John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with EU Commissioner, Mr. Neil Kinnock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24908/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Meetings with EU Leaders.
John Gormley
Ceist:2 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach the revisions, if any, to the EU treaties which will be under consideration at the upcoming EU Summit in Helsinki. [25121/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he plans to have with leaders of other EU countries to discuss matters of mutual interest in advance of the Helsinki Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25139/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with Lord Russell-Johnston, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25288/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 4 of 20 October 1999, he will make a statement on the Ministers and Secretaries General group meeting held in mid-November 1999. [25289/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit any of the applicant countries for membership of the EU, particularly those countries whose applications are well advanced, for example, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25336/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for a bilateral meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister to discuss Turkey's application for membership of the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25337/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
As I indicated to the Deputy in the House on 20 October, the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs has effectively taken over the work of the Ministers' and Secretaries General group and as a consequence, it was this former committee, chaired on this occasion by the Tánaiste, which met on 23 November. Its main focus was the items likely to arise at the Helsinki European Council but other ongoing EU issues were reviewed also.
I met with Lord Russell-Johnston, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on 24 November. His visit followed quickly on the assumption by Ireland of the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Lord Russell-Johnston said that he looked forward to the programme of events planned during the Irish Presidency, including a European Conference on Social Cohesion and a conference on Human Rights, as well as a session of the Parliamentary Assembly.
We discussed a number of conflicts and potential conflicts in Europe, and the actions which the Council of Europe is taking to alleviate human rights problems. I outlined the findings from my visit to Kosovo. We also had a brief discussion on budgetary matters in the Council and I agreed with him that important international projects must be adequately resourced. I said that we would do our utmost during our Presidency of the Council of Ministers to bring forward discussion in a constructive way with a view to the alleviation of the Council of Europe's budgetary difficulties.
I met with Commission Vice-President Kinnock in Dublin on Friday last, 26 November. I expressed my support for the Commission's reform process and indicated that I was looking forward to the comprehensive reform strategy programme which will be brought forward next February. I arranged to keep in contact with Vice-President Kinnock's cabinet through our permanent representation in Brussels on Commission reform generally. We also briefly reviewed the current state of the Northern Ireland peace process, as Mr. Kinnock had just come from Belfast and has maintained a long standing interest throughout his successive positions and appointments in the matter.
As I outlined in my reply to the House last week, I met with a number of my EU colleagues in Istanbul and discussed the forthcoming EU Council in Helsinki. I met yesterday morning with Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen as part of his tour of capitals prior to the Helsinki Summit. I also hope to have my usual pre-summit meeting with Prime Minister Blair immediately in advance of Helsinki. The agenda for Helsinki will not be finalised until Prime Minister Lipponen has completed his tour of capitals but, based on our discussions yesterday morning, our discussions will most likely centre on enlargement including the question of Turkey's candidature; follow up to the Trumpf-Piris report on the development of work of the Council; economic policy co-ordination and employment guidelines; follow up the Cologne Council's decisions on the EU's peacekeeping and crisis management capacity, both civil and military and discussions on the arrangements for the conduct of the Intergovernmental Conference and its scope.
The Helsinki Summit is not expected to discuss any individual proposals for actual Treaty amendments – that will be a matter for the next Presidency to take up, based on what is agreed at Helsinki. The Intergovernmental Conference will certainly cover the so-called Amsterdam leftovers – the items at Article 1 of the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, the size of the Commission, the reweighting of votes and the extension of qualified majority noting, QMV, but the other areas to be examined beyond these have yet to be decided. The European Council will also discuss current international issues. I would expect in this context that there will be a discussion of the situation in Chechnya.
As regards visits to accession countries, last year I visited Estonia and I recently visited Hungary and Slovenia. I received the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Jerzy Buzek, in Dublin in November last year and held an extensive bilateral meeting with Polish President Kwasneivski in Istanbul two weeks ago. As the Deputies will be aware, the President has, in October, completed a very successful State visit to the Czech Republic and, depending on my other commitments, I hope to visit that country in the latter part of next year although no final arrangements have been made in this regard. Given the very extensive demands next year due to the Intergovernmental Conference, the EU-Africa, UN and ASEM summits, the opportunity for bilateral visits will be curtailed but I am very eager to visit all of the accession countries and will keep the matter under review. Finally, apart from my visits, officials in my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are in regular direct contact with their counterparts in the accession countries, and taken with reports from our ambassadors, I am kept fully informed on domestic developments in each of the countries and on the progress of the accession negotiations.
