Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 3

Luxembourg European Council: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the Luxembourg European Council on 12 and 13 December last. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Charlie McCreevy. The outcome of the Luxembourg European Council is set out in detail in the Conclusions of the Council, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

The Luxembourg European Council was an historic occasion. The launch of the next enlargement process involving ten countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus has initiated, in the words of the Council Conclusions, "the dawn of a new era, firmly putting an end to the divisions of the past". Apart from the launch of the next round of enlargement other key outcomes of the Council were the agreement to intensify the review of the Union's common policies and future financial framework by using as a working basis the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals and, in the context of Economic and Monetary Union, resolution of the so-called Euro X issue.

This successful European Council builds on a very successful period for the European Union in recent years. The launch of Economic and Monetary Union is now a little over a year away. The Union has shown great cohesion and determination in charting the difficult path to this rendezvous. As a result EMU is on course to start on 1 January 1999.

The Treaty of Amsterdam also marks a further important step forward for the Union. The treaty contains many important and new provisions on issues of real concern to Europe's citizens. It will allow Europe to address more effectively the most direct concerns of citizens in the areas of employment, crime, the environment, public health, consumer protection, social exclusion and non-discrimination. The provisions of the treaty have already been drawn on at the highly successful Employment Summit last month to ensure better co-ordination of member states' employment policies.

These important recent initiatives of the EU were built on the solid foundations laid by the founding fathers of the European Community and their successors. The result is the successful political and economic entity which the EU is today. In the same way as the Common Market, as it was then known, acted as a magnet for Ireland in the 1960s and early 1970, membership of the current European Union is the priority of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. This demands a generous and open response from the European Union and I am glad that the Luxembourg European Council agreed such a response.

At Luxembourg the European Council considered applications for membership from ten Central and Eastern European States and from Cyprus. After considering the opinions of the Commission on each applicant state the European Council decided to launch an accession process comprising all 11 applicants. In making this decision the European Council also affirmed that all the applicant states are destined to join the European Union on the basis of the same criteria and that they are participating in the accession process on an equal footing. The process is, therefore, an inclusive one. This feature was particularly welcome to all the applicant states.

In recognition of the need to intensify efforts to prepare for membership, the European Council also agreed to an enhanced pre-accession strategy for the applicant states. The key to this new strategy is the creation of a new instrument, accession partnerships, which will mobilise all forms of assistance to the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe within a single format. Taking account of the assessment set out in the Commission opinions, the European Council decided to convene bilateral intergovernmental conferences in the spring of 1998 to begin negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia on their entry into the Union. While this is a signal that these countries are at present more advanced in terms of their preparedness for EU entry I again emphasise that the enlargement process is inclusive of all 11 applicants.

Ireland, as a supporter of the enlargement process, will adopt a positive approach to the enlargement negotiations. However, nobody should be under any illusion as to the magnitude of the task. The ten associated states of Central and Eastern Europe have a combined population of 106 million, yet their total combined GDP corresponds only to that of the Netherlands and their average per capita GDP is approximately one third of the Union average.

The issues and challenges raised by the next enlargement are, therefore, clearly of a different nature from those raised by previous enlargements. I stress, however, that enlargement provides opportunities as well as challenges for Ireland. As the economies of the associated states develop and as their standards of living rise new markets with significant potential for Irish exporters will open up. There has already been a dramatic increase over the last few years in the level of Irish exports to the five Central and Eastern European states, with which detailed negotiations will initially commence.

In a further measure to encourage closer relations between the applicant states and the EU, the European Council agreed to set up a European conference. This conference will bring together the member states of the European Union and the European states aspiring to accede to it which share its values and its internal and external objectives. Initially, the EU offer to participate in the European conference will be addressed to Cyprus, the applicant states of Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey.

The European Council also considered the position of Turkey in depth. This issue will be dealt with in detail by the Minister of State in his statement on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, I stress that the European Council confirmed Turkey's eligibility for accession to the European Union and stated that its application will be judged on the basis of the same criteria as the other applicant states. The situation with regard to Turkey, as well as Iran, formed part of my discussions with President Clinton, when I also availed of the opportunity to brief him generally on the outcome of the Luxembourg summit.

The European Council conclusions underline the need to ensure in advance that the Union is in a position to cope with enlargement under the best conditions by making the adjustments deemed necessary to its policies and their financing. It considered that the Commission proposals in Agenda 2000 are an appropriate working basis for further negotiations for an agreement on the Union's policies and the financial framework. The conclusions adopted by the European Council in this key area are welcome from an Irish viewpoint. We have always accepted that the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals set out in a comprehensive and balanced way the issues facing the EU's common policies against the background of enlargement.

