Vol. 520 No. 2
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has received a draft agenda for the European Council in Portugal on 19 and 20 June 2000; if the Government will table any discussion papers prior to the meeting; if he has received any discussion papers from other Governments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14896/00]
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Gutteres, will visit Dublin as part of his tour of EU capitals to meet heads of Governments in advance of the European Council in Portugal on 19 and 20 June 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14897/00]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has received any communication from the French Government setting out priorities for its Presidency of the EU in the second half of this year; if he has had discussions with the French President or French Prime Minister in this regard; if either the President or Prime Minister is expected to visit Ireland as part of a consultative process with other EU Heads of Government in advance of the French Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14898/00]
4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on his official visit to Poland. [14938/00]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Poland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14946/00]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the Prime Minister and President of Poland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14948/00]
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the Government's approach to next month's EU summit in Portugal which he will attend. [15076/00]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Poland. [15077/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider his reply? The visit to Poland has nothing to do with the EU Summit and I suggest he takes Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together, followed by Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive. These two groups of questions deal with separate issues.
I will take a separate supplementary question if the Deputy wishes.
I undertook an official visit to Poland from 24 to 26 May as the latest visit in my programme of meetings with our future partners in the Union. The purpose of the visit was to strengthen bilateral political and economic relations with a country that will be shortly a member of the European Union. I believe it was highly successful in this respect.
As the House is aware, Poland is one of the larger and most advanced of the EU accession candidates for membership of the Union. My visit presented a timely opportunity to build on our already strong relations prior to its accession. I took the opportunity of the visit to indicate our strong support for Poland's accession at the earliest possible date, among the first wave of new entrants.
My visit commenced in Warsaw where I held discussions with President Kwasniewski, Prime Minister Buzek and the Speakers of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament. While, inevitably, the main focus of my discussions were bilateral issues and progress on Poland's accession to the Union, I also discussed a wide range of other issues including the Intergovernmental Conference, EU-Russia relations and the Ukraine.
Reflecting the growing importance of the Polish market, I was accompanied by one of our largest ever international trade missions consisting of more than 40 businesses from a wide range of sectors. Their presence underlined the fact that there is a growing interest among Irish business people in developing trade and commercial links with Poland.
In addition to my official meetings, I hosted a working breakfast for Poland's top business leaders, representatives of companies on the accompanying trade mission and local Irish businesses to discuss Ireland's recent economic performance and the further development of trade between Poland and Ireland. I also hosted a reception for the Irish community in Poland. Before returning to Dublin I travelled to CRH's plant in Ozarow to inaugurate the largest cement kiln in Europe. In addition, I inaugurated a number of projects for other Irish businesses expanding their operations in Poland.
The next European Council will take place in Santa Maria da Feira, Porto, on 19 and 20 June. No formal agenda has been circulated for the meeting as yet. The issues and how the Presidency plans to approach them will gradually become clearer as Feira approaches. Prime Minister Guterres will not conduct a tour of capitals in advance of Feira, but I will be in telephone contact with him in relation to the issues on the agenda. There are no plans at present to table a discussion paper on the issues likely to arise at Feira nor have we, as yet, received any from other Governments for the meeting.
Undoubtedly, the ongoing discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference will be a major issue on the agenda as this matter is passed to the French Presidency for conclusion. The draft charter of fundamental rights will also be discussed and the chairman of the convention, former President of Germany, Mr. Herzog, is expected to deliver an oral presentation at the summit. I also expect that follow-up to the special European Council in Lisbon, as regards the Union's development of the information society and a knowledge based economy, to feature prominently in the discussions.
While I have not spoken recently to either French President Chirac or Prime Minister Jospin in relation to the priorities for the French Presidency, I met the French Minister for Finance, Mr. Laurent Fabius, in Dublin on 11 May where we had an initial discussion of the programme for the French Presidency. Minister Fabius also met the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, while the Foreign Minister, Deputy Cowen, met the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Vedrine, on 22 May. These contacts identified some issues of which we were already aware, such as the Intergovernmental Conference, the charter of fundamental rights, ESDP and enlargement. I am also aware of the speech by Prime Minister Jospin to the National Assembly on 9 May which outlined the aims of the French Presidency as: a Europe which delivers on growth and full employment; a Europe which is closer to the people; and a stronger and more effective Europe. I support these aims and we will give every assistance to the French Presidency in achieving them.