Is the Taoiseach in favour of Turkey becoming a full EU member in principle?
If it is possible and if Turkey can comply with the regulations. I will report to Deputy Bruton what was said to me by Prime Minister Lipponen yesterday. There is some move in the Greek situation. There is already a move in most countries. Prime Minister Sinitis is making some moves. In the case of Turkey it will depend not only on the financial criteria but also on the human rights situation. The Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit recently outlined the intentions, plans and reforms for his Government. We have had numerous sessions on this matter to date which have not reached a successful conclusion but Prime Minister Lipponen said yesterday there is some movement. There is no certainty yet that Turkey will be considered to be the "pre-ins". At all the previous meetings, while there were lengthy discussions and at times it looked as if progress would be made, effectively no progress has been made. He is hopeful that this time there will be progress. From an Irish position, if they abide by the Coperhagen criteria, the statements of the Cologne Summit and agree to the human rights reform programmes and the issues laid down, though I think this will take some time, then there would be an agreement.
How realistic is all of this? Is it not the case that Ireland is now committed to the development of a European military crisis management arrangement in which Ireland will be politically, if not militarily, involved? If this is set up will all EU members be involved? In that context, how realistic is it for the EU to have a land boundary with Syria, Armenia and Iraq in view of the many difficulties that exist across those boundaries, which land boundary would be one which, under any military crisis management arrangements, the EU would be obliged to defend? How realistic is to think in terms of the EU reach extending that far?
I suppose all of these things are extending. If one had asked a number of years ago if a European Council would ever be discussing enlargement involving so many countries, I think the answer would have no, that it did not seem possible. I can only tell the Deputy what I think will happen at Helsinki. I imagine the "ins" and the "pre-ins" will be accepted. I am not so sure about Turkey yet but I am giving the Deputy the up to date —
What does the Taoiseach think about the problem I have put before him? Does he want the EU defence to extend to the boundary with Syria?
We are not jumping to simple things; we are talking about the enlargement process.
The Taoiseach would want to see where he was going before he starts.
I will explain where we are going. If we can get over the next decade we might then consider Syria and some of the other countries referred to by the Deputy, but nobody is talking about them at present.
Turkey has a border with Syria.
We are not talking about Syria now. Let us deal with what will happen over the next decade.
The Taoiseach should not trivialise what I am saying. These are serious questions.
A programme is being discussed at Helsinki which is likely to start in 2003 and is likely to go on for approximately ten years. Turkey is the least likely country to be considered in that period. The Deputy should not be concerned with Syria.
There is a border between Turkey and Syria.
Nobody is talking about enlargement in that context. Syria is not on the agenda.
Is the Taoiseach aware that there is a border between Turkey and Syria?
Of course. The Deputy asked how realistic was the prospect of enlargement. I believe the European Council will agree to the accession of the pre-in countries. I am not certain about what will happen over Turkey. The main issues there concern human rights and civil liberties. There are difficulties over religious issues and Turkey itself has a complex system which will take time to address. The EU is anxious to deal with Turkey. The weight of opinion across the member states is in favour of seeing the Turkish issue resolved. There is also much outside pressure. For example, the US is a strong advocate of Turkish membership.
On the question of boundaries, about a month ago on Question Time I said that President Prodi has indicated in the review of the Union's future development that it should decide where the lines of Europe start and end. That examination has not even started.
The Taoiseach mentioned that the discussions in Helsinki will follow on from the discussions on defence in Cologne. Is it not the case that during these discussions a German Commissioner, Mr. Verheugen, first mentioned a European defence union or EDU? Will the Government consider the integration of the Western European Union into the EU in the next EU treaty and will that be under discussion? Would the Government find such an integration acceptable if the common defence provisions were made optional, for example, by way of a protocol? Would it insist that before it would even consider such an integration, the Western European Union must renounce its nuclear weapons policies?
