Commission, we were told in editorials preceding the summit, has awesome powers. However, as shown by the fate of the truncated White Paper on Competitiveness, Growth and Employment, the role of the Commission President is being increasingly reduced to that of a cipher, while the real decisions — such as they are — are made by the Council. Whoever emerges from the extraordinary Summit — or, more desirably, from the European Parliament — will have to safeguard the powers of the Commission against an increasingly voracious Council.
Let us not forget that it is the Council which ensured that progressive Directives put forward by the Commission — the parental leave Directive, the Directive on worker consultation, and so on — remain unenacted or half-enacted, awaiting further surgery. Is this the measure of an all-powerful Commission?
The Corfu Summit marked the end of a distinctly lacklustre Presidency. It sealed the EU's new status as an ad hoc coalition of increasingly disparate states gathered together under the umbrella of free trade. Within a few years the Union may have over double today's number of members — around 25 — and will include countries with vastly differing economic, political and social objectives. Four of those countries — Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway — were present at the weekend.
Yet, while the summit addressed some of the practicalities of enlargement, it failed utterly to address the wider-ranging effects of enlargement. In particular, it failed to address some of the wider implications of the EU's drive to the east, and what this will mean not merely for the Union, but for the stability of the region as a whole.
I have previously expressed to this House my concern that hasty enlargement will transform the Union into one of "haves" and "have-nots" to the detriment of the latter. In addition, I am concerned at the potential security consequences of enlargement. It is disturbing that the EU-Russia pack, signed in Corfu, was concluded in tandem with Moscow's Partnership for Peace ageeement with NATO, signed two days earlier. The European Union is increasingly operating in conjunction with the North Atlantic Alliance and its "European pillar", the Western European Union. This double act poses an especial danger to regional security in central and eastern Europe and can be counterbalanced only by a strengthening of the CSCE as a regional security organisation in the context of the UN Charter. Hopefully, these issues will be addressed at the 1996 Inter-governmental Conference — yet I fear that the preparations for that conference will, in the words of Egon Klepsch, take place in a politically sterile room behind closed doors.
The EU's expansion to include countries at different stages of social, political and economic development will pose a serious challenge to the current member states as well as to the Union's standing institutions. The inevitable result — and one for which the signals were set last weekend — will be a rolling back of the Union's social dimension.
That social dimension found its main expression in outgoing President Jacques Delors' White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. This document, which started life as an ambitious social and economic programme which would equip member states to deal with the rising tide of unemployment, has been watered down by successive Council meetings and Summits to the point at which it is now no more than a "pick'n'mix" series of loosely linked aspirations from which member states can choose. Nevertheless, I welcome the Summit's conclusion that the trans-European networks — part of the White Paper — should go ahead, and in particular the upgrading of the Larne-Belfast-Dublin-Cork railway, following the recommendations of the Christopherson group. It is unacceptable that Britain and Germany were not prepared to give a commitment that resources for these networks would be made available from the EU's budget.
Britain's reluctance can be attributed to the Euro-scepticism which is increasingly gaining sway. Germany's reluctance is far more disturbing, in that it is a further sign of the donor fatigue which led to a blocking of the poverty programme and which is increasing as Germany looks to its old sphere of influence in central and eastern Europe.
I welcome the enhanced commitment to education and training and I look forward in this regard to the report of the Social Affairs Council. However, I regret that the demand in the original draft of the White Paper for eco taxes — put on hold at the recent ECOFIN meeting — appears now to have been indefinitely shelved. My party has long argued that a fundamental re-balancing of the burden of taxation from labour to scarce energy and natural resources is crucial to a policy of sustainable development and to tackling Europe's unemployment crisis.
While leaders went through the motions of discussing macro-economic guidelines, it is increasingly apparent that the European Monetary Union — and its twin, the European Political Union — have receded into the middle distance.
As European governments drift ever further rightwards, Democratic Left has argued that more powers should be given both to the European Commission and the European Parliament in order to ensure that the will of the people, rather than that of powerful financial interests, prevails. While the Maastricht Treaty contained a welcome increase in the powers of the European Parliament, it is apparent that the Commission is still regarded by governments of member states with some suspicion: the Mé Féin school of thought has become entrenched in far too many European capitals — indeed, it was this attitude on the part of his backbenchers which guided Mr. Major's actions over the weekend.