Decisions were not taken in Luxembourg on the share-out of EU funding under the next round of financial perspectives which begins in the year 2000. The Commission will next year submit detailed proposals for revised Structural Fund regulations and lengthy negotiations lie ahead. Member states' allocations will not be decided for some time, probably as late as 1999.

Because of our recent economic performance Ireland will approach these negotiations in a comparatively better position economically than was the case on the last occasion. As I stated at the conclusion of the Luxembourg Council, we should welcome our improved economic performance. It has delivered more employment, stable public finances and low inflation and interest rates. Our good performance has also been assisted by EU transfers. We have used these transfers in a wise and progressive fashion. We are testimony to the success of the EU's cohesion policy. Care must be taken to ensure this success is nurtured and sustained. EU transfers to Ireland will continue to have an important role in achieving this and this must be recognised in the detailed Agenda 2000 negotiations.

Ireland continues to have significant development needs in relation to our relatively underdeveloped infrastructure and our continuing employment needs. In addition, because our movement towards average Community GDP is so recent, we have not had the opportunity to accumulate the national stock of wealth and capital available in other member states which have been relatively prosperous over a much longer period.

The Commission has recognised in Agenda 2000 that any transition from Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds must be gradual, and has proposed transitional provisions for regions which exceed the threshold for Objective 1 status. We welcome this recognition because it is essential that the aims of Objective 1 in Ireland are met fully and on a sustainable basis. Ireland emphasised at the European Council that transitional arrangements must be adequate in both content and duration. It is in everyone's interest, especially that of the Union as a whole, that a cycle of dependency be avoided and that Ireland's relative success story continues. A period of consolidation is definitely required, if Ireland's present achievements are not to be undermined.

I will put these and other points to President Santer tomorrow when we discuss Agenda 2000 at our scheduled meeting. We will not discuss specific allocations for Ireland at our meeting — that is for future negotiation. I welcome the opportunity to set out Ireland's broad position and to ascertain in more detail the Commission's approach. At my meeting with President Santer I will also raise the introduction of Ireland's proposed single rate of corporation tax notified to the Commission some months ago and the new regional aid guidelines agreed by the European Commission yesterday.

On agriculture, the European Council took note of the work done by the Agriculture Council on the agricultural aspects of Agenda 2000. It agreed the process of reform begun in 1992 with the MacSharry reform should be continued and that the end result should be economically sound and socially acceptable and should make it possible to ensure a fair income for farmers.

The European Council also took an important step towards the achievement of EMU when it agreed on a mechanism for economic policy co-ordination. This mechanism includes provision for informal meetings among Ministers of states in the euro area to discuss issues connected with their shared specific responsibilities for the single currency. It is also provided, in this context, that whenever matters of common interest are concerned, they will be discussed by Ministers of all member states. The objective here is to minimise any possibility of a division between member states participating in EMU and those that will not participate from the beginning. This is in Ireland's interest, especially in view of our close trading links with Britain. The Council also confirmed that the ECOFIN Council remains at the centre of economic co-ordination as the sole decision-making body in this area for the entire Community.

The European Council noted that following on the successful Special Council on Employment, held on 20 and 21 November last, Union action to promote employment is now in place. The Labour and Social Affairs Council, at its meeting on Monday last adopted the employment guidelines which were approved by the Special European Council on Employment. The Council also noted much useful work which was progressing in the justice and home affairs area. Particular satisfaction was recorded with the adoption of the first concrete measures for putting into effect the action plan to combat organised crime. This action plan was an initiative of the Irish Presidency. It is gratifying from an Irish point of view to see that this initiative and initiatives in the drugs area are bearing fruit.

I met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in the margins of the European Council meeting. Our discussions focused on the talks and we agreed that, from 11 January, for a ten week period, the two Governments would work to drive the process forward. We also discussed Bloody Sunday, the case of Roisín McAliskey and prisoner issues, including transfers and tariffs, and the level of the military presence necessary in the current situation. We reaffirmed our strongly held view that, with goodwill and resolution on all sides, an agreement could be put in place which would be fair to all and acceptable to all reasonable people, both Nationalist and Unionist. We confirmed that May 1998 continued to be our target date for completion of the talks process.

The Prime Minister and I also reviewed progress on the wide-ranging programme of bilateral co-operation which the two Governments had agreed earlier this year to take forward and intensify. Following our meeting, we issued a statement and a progress report on co-operation between Ireland and the UK — Developing East-West Relations. The report details more recent developments in the co-operation that is taking place in a great many areas of public policy. It is not necessarily exhaustive, but it illustrates the co-operation that is taking place and the wide range of areas involved. Copies of the report have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Luxembourg, and particularly Jean Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister, can take much pride in the achievements of its Presidency. The two European Councils were very successful. They succeeded in advancing the Union's agenda in important areas. I have worked in various councils with Jean Claude Juncker, on the Social Affairs Council, ECOFIN and European councils. Our careers have followed a similar path. While he represents a small country, his chairmanship of the European Council, the Social Affairs Council and the ECOFIN Council was a great achievement. Most of my colleagues will know him well because he has been on the scene for a long time. To undertake such a task, attend all the meetings and tour the capitals on two occasions is more than should be asked of the leader of any country, not to mention a small country. He made tremendous efforts during Luxembourg's Presidency.