We have already made clear that the Western European Union will go out of existence and many of the issues it dealt with will be transferred to the EU. The big exception is issues under Article 5, to which I am totally opposed. They include mutual defence policies, which I oppose. I will object to them. I do not believe an effort will be made to deal with them, but I suspect some countries will continue to press them from time to time. I do not have a difficulty with the rest of the Western European Union, which is compatible with the Petersberg Tasks.
What about the nuclear weapons policies of the Western European Union or of a proposed European defence union? Would these have to be renounced before the Taoiseach would find it acceptable?
We are moving away from the subject matter of the question.
This is part of any new treaty arrangements under discussion.
I do not believe it will arise, but if it did arise in Intergovernmental Conference discussions we will adhere to our traditional position when considering any treaty arrangements. These discussions may deal beyond the issues I mentioned. Following the Amsterdam Treaty it was likely that an Intergovernmental Conference would be held prior to and after enlargement. It would appear that we will have no objections to what is agreed at Helsinki, given that the Intergovernmental Conference will start earlier than next March at the employment summit in Lisbon. Work will be completed by December. Other issues may appear on the agenda but I do not believe the issues raised by the Deputy will arise.
In his reply to seven questions does the Taoiseach not find it extraordinary that he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to address the issue that concerned the Heads of Government of Britain and France during their recent summit in London? It was a follow up to the St. Malo declaration by the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, to the effect that Britain saw the necessity for some kind of defence capability within the aegis of the EU, a defence and security capability that would be able to operate in a crisis, in areas such as Kosovo and beyond. We know that such crises will not go away.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the two Governments will present a proposal at the Helsinki summit, which I will attend in part, to the effect that the EU will consider the establishment of either a 40,000 or a 60,000 strong rapid deployment capability within the framework of the EU? Has he been comprehensively briefed on it by the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and his own Department? Is there any possibility that he might have a position on it? Will he talk about it at the summit?
I am aware, from my officials and from newspaper reports, of what happened at the summit last week. I was not asked any questions here on the matter and that is why I did not comment. The French and the British are considering something similar to KFOR, namely a readily available task force.
No. They propose that the EU should have it, not them.
That is correct, although they have not made it yet.
It is not that the French, British or Germans would have this force but that the EU would.
Exactly. The concern is to have a defence capability under the Petersberg Tasks on a permanent basis to overcome prolonged time delays. That is the basis of the proposal. The two Governments are also concerned with other issues, which they maintain are within the Petersberg Tasks, to allow for flexibility and a co-ordinated administrative effort.
What is our position?
We must await the proposals.
What about the briefings?
Prime Minister Blair's office has contacted us to say he wishes to discuss this with me when we will be dealing with other matters later this week. I look forward to his views. The attempt to create KFOR resulted in great administrative and military difficulties. There is a belief that these could be streamlined.
However, I wonder about other aspects. It appears the French have desires to create a major air capacity where capacity is at present used by the US. I have only heard vague reports about that. When the French Minister for European Affairs and French officials recently visited Dublin they did not mention it. I will await what is said on this issue.
Deputy John Bruton and I have had experiences similar to those of the Taoiseach – Deputy Bruton's are identical – on the question of briefing on forthcoming European summits. The expertise in the Department of Foreign Affairs is such that the Taoiseach gets briefing on everything, including on matters that might not arise.
They are against everything.
I put it to the Taoiseach that he has on his desk, or it is available to him, a comprehensive briefing on the exact nature of the British and French proposals and what the possible positions of the Irish might be in anticipation of what may be said. Given this, it is disingenuous for the Taoiseach to say he has not heard the proposal. That is a debating point and by his reaction I believe he has conceded it.
Given that this is a debate which has started within the European Union, it is a debate on which there are different points of view and it will not go away. Unlike the catastrophe over PfP and that debate, will the Taoiseach and the Government initiate debate and tell the rest of the people what precisely is being discussed and, more importantly, what is the formal Government position? I know there is a draft position outlined in the Taoiseach's speaking notes because I know the system. Can he not come forward and, without a commitment on the final decision he will make, because it is far too premature for that, tell us at least what is the briefing position, what are the options and what perhaps at this stage might be his likely preference?