This phenomenon was especially evident in Ireland during the recent Structural Funds saga — a saga punctuated by insults hurled in the direction of Brussels as it became increasingly apparent that the funds had shrunk and that no amount of public debate was going to restore them to their Edinburgh glory. The European Union has been touted as a force for political stability and democratic reinforcement and, indeed, my party believes that these aims should be at the top of the EU's agenda.
At a time of relative internal political homogeneity it was easy for the European Union to play this role, but times have changed. Instability, intolerance and totalitarianism continue to mark central and eastern Europe — with the difference that many of these countries are aspirant members of the EU while Hungary and Poland were endorsed in Corfu as applicants. Within the Union, fascists are in the political driving seat in at least one member state for the first time in over 50 years — yet Mr. Berlusconi was accorded an honoured place at the conference table.
While lip service was paid to the Franco-German proposal to combat racism and xenophobia, member states throughout the Union are adopting anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner legislation with no more than a whimper of protest from the EU and its institutions. The Franco-German proposal carefully stopped short of any initiatives which give foreigners inalienable rights in the EU: the prospect of voting rights for non-EU citizens seems as far away as ever, as does the prospect of a Commissioner with responsibility for minorities.
I welcome the Summit's proposal on a Mediterranean Conference. There is an obvious case to be made for increased trade and development links with the Mediterranean countries and this would provide also a welcome counterbalance to the current drive to the east. However, I caution against any arrangements which leave certain disadvantaged states out in the cold, both economically and politically. In particular, I am concerned that European Union assistance to underdeveloped countries — as in the case of Algeria which was discussed at the Council — is inextricably linked to stringent IMF criteria, criteria which are rapidly pauperising the developing world.
By the same token, I would have welcomed a more comprehensive statement from the Council regarding the mid-term view of Lomé IV and the definition of the next financial Protocol. While leaders haggle on the basis of real or imagined national interest, they forget that all our interests are bound up with the North-South divide. That divide will be bridged only by the kind of integrated development aid which has been so conspicuously lacking in the EU's policies, despite the imperatives of Maastricht. In this regard I would welcome a statement from the Government that it will use its influence to ensure a phased elimination of beef export subsidies to Sub-Saharan Africa — subsidies which are stripping an estimated four million people of their livelihoods.
Just as the North-South divide affects us all so, too, does the issue of nuclear safety. In this regard I welcome the Council's stated preoccupation with the threat to global safety from the Ukraine nuclear plants, in particular, their recommendation that the Chernobyl nuclear plant be closed down. This recommendation is especially telling in the light of the current visit to Ireland by young victims of the Chernobyl disaster — children who have been condemned to a lingering death by the greed and foolishness of man.
I would have welcomed a similar commitment on the part of EU leaders to the closure of Sellafield and THORP. This nuclear folly, a mere 70 miles from this House, threatens us all. Nuclear fall-out knows no borders: THORP is a European issue, and I would welcome a commitment from this Government that it will be placed on the European agenda.
By the end of the decade the squabble over the Commission Presidency will have been long forgotten, smoothed over by diplomatic niceties. The other issues — poverty inside and outside the EU, regional security, nuclear safety and environmental degradation — will have become even more pressing. The Corfu Summit provided plenty of drama, but few indications that Europe's leaders are any closer to tackling the real issues.
I wish to refer to Northern Ireland. It was not just in regard to the failure to agree a new President for the Commission that the Corfu Summit was a great disappointment. The meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister appears to have been equally unfruitful. Given the shocking level of continuing violence, the apparent inertia of the two Governments is hard to comprehend and it is a great disappointment that the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister did not use the opportunity presented by their meeting to relaunch the search for a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland based on the principles of the Downing Street Joint Declaration.
I do not have the time to go into any further detail on this issue but I believe the failure of the two Governments to follow up on the unique momentum for political progress created by the Downing Street Joint Declaration has brought further uncertainty and instability to Northern Ireland. The sectarian murder gangs have been only too willing to exploit this atmosphere as we saw in the past two weeks on the Shankill Road and in Loughinisland. I hope the error which the Taoiseach made in New York in referring to what is essentially a pursuit of joint authority will be overcome and that he and the Tánaiste will urgently come to a conclusion on the framework document which they promised us because people in Northern Ireland can wait no longer while Sinn Féin and the Loyalists decide whether they will give us peace. We have to take peace, it will not be achieved otherwise.