The task for the Union now is to complete the Agenda 2000 process which has been initiated at the most recent Council. Ireland will approach the negotiations on Agenda 2000 and on enlargement in a positive frame of mind. On the eve of Ireland's 25th anniversary of membership it should be recalled that Ireland has always adopted a positive approach to our membership of the European Union. We have not been afraid of change and we have always sought to participate actively in shaping change in the best interests of Ireland and Europe. This approach has served us well and will be the approach which will guide us through the difficult negotiations which are to commence in 1998.

Mr. J. Bruton

The European Union is attempting one of the most difficult tasks it has undertaken since 1958. It is attempting simultaneously the biggest ever enlargement of its membership while intensifying and deepening the union in regard to economic policy. Normally it would be possible to undertake one of those tasks with some prospect of success, but the European Union is currently attempting to do both at the same time. I am not sure the policymakers at the head of affairs in Europe have thought through the implications or the magnitude of what they after attempting.

The prospect of creating a single European currency means there must be a single European economic policy. It is evident from listening to debates in the House that economic, or tax, policy is at the heart of domestic politics. It is the issue on which elections are decided or lost, on which, in argument across the floor of the House, controversy is at its most intense. Yet that issue will be moved from national to European level. The fiscal policy of member states will be decided partly in member capitals and to a great degree at European level.

Currency policy is at the heart of Europe's competitiveness. We know from our experience that adjustments in currency policy here in l996 and l992 were among the principal reasons for a substantial leap forward in job creation the following years. Our competitiveness was adjusted, but we were able to make that decision ourselves. Although it had a down side in the short-term in terms of inflation and so on, it yielded considerable results in the long-term. We will not be able to do that now and neither will any other member state. The instrument of being able to use the currency as a means of redistributing the pain in the economy in difficult times will pass from the hands of member Governments and be decided at European level. Flowing from that, decisions will be taken on tax policy and pressure on the trade union movement and employers to reach agreement on the flexibilisation of the labour market will increase significantly.

The first years of the euro will be extremely difficult, particularly for Germany and France whose labour markets are rigid in the extreme. They have feather bedding on a grand scale underpinned by law. Labour costs in Germany are twice the level here and three or four times higher than in Portugal. Yet, Germany will enter the same currency zone as Ireland, Portugal and other countries with much lower labour costs and more flexible labour markets. While there is currently a flight of money from Germany and capital outflows are large, because the Deutschmark is still separate from other currencies there has not been the same outward flow of jobs. However, when Germany enters the euro along with other countries with much lower labour costs, it will not be open to them to allow the Deutschmark to float downwards as a way of easing pain. Neither will it be possible for France to allow the franc to float downwards to ease the pain from the competitive loss that may result.

There may also be significant movements in the dollar, the yen and other non-European currencies which may put considerable pressure on European exports. There will be immense political arguments within Europe, with some countries wanting the euro to decrease in value to retain export markets or keep imports out and others wanting incomes slashed as a result of a fall in the euro. There will be serious arguments on these matters between member states and social interests in Europe. They will be similar to those that took place in the United States in l932 and l933 when a major recession flowed from the l929 crash and a cohesive federal decision had to be taken on how to share the pain and on how the country could recover from the 1929 shock. The United States was able to deal with that shock. It had a single currency and a federal system of Government and was able to deal with the matter on a national basis. It was able to share the pain between states because it had an elected president in the person of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I do not believe the European Union has equipped itself with the political means to cope with the inevitable economic and political crises that will arise as we try to manage a single currency for a very diverse economy, the European economy. There is not a focus of political power in Europe with the mandate to take the necessary political decisions in which the European people can feel they have had an input. The people of the United States felt they had an input in the decisions Franklin Roosevelt took in l933. They did not know what he would do when he was elected, but he tried everything open to him. He was able to do that because he had a political mandate from all the states of the union.