Of course I am briefed. I did not say that I was not. Other than people trying to drum up PfP in some politically motivated way and in total defiance of their own views, I do not consider that there was a catastrophe.
The debate was a catastrophe.
People were just trying to turn it into a thing which would whip up a few votes for themselves by appealing to the lowest common denominator, as with any serious issue. That is my view of that issue, but it is over and unfortunately those people who had views on it did not really try to attempt to debate it.
Nor did he.
The view on this issue is that nobody is quite certain of the reaction of the French. I think I know Prime Minister Blair's viewpoint. He had to take on an enormous responsibility to try to get the KFOR mission up and running and, although it was meant to be a NATO mission before it moved to a UN mandate, there were an enormous amount of difficulties. He and the French would like to attempt to streamline that. They are acting at this stage outside of what is on the agenda for the EU. The official position is that there is not a proposal at present before the European Council incorporating a mutual defence guarantee into the EU Treaty or any proposal as the basis of the French—
That is the official position.
That is what the Deputy asked.
What is the position.
The current debate—
We seem to be ranging into detail—
The Deputy asked for the briefing which I get from the Department of Foreign Affairs because he said he knows the system. I want to give him that.
—which would be more appropriate perhaps to a different Minister.
I want to answer, if I may, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because he asked me about the briefing note and, as he said he knows the system, I just want to give him what the system will tell him. The current debate on European security and defence, which is being conducted on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the outcome of the European Council, has a clear focus on the Petersberg Tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management and not on the collective defence guarantees, and both the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Cologne decisions reiterate that the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states shall not be prejudiced and that provision takes account of our policy of military neutrality and that of other states who are not in an alliance or who are not members of NATO or the Western European Union. That is the official position.
However, I will wait. I raised these matters yesterday with the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr. Lipponen. Mr. Blair wants to outline his proposal to me and I will listen to what he has to say.
When the Taoiseach referred to people trying to whip up a few votes for themselves in this area, did he have his own party in mind when it promised a referendum on PfP which it had no intention of having?
The answer to that is "no".
I would have had the Deputy's party in mind as the leading candidate for whipping up votes on this issue. To clarify what exactly is the Government's policy on the defence of Europe, in what respect does the Taoiseach disagree with the position taken by the late Seán Lemass, which was to the effect that if European political union was created, he, Seán Lemass, would have been willing to envisage Ireland taking part in the defence of that political union? Does the Taoiseach agree or disagree with the position taken by Seán Lemass on that matter?
Is it not the case that the Petersberg Tasks include, in effect, peace enforcement? How does the Taoiseach theoretically and practically distinguish peace enforcement from war-making? What is the difference? If Ireland, in the context of the EU, is willing to undertake duties including Petersberg Tasks' peace enforcement, is it in effect the case that Ireland is not only willing to take part in European defence but may in fact be willing to take part in military operations of a peace enforcement character even outside the EU's boundaries?
The questions to the Taoiseach are general questions and we seem to be getting into detail. It would be better for the House generally if Members submitted questions. I will allow the Taoiseach to deal with it.
On a point of order, these issues are actually settled not at the level of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs but at the summits by the Taoiseach and—
I accept that. I was going to add, Deputy Bruton—
For your further guidance, on a point of order, if we table questions of a defence nature which will be discussed a priori in Helsinki, they will be referred with alacrity to the Minister for Defence, who will say that he knows nothing.
That is within the Standing Order—
I know and, therefore, I am saying to you that we have tabled seven questions which deal with the Helsinki Summit, at which this will be a central item of discussion. The Taoiseach already conceded that. I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that our points are absolutely germane to the core of the questions.
They are not within the questions as submitted on the Order Paper.
As a matter of interest, the General Affairs Council is dealing with all these things and I do not attend any of them.
They are referred to the summit.