What does the Taoiseach think of the French President's proposal for a European rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops? Would Ireland be willing to contribute to such a force?
The Deputy knows the conclusion of the Helsinki discussions allowed for the deployment, arrangement and organisation of a force similar in size to that in Kosovo. President Chirac has spoken of a new European rapid reaction force for the north Mediterranean region. A number of multilateral forces already exist involving various EU members, including Euro corps, in which five European countries participate.
The Helsinki European Council set a voluntary target for establishing capabilities solely for crisis management situations under the Petersberg Tasks. This was known as the "headline goal" which member states aim to meet by 2003 and allows for the deployment of 50,000 to 60,000 personnel within 60 days of being called upon to do so. The proposal also allows for sustaining such a force for at least 12 months. This would equal the position regarding KFOR in Kosovo.
In his speech yesterday, President Chirac said France would work to develop the criteria to enable this target to be met. He is probably talking about the same effort as that agreed in Helsinki. The Helsinki conclusions make clear this does not imply the creation of a European army and states that such a development can take place only under the Petersberg Tasks agreed in the Amsterdam Treaty, which is on a voluntary basis. The matter of sovereignty will be decided by each country in its own case. That is what President Chirac was talking about and we have no difficulty with it.
I asked the Taoiseach if Ireland would be willing to contribute troops to such a force?
I said we would have no difficulty with it on that basis.
Am I correct in saying the Taoiseach is saying Ireland will contribute troops to this force?
On the basis that the force is that which I outlined in detail.
Is the Taoiseach aware the French President said that, by the end of the French Presidency, which is the end of this year, he would hope each country would indicate the number of troops it would be willing to commit? Has the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Defence, any idea as to the number of troops Ireland would commit to this 60,000 strong force?
Following the Helsinki arrangements and agreements under the Petersberg Tasks involving crisis management situa tions, two committees were set up – the political committee and the military committee. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, attends the military committee. These committees are examining the logistics. Our numbers will depend on what happens as regards our 23 or 24 year commitment to Lebanon. As the year progresses, that will become clearer. I know the Minister for Defence is anxious to deploy our complement of troops and, I hope, he will be able to deploy more on the other side of Lebanon than otherwise he would have been able to.
My question relates to Question No. 4 on the Taoiseach's official visit to Poland. I also wish to ask other questions related to the Summit to which I will return. The Taoiseach said he led a substantial delegation to Poland comprising of business interests across a range of sectors. Arising from his reply and for the purpose of clarity – I know the Clerk of the Dáil is listening to the question I am posing – can I take it that any parliamentary questions tabled to the Department of the Taoiseach on the co-ordination of Ireland's co-operation with the applicant member states, including the PHARE programme or anything else related to the applicant member states, will be answered by that Department? Will the Taoiseach clarify that for ease of administration in the future?
I accept questions tabled under the traditional system. I have not argued against taking questions that have been tabled to me under that system in this position or when I was Minister for Labour or Minister for Finance. I answer questions tabled to me that are allowed under that system, even when I think some of them are not very relevant to my office.
Deputy Quinn may be aware that the Chair disallowed a question on the business related to the companies represented on the delegation.
That is precisely my point. I am trying to be helpful to facilitate all Members. It seems that on occasions, as in this case—
I did not know that question was disallowed.
It is not the Taoiseach but the Department of the Taoiseach, irrespective of who is the incumbent, that on occasions refuses to take questions. The Taoiseach led a comprehensive delegation to Poland encompassing a broad range of interests and participated in a range of activities, as is his responsibility as Taoiseach, which I fully endorse and support. If Members wish to table questions to the Taoiseach arising from that set of activities, they run the risk, without clarification from the Chair, that matters relating to industry, education, or some other sector are deemed to be the responsibility of a Minister who was not in Poland in the first instance and we get a nonsensical reply to a legitimate question. I am not seeking an answer to that question now, but I ask the relevant institutions of this House to have regard to what I said.
The Chair rules on questions.
I know that, Sir, but the Chair rules on them in many cases having received refusal from the relevant Department. We have all had that experience.
It is the Chair's decision.
The transfer of questions is not ruled on by the Chair?