After 1 January l999 or 2002, when the currency is introduced, the Taoiseach will have a mandate from the Irish people and the other heads of Government will have a mandate from their respective peoples, but no individual will have a European mandate. The Commission does not have a mandate from the people. There will be a lack of a common act of European citizenship. I regard the election of the US President as a form of ritual reaffirmation of Americaness every four years, when everybody votes on the same question. That unifies the country. People from Maine to California held different views on Clinton and Dole and may agree or disagree with the result, but they make one decision which incarnates a sense of American political will that enables the President to take really tough decisions, as Roosevelt had to do in l933 to manage the value of the single currency of the United States following the crash. Nobody will be fit or mandated to do that under our arrangement in Europe. That is a major deficiency.

The political unification of Europe has not proceeded apace with economic unification. We have got away with that up to now, but we will not get away with it forever. There is a major aversion to thinking seriously or radically about this issue. I tried to raise it on several occasions at the European Council but there was a decreasing interest in the subject. Germany, which was very federalist in its approach and was willing to contemplate a deepening of the political union in Europe, has moved in the opposite direction in the past few months under Chancellor Kohl, who is almost as nationalist as the French. That is not good for Europe. Things may have changed, but I do not believe they have. Germany is, effectively, being governed by the Lander, but the federal Government is a comparatively weak entity. There is no person capable of getting Germany's act together. In the absence of somebody who is able to commit Germany to a European decision, there could be a paralysis of decision making once the euro comes into being. That is a major concern. It is also worrying that in addition to not dealing with the political unification that is necessary to manage the single currency, we are simultaneously increasing membership to include a number of new States that have not got a similar political history to the existing States. We are trying to manage two Europes in one without creating two sets of institutions.

The outcome of the Luxembourg meeting is a typical fudge. It is claimed that of course there will be different discussions between those who join the euro and those who do not, but that separate institutions will not be created. Informal discussions, without the capacity to make decisions, will be held among members of the euro and those who have not joined will remain outside for those discussions. It is claimed that all formal decisions will include those who join and those who do not.

If, for example, difficult decisions have to be made by members of the euro to protect Irish interests against a competitive devaluation of sterling, would we be happy to see the British Prime Minister take part in them? We would not, but that issue has not been addressed in the arrangements. If there is a competitive devaluation of the Polish zloty to undermine competitiveness from Eastern Germany to get industry to move across the Oder Neisse line, will the Germans be happy to see the Polish Prime Minister making a decision on the matter when the problem is being created in Poland? That does not make sense. This has not been thought out by the European leaders.

Underlying the original Treaty of Rome and the concept of building the European Union there were people behind the scenes doing the thinking. They may not have been Prime Ministers but people like Jean Monet who had a model or a dream of the type of Europe they wanted. There is no one doing that thinking now. We are going forward almost blindly to enlarge on the one hand and deepen on the other. This process of widening and deepening is like the Fianna Fáil advertisement in a particular general election of two horses pulling in the opposite direction. The tensions were more severe than those Fianna Fáil was attempting to describe in coalition Governments. However, that was before Fianna Fáil was converted to the idea of coalition Governments.

I am concerned about the situation in relation to Turkey. Europe has not thought out if it wants the Turks and the Russians or just the Turks as members of the European Union. If both become members, the European Union will be involved in Turkey/Russian conflicts in central Asia, which may not be savoury for us. We have said we want to bring in the Turks. Are we excluding the Russians? Where should Europe end? The Cypriot Government is proposing to point missiles at southern Cyprus. That must be stopped as it could be a major threat to peace.

The references to the Middle East process are depressing. The record of the Israeli Government is appalling as far as the peace process is concerned. There will be no movement of the peace process until Mr. Netanyahu is out of office. I have not said that about any Prime Minister up to now. He is the great obstacle to peace and his party must be removed from office and the Labour Party brought back or no progress will be made. It is time that people said that frankly. He has reneged on the Oslo agreements in a way that is inappropriate. I say that as someone who considers myself a friend of Israel.

Paragraph 54 of the conclusions refers to the date problem and how we will adjust Europe's computers for the year 2000. We are told a communication will be prepared by the Commission. When will that happen? Does the Taoiseach realise that all programmes to deal with the year 2000 problem must be completed by 31 December 1998 because at least a year is needed to test if they work? The Commission's decision to produce a programme sometime during 1998 about how computers can be adjusted, given that the adjustment of hundreds of thousands of lines used in computer programmes must be completed before the end of the year, displays a lack of urgency.

A number of people who understand these matters have suggested that the adjustment of computer programmes to solve the millennium problem could be the cause of a major worldwide recession because of the huge diversion of resources which will be necessary to deal with it in the period between now and 31 December 1999. There is no appreciation of the magnitude of this problem. There is a foolish belief that a magic piece of software will be found to solve all these problems. However, dates are not always identified in computer programmes by numbers. Sometimes the code used to identify a date could be somebody's girlfriend's name. Unless someone goes through the programme line by line, they will not know if it refers to a date and unless every date is identified and changed, there will be problems. Nobody has come to terms with the magnitude of this problem at European or national level. I hope the Taoiseach will consider this issue as his Christmas project.