All the briefings and presentations are to do with Foreign Affairs, and it is one of about nine items on the agenda of the European Council. As far as they being specific questions is concerned, it is about two and half years since we worried about that on Taoiseach's Question Time. I effectively answer questions here on everything and anything. It is not like the way it was when Deputy Bruton was in this position, where one would not get an answer on anything other than strictly what was on an agenda. That is the way it used to be.
That is rubbish.
That is the way it used to be. He would not answer anything which was not strictly and tightly within the procedure.
He is charming.
That is the way it was.
Allow the Taoiseach to conclude.
Deputy Bruton asked me about the position taken by Seán Lemass. At the time Seán Lemass spoke on these issues Ireland was not a member of the European Community. It was during the early stage of discussions. What he said was that if we went into the European Community we would have to take responsibilities and if there were peacekeeping missions, we would have to involve ourselves in those missions. I do not believe he ever envisaged us moving outside the European boundaries to participate in any kind of conflict resolution. I do not think that was ever envisaged and I do not believe it is now either. Perhaps what has changed now is that there is a view that the European Community would involve itself internally in countries rather than country to country, which was the position for a long time. That has happened in Kosovo and it will happen in other places too where fundamental rights are not being adhered to.
The Irish position on these matters is that we are following a policy of military neutrality. We are not in an alliance and we are not members of NATO or the Western European Union. I see PfP as an entirely different thing. I see it as an area where we co-operate. We co-operate in KFOR and SFOR. We also co-operate in other areas with NATO people but under a UN mandate. The line for us here is how a UN mandate works and I would have grave reservations, as I have stated many times in Europe, here and in other places, if we are moving to a situation where there will be an entirely independent set-up apart from NATO. Already there is concern about that. Some countries want that but is not what I want.
We were the first country to send people to many locations. We sent our people to East Timor. We have had people in the most dangerous position for 26 years in the Middle East. We are involved in the transport unit of a very difficult mission with the KFOR operation in Kosovo, but that is under a UN mandate and not any other mandate. If it is to the advancement of Europe – which I think it will be – then the co-ordination of, and co-operation with, those military missions will develop. There may well be a military committee and the Foreign and Defence Ministers have already met to organise that. That is the way it will develop but it must be done under the Petersberg Tasks. There is an enormous difference between the Petersberg Tasks and aggressive tasks. That is a distinction which I think—
What is it? What is the difference between peacekeeping and war-making?
I asked that question during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty, but Deputy Bruton's party accepted it.
Peacekeeping and crisis management are entirely different things to war-making because of the motivation for doing it. Take East Timor, for example. What was our role there?
Motivation?
The motivation was to protect human rights and civil liberties.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that basing any policy on the subjective motivation of the policy makers is so elastic as to be meaningless? Is it not the case that every war in history was undertaken by people who had some sense of victimisation before they attacked? Even Hitler succeeded in having a guard killed on the border with Danzig in order to justify his attack on Poland in the Second World War. People will always claim their motivations are perfect, but surely any defence policy has to be based on something more robust than motivation?
A question please, Deputy Bruton.
That is a question. A distinction between the Petersberg Tasks and war-making has to be based on something more robust than motivation which is inherently elastic and capable of being manipulated. Will the Taoiseach tell me why he is against the idea of Europe having a defence capacity of its own, independent of NATO? What is the Taoiseach's affection for NATO that he wants the Americans to defend Europe rather than Europeans? Surely we cannot rely on Jesse Helms and his like to provide defence for Europe into the next millennium. Is the defence of Europe to be perpetually dependent on the vagaries of Tennessee politics? Do we want to hand the whole thing over to the Americans, lock, stock and barrel? I do not have that level of confidence in the Americans.
The Deputy is entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him entirely.
The Taoiseach has not told me what his opinion is.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I do not agree with mutual alliances and I do not agree that we should join such alliances. If we are to have a proper security and defence policy that co-ordinates our efforts in Europe, I have no difficulty with it. However, if the Deputy believes, or some of the parties with which he is associated in Europe believe what he is now stating, because it is a position that keeps coming forward from some parties—
The Taoiseach should stick to the Fianna Fáil policy and explain that to us. Fine Gael will explain its own policy.