The transfer of questions has nothing to do with the Chair.
That is precisely my point. Poland is an important economic partner and potentially it could become an even more important one. If I or another Deputy tabled a question to the Taoiseach arising from his visit to Poland and comments arising from it and that question was transferred to another Department, will the Taoiseach clarify that if he answered questions on our responsibility for a co-ordinated approach to our relationship with an applicant member state of Poland's significance that subsequent questions will not be deferred or referred by his Department? I accept that the Ceann Comhairle's office does not have responsibility for the transfer of questions, but the Taoiseach's Department does. I am trying to clarify that point for the guidance of officials who frequently are torn between what they would like to do and what they are instructed to do.
In so far as I can be helpful, and I know this is not very helpful, I follow the procedures in place for taking questions. If I tried to change that practice, I would be in difficulty. I often consider that some questions tabled to me are not relevant to my Department, but I have been told I should take them under the procedures in place. It is often the case that a question is tabled to my Department on a matter that comes under a sub-head of a Vote of my Department, but my Department does not deal with that matter. The practicalities of such a matter are dealt with by another Minister, but I take such questions because they come under a subhead of a Vote of my Department. I have not sought to change the procedures in place for taking questions and I will not do so. Discussions are taking place between the Whips on Dáil reform on a range of issues. I follow the procedures that are agreed for taking questions.
Having established that sadly there will not be a change in the current practice for taking questions—
That is not a matter for the Chair.
I know it is not. The Taoiseach has confirmed that the existing procedures will not be changed.
Unless change is recommended by the Dail reform group.
The Taoiseach has the power to change them.
According to a newspaper report, the Taoiseach was asked by the Minister with specific responsibility for European integration in Poland, Mr. Jack Zaryusz-Wolski, if Ireland was prepared to give a specific time commitment as to when it would like Poland to become a full member of the European Union. Was the Taoiseach accurately reported in that article? Was that question posed to him as distinct from being anticipated and reported by Denis Stanton in The Irish Times? If the Taoiseach was asked that question, what was his response?
The Prime Minister and the President of Poland welcomed the statements we made supporting Poland as a member of the first group of countries that would join an enlarged European Union. There are two bases for our support, which I emphasised on national programmes when I was in Poland. It has fulfilled the ongoing negotiating position with which the Commission must be satisfied. It is our view that Poland can satisfy the regulations laid down for accession. If the negotiations are completed and it signs up to the regulations laid down, it should be included in the first group of countries to join the Union.
My view, as stated in Helsinki, is that negotiations should be completed by the end of 2002. President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schro1eder are pressing that and believe they could be speeded up. I do not think that will be possible but they should be completed early in 2003. Based on the negotiations on all 29 Chapters being completed at that time and on Poland being able to fulfil all the criteria laid down—
When will they accede to the Common Agricultural Policy?
Negotiations will commence in June on the Chapters on the Common Agricultural Policy. Poland has not had discussions on those yet. I was privileged to meet all of the negotiators, including the key negotiator on the agricultural side. I was seated next to him at a State lunch and he outlined to me in great detail that Poland had to get agreement within the country from the various agricultural interests including big farmers, medium sized farmers, peasant farmers, as they are known and the industries to prepare a paper on the matter. That paper has only been completed and a final draft form of it came before its Government in the past week of two. It is hoped to bring that to the Commission and start negotiations on it at the end of June.
The negotiators are not under any illusion that those negotiations will be not be difficult. The Commission indicated that it will not sign off on the agricultural direct payments issue until the Chapters are completed and negotiated. Poland would like it to do that up front, but the Commission made it clear that it will not do that until it ascertains that Poland has the ability and the capabilities to deal with the other issues. For our part, and in reply to Deputy Quinns's question, we accept, as do other member states, that Poland has the capabilities to deal with those issues, but these matters have to be formally negotiated.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to ask a final supplementary question on this issue. Subject to the conditions outlined by the Taoiseach, can I take it that all the negotiations are completed, that the Commission is satisfied that Poland has the ability to administer the acquis communitaire and that Ireland would support Poland's request for entry by January 2003, if the criteria for entry by that date have been met?