Mr. Quinn

I want to be associated with the remarks made by the Taoiseach in congratulating the Luxembourg people on an effective and successful Presidency. I also pay tribute to Jean Claude Juncker who has played a major role on the European stage for a number of years. It is also pertinent to draw attention to the fact that another successful Presidency has been completed by a small member state of the European Union. This is proof positive, if such was needed, of the constructive contribution that small member states make to the ongoing progress of the Union.

I want to confine my remarks to the ongoing project of the single currency and to express my serious concerns about the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty. If we have a referendum on this treaty between now and 1 May — the euro X group of countries must be identified by 1 May — it will become a referendum on the single currency, notwithstanding the fact that this issue is not the subject matter of the Amsterdam Treaty. I am concerned that various issues will be made part of that referendum and that we could get a negative result because of the genuine fears many people have about the possible negative consequences of a fluctuating value for sterling while the Irish pound is in the euro group.

I ask the Taoiseach to consider holding that referendum after 1 May. If I understood the Taoiseach correctly on the Order of Business, it will probably require time to introduce legislation to enable the Government to provide more substantial information on referenda than is currently allowed under the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in the McKenna case. It might, therefore, be suitable to consider that proposal. While I do not want to be alarmist about the single currency, there is the possibility of some fluctuation and turbulence in European money markets between now and 1 May. That could be presented to the electorate as the reason for not accepting the single currency and for using the only instrument available to it, the Amsterdam Treaty.

I am disappointed the Government has not yet published the White Paper on the Amsterdam Treaty. I draw attention to the fact that the European Commission has been able to publish fairly readable documentation which we all received recently. I cannot understand why the Government has not done something similar.

I want to turn to the outcome of the second Luxembourg summit as the first summit on employment was reasonably successful. I share the views expressed by Deputy John Bruton about Europe's attitude to Turkey. We need to clarify our position in relation to Turkey both from the point of view of Europe's self-interest and from the Turkish point of view. While I am glad that the Turkish Prime Minister drew back from severing links with the European Union at the last moment, it behoves all of us to clarify our relationship particularly with Turkey given that it is a secular state of an Islamic nation. It is a democratic state, albeit an imperfect one in that it has had military rule on a couple of occasions. It also has serious internal problems and civil rights abuses of which we are all familiar. Notwithstanding that, it provides a bridge for Europe into central Asia for reasons to which Deputy John Bruton has already referred. Europe will ignore those links at its peril as we go into the next century.

As regards Agenda 2000, I note the Taoiseach's statement that discussion on this issue has been postponed. I put on the record of the House the Labour Party's concerns about the way in which we are currently using Structural Funds, the manner in which the mid-term review is being conducted, the appalling decision with respect to Luas, which seriously endangers the access of the Government to those funds because there is a presumption that that money can be diverted from it to other transportation projects within the operational programme. Commissioner Wolf-Mathies indicated that, not just to Government officials but also to other people in Dublin. Will the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, ensure Luas goes ahead and the money is not lost, in light of the transportation problems we have and the absolute necessity to draw down enough money in a constructive and effective way?

The decision by the Minister for Public Enterprise was wrong and politically motivated and we know what the conclusion of the report will be. An underground option for Dublin is simply too expensive and if anybody thinks that the construction of an underground network as distinct from one on the surface would be less disruptive to traffic, then he or she need only look at the record of construction of subway systems in Athens, which is ongoing, and Milan, where the system was built over 20 years ago and large sections of the street were dug up to facilitate cut and fill construction. There is also the sad reality that many people do not feel safe in underground passages and this is an additional deterrent to the construction of a subway.

I share the Taoiseach's view that enlargement of the Union to include other six countries — Cyprus and the five Central European countries — is a positive decision. There are real and constructive opportunities for Ireland, including the agribusiness sector, having regard to similar large sectors in the new countries and the large section of our economy devoted to agriculture.

There is an onus on the Government of the day and Opposition parties to enter into a new dialogue with the people which points out the fact that Ireland will soon become a net contributor to the EU. This is good because it demonstrates that Ireland is of a sufficient level of wealth to become a net contributor but the attitude in some sectors of society has been that Europe was a place from which we got money, to which we went with the outstretched lámh and the béal bocht. That attitude will no longer prevail because it will not be the case. None of us should be surprised if there follows from those sectors of the community a negative reaction to our membership and participation within the EU. Therefore, the Government has an obligation to start a process of communication and education. I fail to detect any signs of either an awareness or a commitment to such a programme.