Please, Deputy Bruton, allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
As a neutral State, our policy – that is followed well – does not need to be explained. We will continue that policy. That is well reflected in the Petersberg Tasks.
The Taoiseach does not believe in explaining it.
The Deputy might think the neutrality policy has gone, but I do not believe that.
I do not think the Taoiseach has a policy.
The Deputy wants to replicate NATO in Europe where there is no EU or UN mandate.
The Taoiseach has attempted to mislead people.
I can understand that the Deputy does not like the UN mandate because it puts a stop to these war mongers going into live action with his support.
We will move on now.
Does the Taoiseach agree that a security debate has been initiated within the European Union by prime players within NATO? Two of those prime players, France and Britain, have tabled a joint paper which would have been inconceivable given the transatlantic London-Washington alliance that existed since 1940. The security debate was characterised by Tony Blair's speech in St. Malo a year ago and was reiterated and enlarged upon at the Anglo-French summit last week. Does the Taoiseach accept this debate will be a dominant component of the Helsinki summit, either on the margins or across the dinner table, and that it will not go away? Does he believe, or does the Fianna Fáil Party have a view, that if we do not choose to engage in that debate and put our own shape and contribution on it, as one of the four neutral member states – of which I am proud Ireland is one, along with Austria, Sweden and Finland – we will remain with the choice that Irish troops serving with the UN mandate under KFOR or SFOR will be under the vagaries of an American general? The Americans will dominate the control and ownership of these missions and such a general can unilaterally decide, as a strategic military objective, to take out Belgrade's central heating system, the repair and reconstruction of which will have to be—
I think the Deputy is moving into the realms of a Second Stage speech now.
No I am not. I am actually making the point—
Questions are supposed to be brief.
They are very brief if they are answered. I am trying to elaborate on the question so that we might get an answer. Would the Taoiseach not consider that the alternative is the situation we currently have, namely that a US general can decide in future, as one did recently, to take out the entire central heating system of Belgrade—
And the Chinese embassy, knowingly and without telling anybody.
—and the Chinese embassy, as military objectives in our name. European taxpayers will have to pay for the damage. We are trying to find out what is the Government's position, if any, on a debate that, I accept, is changing by the week. We should have that debate in the House and elsewhere. The Taoiseach should engage in reality and lead that debate in order to open up the discussion. There are many different points of view but, with respect, the Taoiseach seems to be refusing to recognise that there is a moving debate and that we might have any positive constructive contribution to make to it.
Deputy Quinn obviously read last week that the French and the British issued a paper and he thinks that started the debate. However, this debate has been going on for as long as I have been on the European Council. The main issues for the Helsinki Council meeting are EU enlargement – which has taken up most of the time – as well as taxation and employment. It looks as if this issue will be discussed either at the summit lunch or dinner. The Deputy's view that this matter will be a major part of the summit debate is incorrect. The Intergovernmental Conference must also come under one of those topics and, therefore, the security debate will not be the major issue. To put the matter in context, it will not be a major part of the initiative for this debate.
It is the area on which the Taoiseach's policy is least clear.
There is an ongoing debate and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, who is driving it, is of the view that we cannot have the ad hoc arrangements that pertained earlier this year. I agree with him that the situation must be better organised, and I said so 15 minutes ago. Mr. Blair had to stay up half the night trying to organise that. He thought there was a structure to do that but there was not. From an Irish perspective, I am still very happy with the UN position. We should not go into an area that does not have the UN mandate. I do not want to see us moving into an alliance with either NATO or the Western European Union. That is my position. People might not like it, Deputy Bruton hates it, but that is my position.
Hates what?
He is not even listening to me.
I do not hate it. Why is the Taoiseach using me as a whipping boy for his own inability to answer questions?
Please, Deputy Bruton, allow the Taoiseach to continue.
The Deputy just wants to take the Christian Democrat line which I am tired of listening to all my political life. It is: "Replace NATO. Put NATO into Europe and then we will all continue on". That is his view.
The Taoiseach has no policy of his own. Will he just answer the questions?
The Deputy is being disorderly.
The Deputy might tell us how to handle some of the arms issues as well, while he is at it.