Does the Taoiseach believe the current boycott of Austria being operated by the other EU members, without any EU authority but on a bilateral co-ordinated basis, will continue after Porto? Is it still the Government's policy, as outlined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the Austrian Government should be judged on its performance rather than on its composition? If so, will he indicate what has been wrong with the performance of the Austrian Government since it came to office to warrant the continued snubbing by the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland of the Austrian ambassador in Dublin?
I have reported on this issue a number of times. The up-to-date position is that the measures of the 14 member states were discussed by the EU Ministers in the Azores on 6 May. The Minister for Foreign Affairs with the Danish Minister and maybe one other Minister expressed the view that there should be a review of the situation in the hope that we could move on from this position either before Feira or after it. I have since spoken to the Portuguese Prime Minister in relation to the issue. We confirmed we would like to move on if he can find a basis of doing it. A number of other countries have also expressed that view. He is reviewing the process and is consulting the partners. We have said we would support moves to relax it if he can get a majority to agree. I do not know whether that will happen prior to Feira. My information is that the matter will not be discussed at Feira, it is not intended to discuss it. There is still a strong resistance to any move by Belgium, France, the Netherlands and a few other countries.
Is it not the case that Ireland is free to make its own policy on this matter, that we are not obliged by the decision of the other EU members because this was not an EU decision? This was a decision taken outside the EU structures without due process, without a hearing for the accused, namely, Austria, being granted as is normal in due process, and Ireland can make its own decision on the matter. What does the Taoiseach think this continued boycott is achieving?
I have made it absolutely clear that we are not going to act on our own. That is the reason all 14 members states made the decision they made on 14 January. I still think it was an effective decision. It gave an added impetus to the President of Austria to lay down firm conditions about how the administration would work. The administration is at pains since to point out that it is complying with the conditions set down by the President, at the behest of the Union. That shows the success of the measures. There is a downside to continuing the boycott indefinitely because it puts pressures on Austria in other ways. It is doing its best to comply. For that reason there should be discussions but we will not make a unilateral decision on our own. We will work on a compromise with Anton Guterres and if he cannot succeed in having a compromise the position will remain as it is. I hope he will succeed. He is endeavouring to do that and we support his efforts.
Will the Taoiseach outline any way in which Austria is not complying with EU requirements in relation to human rights or any other issue? Will he accept that Austria may wish to raise this matter at the Portuguese summit? Would the Irish position be defendable in the light of statements made by Government backbenchers in relation to asylum seekers here? I have a question on the Portuguese summit and another on the Polish visit. Does the Taoiseach accept that decisions can be taken at the Portuguese summit in relation to unanimity among member states? What is the Government's view of the pressure coming from France and Germany to remove the requirement for unanimous decision-making? Is the Government of the view that loss of unanimous decision-making would increase the likelihood of a two-speed EU in relation to the single currency, Schengen and other aspects of EU development? Given that the main headlines in Ireland following the Polish visit related to the Taoiseach's response to Mr. Haughey's revelations at the tribunal about donations, is it true that apart from that the Taoiseach discussed environmental concerns in Poland, as reported? Given that the Irish Government is facing legal proceedings by the European Commission in relation to its appalling record of environmental protection, was that matter raised and, if so, was there a response from the Polish Government?
On the first issue, Austria is attempting as best it can to comply with all the regulations. It raised the issue at the last summit and spoke at the dinner on that occasion. If it sought to do so again, I am sure there would be no disagreement to it since the same President is in the chair.
Is it the case that Austria will be seen and not heard?
On this particular issue. They spoke on all—
Did they get all four courses as well at the meal? This is a sovereign country which is being humiliated by people who are too cowardly to stand up to bullies.
This is cross-questioning. The Taoiseach is now in possession and should be allowed to make his statement. The Deputy will get another chance to ask a supplementary. He should not interrupt in that manner.
The Deputy did not make any of those speeches about what Mr. Haider was saying before the Government was formed. He made no defensive remarks then. All this came about because of what Mr. Haider said in January.
He is gone.
He is and that is where the position is different. It was because he said things that were totally in breach of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of EU Treaty.
Things like what Deputy Ivor Callely and the Taoiseach's brother have been saying.
If the Deputy wants to equate what Mr. Haider said last year and throughout the campaign—
The Taoiseach's record is not unblemished. He should look at the British Conservatives and hear what they are saying.