It is most relevant in the areas of CAP reform and Structural Funds. The Government has the information and instruments at its disposal to embark upon the necessary programme. Otherwise, we will inevitably get a negative reaction from certain sections of the community, as can be seen in other member states. It is simply not in Ireland's interest for that to become manifest or for that attitude to take root politically because it has been a considerable beneficiary over the past 25 years of membership of the EU, not just in cash terms, although that has been significant, but in the transformation of the country's culture, politics, social laws and general attitude to the rest of the world in a way very few people envisaged during the referendum in 1972.

The process of decision making within the community is very slow. The failure in Amsterdam — Deputy Bruton and I were there — to address this issue has left the burden in terms of discussion with the six applicant countries more difficult because the institution framework is not clear. The issue of one commissioner per country has not been resolved and the democratic deficit that exists has not been addressed, as referred to by Deputy Bruton.

The difficulties he described when there is an economic shock or a downturn within the EU will bring about the political forces necessary in the first instance to get the flexibility within the French and German economies and also bring about political realisation that the issue of what Dominique Strauss Khan has described as "economic governance" will have to be addressed in a more meaningful way than is the case at present. In due course, I will be bringing forward my party's ideas in that regard.

We have everything to gain from participating in a form of "economic governance" which is democratically accountable to the European Parliament as well as our own. We have much more to gain than we have to lose but we should be pushing forward ideas in the context of the European debate. Ireland has for too long been a passive participant in the EU integration process. Different Administrations with different combinations of parties have been extremely good at running the Presidency and we have a superb Civil Service in terms of the way it has risen to that task on numerous occasions. Our capabilities in that regard are in no way doubted and our ability to contribute ideas is enhanced by our performance in the past but the Taoiseach's responsibility is to start to contribute constructive ideas to the debate. The enlargement process will not be consummated and concluded unless the institution questions are addressed.

Rather than having blocking and holding positions which tended to be our tradition we should be taking the initiative.

Mr. J. Bruton

Wait and see.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach may ask — and I accept it as a valid criticism — why Deputies Quinn and Bruton are making these speeches now when for the past two and a half years we were in Government. Cultures must change and periods in Opposition gives one time to change culture but we will have to come forwards with positive proposals. There will be a willingness to listen to a country such as Ireland because of our success in the past and the authority that the Luxembourg Presidency has given to citizens and to a lesser extent the success of the Dutch Presidency.

Proinsias De Rossa

The EU is at a critical point in its development and decisions now being made — or in some cases not being made — will have a profound impact on the lives and wellbeing of the people of Europe for generations to come, not least for the people of this country.

The most significant development at the Luxembourg Summit was clearly the decision to set in train immediate formal accession negotiations for six countries and to begin pre-accession procedures involving five other candidate countries. If these countries eventually join it will mean a huge enlargement of the EU, with an increase in 60 per cent in the land area covered by the community and an increase of close to 50 per cent in population.

The enlargement process provides both great opportunities and very serious problems. The accession of additional countries from Central and Eastern Europe can clearly contribute to the further development of a stable and peaceful Europe. Many of them suffer from serious levels of poverty, with living standards varying from 18 per cent to 59 per cent of the EU average. There will be huge difficulties involved in absorbing them. One question is whether EU institutions can be adapted to deal with the huge increase in territory, population, language and cultures involved. The complicated decision-making process is already scarcely capable of coping with 15 member states. How do we ensure a Union of 25 or 26 is not reduced to a bumbling, indecisive, bureaucratic giant? How do we restructure the institutions — the Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the Commission — to give a real voice to the new member states, without diminishing the rights of existing member states, including smaller states such as Ireland?

The financial implications are enormous. Are we prepared to contribute to the economic and social development of the African countries in the same generous manner in which the wealthier European countries have contributed to our development in the past 25 years?

Agriculture in the African countries is underdeveloped and huge changes will be needed in the European Union agricultural regime. Are Irish farmers prepared to face up to this? All the areas I have referred to have major implications for Ireland and yet, with the exception of those who specialise in European affairs, there has been little or no public debate on them. In this regard the referendum campaign for the Amsterdam Treaty will provide an important opportunity but the efforts of Government so far do not inspire confidence. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste seem to be at loggerheads over such basic matters as whether the promised White Paper will be completed and when the referendum will take place.

We should continue to support in principle the accession of Turkey to the European Union. I do so on the grounds that Europe should not be limited to a 20th century definition of what constitutes its borders. Accession should be determined by economic, social and democratic structures and the compatibility of those who want to join the European Union within those structures. We should unequivocally support all those who insist there is no place in the European Union for any state which engages in official torture among other grievous human rights abuses, refuses decisions of a legitimate international organisation such as the United Nations and generally has an accepted dependence on military solutions to problems within and between states.