What was that?
I said the Deputy might tell us about his arms issues as well, while he is at it.
What arms issues? What is the Taoiseach talking about?
The Taoiseach should address his remarks through the Chair.
I will, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. To conclude-—
Is this about 1927, or something?
That is the Deputy's problem. He never listens. He started off thinking Syria was one of the free-ins.
I say to the two sides that on the day when this historic debate has been put to bed, they should stop bickering and get on with real politics.
I thank Deputy Quinn for that.
Deputy Bruton did not hear what the Taoiseach said about arms.
What did he say?
The final issue on the current debate on European security and defence is being conducted on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam. That is where the debate is at – it is on peacekeeping. The stretch will be to try to move it, but not away from NATO. Almost all the air capabilities are American owned. The French might want to do a little of that, but they are not trying to move away from NATO. They just want to co-ordinate their efforts more tightly.
I call Deputy Gormley.
What is the Taoiseach trying to do?
I am stating absolutely that we want to abide by the Petersberg Tasks. We have no problem with crisis management and the issues of co-operation. We are co-operating with NATO in SFOR and KFOR.
Which means US generals.
We are co-operating, but we are doing it under a UN mandate—
The Taoiseach has no control over those people.
Deputy Quinn must allow the Taoiseach to speak.
—and we are not going to do it under any other mandate. That is what is going on, and what will continue to go on.
The Taoiseach stated in his reply that he has difficulty with Article 5, which deals with mutual defence. Does he accept we are totally compromised by the double hatting of Javier Solana, who is now head of CFSP and the Western European Union? What is his position on that?
Is the Taoiseach stating this new force being proposed by the British and French should require a UN mandate? Is that his position? Is the Taoiseach aware that joint manoeuvres are to take place in February between NATO and an EU defence force? Will Irish troops participate in those manoeuvres?
I am not sure all those questions are relevant to today's Order Paper.
They are very relevant.
Javier Solana has an important role to play in relation to the Petersberg Tasks. With the retirement of the current Western European Union General-Secretary, it has been agreed there will be a closer relationship between the EU and the Petersberg Tasks. The EU neutral states, including Ireland, agreed that Mr. Solana's second job does not affect neutrality.
That does not answer all the questions I asked.
It does.
I asked two other questions.
Deputy Bruton may ask a brief supplementary.
I asked two other questions which the Taoiseach did not answer.
They were not relevant to today's Order Paper.
I asked two other questions on the need for a UN mandate for the British-French force, which the Taoiseach did not answer. Is that his position?
That is not relevant to today's Order Paper.
Would the French-British armed rapid reaction force require a UN mandate, in the Taoiseach's view?
That has not even come to a discussion stage yet.
I am asking the Taoiseach his position on—
I am ruling that out of order. It is not relevant to today's Order Paper. I call Deputy John Bruton.
It is a hypothetical question.
The Taoiseach has just gone around in circles.
Deputy Gormley must allow Deputy Bruton to speak.
As far as I can see, Fianna Fáil has no policy on neutrality.
I was advised by Deputy Quinn that I did not hear what the Taoiseach said about arms. Perhaps he could tell me what he said about arms when he spoke to me across the House a few moments ago. I do not know what he said.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether it is the Government's policy to enter into EU defence arrangements under the guise of crisis management, so long as there is no mutual defence guarantee – in other words, that there is no automaticity? Is the Government willing to accept political responsibility for European defence decisions, so long as there is no automaticity, in terms of a mutual defence guarantee?
Deputy Gormley asked me about Article 5. As I said, we have successfully opposed Article 5, which has gone off the agenda.
Our position is that we are in favour of the development of the Petersberg Tasks, if we can hold that position in negotiations. We are against a mutual defence initiative. The neutral countries – not just Ireland – will come under some pressure in regard to how that will be debated and agreed as we go forward. However, our position is that we are opposed to mutual defence. We will go with changes in the crisis management situation under the Petersberg Tasks.
What point was the Taoiseach making to me about arms?
I do not know.
The Taoiseach does not know what he was saying.
The Deputy was not listening.
The Taoiseach was not listening to himself.