Deputy Bruton should not interrupt. The Taoiseach is in possession. We cannot have a proper Question Time in this manner.
The second question was on environmental issues. We had some discussions about nuclear stations. They are not in Poland. We talked about the environmental issues of the Ukraine and the concerns and costs to the Polish economy. Poland is anxious to comply fully with all environmental matters but there are many realities that have to be dealt with, including costs, which are enormous. While Poland does not have nuclear power stations, it has much infrastructure which will take a considerable number of years to deal with. They are subject to negotiations. We are taking a constructive approach to extend qualified majority voting. We are prepared to extend it further. We were prepared to do so during the Amsterdam negotiations in areas such as industry, transport and culture. Each article must be considered on its merits. There are certain areas, including taxation, where unanimity is essential. Other than that we are prepared to be helpful in trying to move ahead. Qualified majority voting and the general voting position are all part of the overall equation about what will happen about large countries losing their second Commissioner. If they lose their second Commissioner, which they must in order for us to retain our Commissioner, they will seek changes in qualified majority voting and in the weighting of votes.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is illogical for the European Union to impose a sanction to obtain a result and continue to impose the sanction even though it has obtained that result? That is what the Taoiseach has just said. He said the sanctions were justified to get Austria to agree to the declaration. Now that it has done that the sanctions are still being maintained. What logic lies behind that approach which is a freely taken decision of the Irish Government and not something imposed on it by the other 14, because each country acted individually in this case? The Irish Government is snubbing the Austrian Ambassador. The Taoiseach should consider what would happen if all the other countries snubbed the Irish Government. Would it not result in rallying around the Government and a strengthening of extremism in the country rather than a weakening of it, because countries do not like to be bullied by bigger neighbours? Does the Taoiseach agree it is time Ireland showed the courage his party has shown on foreign affairs matters in the past? I doubt whether the ancestor of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands would have agreed to go along with a consensus of this nature to the detriment of a small country.
The actions were agreed by all the member states, other than Austria. It was on the basis I stated that the President made his decision, and it is on that basis the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, along with the Danish Minister for Foreign affairs at the last meeting, tried to move things on. We will continue to try to do that but it will be by consensus with the other countries.
Why?
There will not be a breaking of links. We will try, now that a reasonable period of five months has elapsed, to see whether we can make progress in this area.
Is the Taoiseach saying there has to be consensus, that all that is necessary is for one country, Belgium, for example, to say it will not agree to the lifting of the sanctions against Austria, and the sanctions will stay in place? Is that what the Taoiseach is saying?
I am not saying that. I am saying that at present only two countries want to move. If the Deputy had a word with many of his party colleagues in Europe—
I have plenty of words with them.
—he might get them to move.
I do not agree with them.
They are the most resistant to any move. They have come out strongly against and have ridiculed Austria. If the Deputy can influence them or convince them—
Who is the Taoiseach talking about?
The Deputy knows who I am talking about.
Let the Taoiseach tell me.
The Deputy goes to meetings; he is vice-president of the organisation—
I am.
The Danes and the Irish are the only ones attempting to move and we will continue to do that. When there is a satisfactory basis for movement, the President of the Council will move, but we will not unilaterally break from that.
I still want clarification on whether this is an EU measure or a unilateral, or at least bilateral, measure on behalf of states. Both the Taoiseach and Deputy Bruton seem to have opposing interpretations of that.
What is the Government's position on qualified majority voting? Given the current requirement for unanimity, will the Government resist any change in the qualified majority voting rule because of the possibility of further developing a two-track EU, or will it be a question of quid pro quo? Is it not fixed in stone? I want to know what the Irish position will be at the Portuguese Summit on that matter.
In relation to Poland's environmental problems, was the Taoiseach able to discuss the legal action being taken by the EU against Ireland so that Poland knows we have not been able to deal with matters which are far less costly than those facing Poland? It could serve as a reality check for Poland and let it know what it is getting into by joining the EU and what will be expected of it?
Poland knows what it is getting into. It also knows the enormous amount of money we have put into improving our environmental standards.
It is still in trouble.
I am sure there will be trouble in 100 years' time.
It will not be there.
We have made enormous strides and Poland can learn from our difficulties.