While supporting, so far as we can, the British Government in terms of its new openness to Europe, it would not make sense for us to support the presence of the British Government representatives on decisions in relation to how we manage the new euro currency. It should not be connected in any way to rewards or punishments. Ireland must unequivocally support the French Government's stance on the matter over those who regard the ECB as sacrosanct. Sentiment should not enter into this. We are close neighbours but, at the end of the day, Ireland's interests are Europe wide and we should bear that in mind.

I refer briefly to the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. I welcome the pledge made after the meeting to attempt to drive forward the agenda in relation to the negotiations in Northern Ireland. It is clear considerable progress has been made. The failure at yesterday's meeting in Belfast to agree an agenda is a setback but it will be possible to make significant progress when the talks resume in January.

I am concerned at the negative signs coming from the republican movement. The orchestrated violent rioting in Derry last weekend, the unfounded attacks on the Taoiseach and the Government in An Phoblacht last week and the reported refusal of Sinn Féin to agree to the inclusion of an assembly in Northern Ireland on the talks agenda are all matters of concern. I hope they do not indicate any back-track on the part of the republican movement.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I apologise for the absence of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, who is in Copenhagen attending a ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate as I contributed to a previous debate on the employment summit. We adopted the employment guidelines on Monday last.

This was a European Council of exceptional interest and importance. As is clear from the Taoiseach's account of the occasion, the Luxembourg European Council of 12 and 13 December mapped out the future development of the European Union and took historic decisions on its enlargement. Because of the necessary and understandable focus on the future of the Union, the European Council did not devote its customary attention to key foreign policy issues. Deputies will have noticed in assessing the Presidency conclusions of the European Council and considering media reports, that apart from the Union's relations with Turkey which permeated much of the discussion on enlargement, only two foreign policy issues of vital importance were considered. I shall return to these later.

In launching the next phase of the enlargement process to include within the European Union the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe together with Cyprus, the Luxembourg European Council took a decisive step forward in the historic project of creating a new Europe, one united on the basis of shared democratic principles, respect for minorities and human rights, and economic opportunity and social justice for all.

The European Council also noted that the major part of the arrangement for the transition to the single currency is now in place and urged that final practical arrangements for implementing the third stage of EMU, which are to be completed by May 1998, be speeded up. The agreement reached in Luxembourg on the issue of meetings of representatives of member states participating in the single currency should enable the Community to work effectively after the introduction of the euro.

Ireland took a positive view of the Commission's proposals for enlargement in Agenda 2000. We saw them as being generally well balanced and, together with the opinions, providing an objective basis for the conduct of the next phase of the enlargement process.

We also made clear Ireland's commitment to the enlargement of the European Union, on the basis shared by all our partners, namely, that it is an historic opportunity for peace and stability in Europe. If time permitted, I would like to have a longer debate on what other Deputies have said. The ultimate vision we all share is one of building a stable and peaceful European Union. I could also raise some of the issues raised at the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations. In Opposition we raised some of the points rightly raised by Deputy Quinn concerning the way to deal with these issues and the need for more openness and transparency whether in Opposition or in Government.

In summing up at the Luxembourg European Council the Taoiseach was open and transparent when he referred to Ireland's success. We benefited substantially and he was open and frank in relation to where we stand and what we have to do in the future.

The Luxembourg European Council faced the task of ensuring that the Union took the necessary decisions to launch successfully the next phase of the enlargement process, including accession negotiations. At the same time, the Union had to ensure that these decisions would set in motion an inclusive process leading to accession by all the new democracies that have applied to join. Both of these important objectives were achieved. In the process, the European Union has shown itself to be open and generous towards the new democracies which have emerged from the former Soviet bloc. This will help underpin democracy in these countries and will help their economies and assist in ensuring a secure and prosperous Europe for the future.

The accession process will be launched on 30 March 1998 by a meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the 15 members states of the European Union, the ten Central and Eastern European applicant states and Cyprus. Detailed negotiations on enlargement will commence in April 1998 with Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus.

The European Council also addressed the issues of the European conference and the development of the Union's relations with Turkey. Ireland welcomed the proposal for the establishment of a European conference on the basis that the conference could provide a useful multilateral framework for closer consultations between all applicants and the Union which should serve to strengthen their involvement with the Union. Initially, the Union's offer is addressed to Cyprus, the applicant states of Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey.

The conclusions of the European Council relating to the conference set out the necessary common commitment to peace, security and good neighbourliness, including respect for other countries' sovereignty and the principles upon which the European Union is founded. Countries which endorse the principles in question and respect the right of any European country fulfilling the required criteria to accede to the Union and which share the Union's commitment to building a Europe free of the divisions and difficulties of the past will be invited to take part in this conference.

Ireland felt it was important that the European Council should recognise Turkey's European vocation and confirm Turkey's eligibility for accession to the European Union. This confirmation is explicitly stated in the European Council conclusions. The conclusions outline the main elements of a strategy to prepare Turkey for accession by bringing it closer to the European Union in every field. Given the positive elements contained in the European conference proposal and the European strategy for Turkey, with the importance of strengthening Turkey's links with the European Union, I remain hopeful that Turkey will keep all these elements under review and be able to respond positively to the possibilities and potential they represent.

I am especially pleased to report that the European Council adopted a significant declaration marking the beginning of the year of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The text in its first paragraph affirms that "the Union is based on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States".

As we move towards enlargement of the Union it is more important than ever that we should be clear about the fundamental principles on which it is based. These principles are enshrined in the criteria established by the Copenhagan Council in June 1993 for accession to the Union. The Commission, in formulating its opinions on individual candidates for membership which are contained in the Agenda 2000 document, has paid due attention to the political and human rights criteria established by the Copenhagen Council.

The Luxembourg Council declaration appeals to all states to step up their efforts in the field of human rights by acceding to international instruments to which they are not yet party with a view to achieving the objective of universal ratification of the international treaties and protocols concerning human rights; ensuring more stringent implementation of those instruments; strengthening the role of civil society in promoting and protecting human rights; promoting activities on the ground and developing technical assistance in the area of human rights; and strengthening training and education programmes concerning human rights.

In regard to the first area where the European Council has called for enhanced efforts by member states, the House will recall that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduced the motion against racism which was passed yesterday, without a division, and committed himself to bringing forward proposals for legislation which will allow Ireland to move towards ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as soon as possible. The Minister has confirmed his intention to make provisions which will enable Ireland to move to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The European Council pledged its full support for Mrs. Mary Robinson in her position as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and stressed the importance of her task. The House will recall that in recent weeks the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with special responsibility for human rights have reaffirmed Ireland's support for Mrs. Robinson and her office.

Ireland, with the other member states of the European Union, will be organising a number of national activities to mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will be our aim, in co-operation with the office of the High Commissioner and our partners, to ensure 1998 — Human Rights Year — is observed in Ireland and elsewhere by increased and sustained efforts to make human rights a reality worldwide. We have a proud record of working to prevent human rights violations. In commemorating the 50th anniversary of the solemn act of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have an ideal opportunity to give new impetus to human rights, drawing inspiration from the achievements of the past 50 years while not forgetting the tragedies that have beset many parts of the world.

The Middle East peace process is a major foreign policy concern of the European Union. Deputies will recall that at the Dublin European Council in October 1996 a decision was reached to reflect that concern by appointing a special envoy of the Union to the area. By the December 1996 Council in Dublin the appointment had been made. Successive Presidencies have paid particular attention to the peace process and I compliment the Luxembourg Presidency on its achievements in this respect. Foreign Minister Jacques Poos has visited the region extensively and maintained close contacts with the United States whose efforts to revive the peace process the Union fully supports.

The lengthy conclusions, which run from paragraphs 70 to 87, adopted by the European Council reflect the continuing concern of the Union with the current stalemate in the Middle East peace process. This is a concern which the Government fully shares. The Council recalled the Union's policy reflected in earlier declarations, expressed its satisfaction with the activities of the Union's special envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, and endorsed a series of guidelines aimed at facilitating progress in the short and medium term.

I draw the attention of the House to the Council's affirmation that the Union will use all its political and moral weight to ensure existing commitments are fully implemented on the basis of reciprocity by the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. Such commitments include credible and significant redeployments.

The Luxembourg conclusions pointed out that progress requires the avoidance of counterproductive unilateral actions in relation to settlements in Jerusalem, while underlining the importance of the fight against terrorism and security co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians. The European Union is ready to contribute to permanent status negotiations by offering specific suggestions on related subjects, including "possible Palestinian statehood, borders/security arrangements, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem and water issues". The listing of these issues is a salutary reminder of the complexity of this and every peace process.

The role of the Union as a major economic partner of Israel and the Palestinian Authority is not always fully appreciated. The Council conclusions are valuable in pointing to this reality and identifying a number of ways in which the Union can contribute to economic development which is vital to the creation of a sound environment for peace. The House will share the Government's view that the Council's conclusions represent a comprehensive and balanced text and offer a clear indication of the importance attached to the Middle East peace process.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs reported to his colleagues on his recent visit to Algeria in the course of a working dinner on Friday last. The visit was warmly welcomed by the Presidency and other partners as helping to reinforce the dialogue between the Union and Algeria. As my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has pointed out, a real concern to ensure positive developments in Algeria is best demonstrated by patient dialogue based on an understanding of the situation.