On qualified majority voting, we are prepared to change our position. We were prepared to do that in Amsterdam and we still are. The matter will not be finalised until the Nice meeting. Discussions will go on over the next six months and will be part of the negotiations on the re-weighting of votes, qualified majority voting, commissioners, flexibility and perhaps other issues. Those are the four issues as of now. They are all still on the table and will continue to be.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the main reason there was no progress on QMV in Amsterdam was that the German Government reversed its position? Where previously it had supported an extension of QMV, it backed down. Is the current German Government taking a more advanced position on QMV? What are the Taoiseach's views on the personal statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Germany, Joschka Fischer, about the idea of the electorate of Europe electing the President of the Commission? Would the Taoiseach favour such an approach to have a greater degree of democratic legitimacy for the EU institutions as a whole?
On the first question, I am aware of what happened in Amsterdam. Germany is taking a more enlightened approach. However, it is not yet nailed down because it has not shown its hand on its view on its second Commissioner, though it is believed it will move on it. Foreign Minister Fischer has put forward what he calls long-term views not related to the Intergovernmental Conference. He made it absolutely clear that he is not speaking for the German Government at this stage. I consider his views to be interesting proposals at this stage. He has given a list of reforms which he thinks should be looked at for the long-term. He did not give his views on what Germany would do in regard to the Intergovernmental Conference in his recent speech.
Does the Taoiseach agree the German Foreign Minister's speech is a long awaited breath of fresh air in the debate about Europe, and that one of the great problems is that the European Union is currently buried in process with no overall vision of where, ultimately, this entire enterprise is supposed to arrive? Does the Taoiseach agree we need a totally new design if we are to have a European Union of 30 member states, that we need some way of connecting the individual electorate in individual countries with individuals who make executive decisions at the level of the European Union, and that while the details of Mr. Fischer's speech were vague, its vision was extremely refreshing? Does he agree there is a need for others to make similar statements so that European citizens can see where we are going and will not become buried in acronyms, meetings and processes that seem to have no ultimate destination of particular moment?
I agree with that. However, Mr. Fischer specifies that he sees a great future in the concept of flexibility which he defines as groups of countries doing their own thing in various areas.
I agree with the Taoiseach's concern about that. That is not a good idea.
I do not see how that would get us what Deputy Bruton wants. Euro 11 is one thing, but if we had Euro 11, Euro 9, Euro 7, Euro 5, and so on, I do not see how that would achieve anything. Apart from that, there is much merit in what the Deputy has said.
What is the Taoiseach's view on the possibility of changing the weighting of votes at Council of Ministers level and how this could affect smaller countries? Does he envisage any other formula that would protect the interests of smaller nations at Council of Ministers meetings if the weighting of votes was changed to the extent that we could be controlled by a few of the larger states in Europe.
There are a number of points involved. The debate arises from the fact that large member states link the weighting of votes with giving up their second commissioner post. There is no discussion yet on specific re-weighting models in the current negotiations but I imagine that as soon as the French take over in July that will change. During the Amsterdam process we were prepared to accept a modest re-weighting of votes in the context of the overall round. However, we are concerned at how it will be done and how it will affect the institutional arrangements. There are dangers in that. As regards what happened in Amsterdam, we were prepared to hold the second commissioner and have somebody waiting but the institutional linking of that is what concerns me.
Is the Government putting forward proposals in this area?
We have put forward suggestions but we have stuck to the negotiated position of Amsterdam at this stage.
Are the propositions public or private?
No, at this stage they are just suggestions.
Does the Taoiseach believe the ITC will be completed by the end of the year?
I believe it should be because, in fairness to accession countries, if it is not finished by the time of the meeting in Nice it will give a clear signal that we will not reach the 2003 deadline.
Can I take it that it will be confined in its outcome to what is known as the Amsterdam leftovers, that there will not be new matter?
Plus flexibility, and what precisely that will be remains to be clarified and agreed.
I agree with what the Taoiseach said about flexibility. It is a most dangerous concept and is just a licence to write an a la carte menu for each country in Europe. It is a virus that could ultimately destroy the Union completely together with subsidiarity which is another heap of rubbish. Will the Taoiseach bear in mind that we need to have a unitary Union with clearly defined purposes, clear vision and a clear attribution of responsibilities between national, European and local Government?
We do not agree on everything but we agree on that.
