Trevor Sargent
Ceist:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [21176/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - EU Issues.
John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he had before he attended the special European Council on 13 and 14 October 2000 in Biarritz, France; if he received an agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21203/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with the President of Yugoslavia, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, since his election as President; the plans he has to meet Dr. Kostunica; if he will invite Dr. Kostunica to visit Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21949/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on the outcome of the Biarritz Summit in France on 13 and 14 October 2000. [21950/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Biarritz with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the recent EU Heads of Government meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22014/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:6 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings at the Biarritz Summit in France with the EU leaders. [22038/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any discussions he had during the Biarritz Summit in France with President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [22039/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Heads of Government meeting in Biarritz, France, on 13 and 14 October 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21619/00]
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:9 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held with other EU Heads of Government when he attended the EU Summit in Biarritz, France; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21620/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he sent a message of congratulations to the new President of Yugoslavia, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21822/00]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the EU Summit in Biarritz, France, including any bilateral discussions he had with other EU leaders. [22324/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his views concerning the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [22374/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU Summit meeting at Biarritz, France, on 13 October 2000. [22862/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; the position adopted by his representative during the discussion of the draft charter by the convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22963/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24067/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the EU-Balkan Summit in Zagreb, Croatia, in November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25509/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the agenda for his meeting on 24 November 2000 with Chancellor Schüssel of Austria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26610/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:18 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the likely agenda for his meeting on 30 November 2000 with President Chirac of France; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25511/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:19 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address to the European Movement Ireland on 6 November 2000. [25514/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on the points he made in his speech to the European Movement Ireland on 6 November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25602/00]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:21 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the November 2000 EU-Balkan Summit. [26765/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:22 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU-Balkan Summit on 24 November 2000 in Zagreb, Croatia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27076/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:23 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he had with other Heads of Government when he attended the EU-Balkan Summit in Zagreb, Croatia, on 24 November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27077/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:24 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 23 and 24 November 2000 with Chancellor Schüssel of Austria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27078/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:25 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the European Heads of Government meeting in Nice, France, on 7 December 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27376/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:26 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will have here before he attends the European Heads of Government meeting in Nice, France, on 7 December 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27377/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:27 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 23 November 2000 with Chancellor Schüssel of Austria. [27380/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:28 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU-Balkan Summit in Zagreb, Croatia. [27382/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:29 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will outline any bilateral meetings he had with other political leaders during the course of the EU-Balkan Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27383/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 29, inclusive, together.
I attended the special European Council meeting on 13 and 14 October in Biarritz with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. The Cabinet Committee on European Affairs met on 11 October in preparation for Biarritz and on 8 November in preparation for the EU-Balkan Summit which took place in Zagreb on 24 November. It will meet again on 5 December in preparation for the Nice European Council. I also held a number of meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General and officials on the detail of the negotiations and will do so again later this week.
The informal summit meeting in Biarritz, devoted principally to the Intergovernmental Conference, also discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights and some additional issues, including recent oil market trends and, of course, the welcome developments in Serbia and the latest events in the Middle East. As had been decided in advance, given the informal nature of the summit, no written conclusions were issued.
The meeting afforded leaders the first opportunity under the French Presidency to discuss the issues arising on the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. Discussions focused on the size of the Commission, QMV, reweighting of votes and flexibility. I am pleased to say that solid progress was made on this agenda by the Council and all leaders restated their determination to reach an agreement at Nice.
On the size of the Commission, there remains a clear distinction between the position of the five larger member states who wish to see a cap on the number of commissioners and the other member states who continue to insist on one commissioner per member state. I emphasised again the importance of maintaining the right of each member state to nominate a commissioner and restated my belief that the Commission will be stronger and have greater legitimacy if it includes a national from each member state. I believe the legitimacy of Commission decisions in the eyes of the public is greatly strengthened by the fact that the Commission includes not a representative but someone who is familiar with conditions in individual member states.
Together with the other smaller and medium sized member states, I rejected the contention that a Commission with one representative per member state will be inefficient or unable to operate. We and others are ready to consider internal reforms by enhancing the role of the Commission President, including some limited increase in the number of Vice-Presidents. However, to secure agreement, any proposals in this area must, of course, be on the basis that the collegiality of commissioners is maintained.
As to the reweighting of votes, we are prepared, as envisaged in the Amsterdam Protocol, to consider some modest reweighting in a situation where the five larger member states are prepared to forego a second commissioner, and the right of each member state to nominate a commissioner is assured into the future. While we have tended to favour a dual majority model, an equal number of member states are now supporting a simple reweighting of the current system, which so long as it is measured I have agreed to consider in the interests of facilitating consensus and in the context of a balanced package.
The discussion on the possible extension of QMV was based on an informal note circulated by the Presidency which focused on the remaining areas of major difference notably taxation, social policy, JHA matters, anti-discrimination matters and common commercial policy. I indicated that we were well disposed to extending QMV on several articles, including provisions relating to transport, industrial policy, structural funds and certain appointments, and have reduced to a handful the number of issues where we find it essential to retain unanimity. A consensus is now emerging among member states for a substantial move towards QMV.
However, I insisted that all aspects of taxation policy must remain subject to unanimity and emphasised that it is essential that national governments, which remain responsible for the management of their economies, retain control in this vital area. I highlighted my view that in practice it would be almost impossible to ring fence certain aspects of taxation, or to pretend that changes in one area will not have an impact across the board.
In relation to closer co-operation or flexibility, debate on this issue has progressed quickly since it was added to the Intergovernmental Conference agenda at the Feira European Council with member states indicating a willingness to positively consider easing the rules for participation. I indicated that while we are prepared to examine easing the rules, we have to ensure that it does not develop in a manner which facilitates the emergence of a multi-speed Europe. In particular, proposals to extend flexibility to the second pillar could, in the absence of adequate safeguards, cause fragmentation and hinder rather than help the integration process. For Ireland, the coherence and unity of the Common Foreign and Security Policy is fundamental.
I was pleased the summit recognised that any movement in this area must not call into question the Single Market or the cohesion of the Union and should act as a force for integration.
In relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I am pleased that in the light of substantial improvements made in the final text of the charter, I was in a position together with other leaders to endorse it as a political document at the summit. It was agreed that the charter will be formally proclaimed at the European Council in Nice.
The purpose of the charter, as originally envisaged at the European Council in Cologne and which I fully supported, was to draw together the existing rights of the Union's citizens. The nature of the convention, its procedures and the timescale it has operated within, were such that a political document only could be produced. Clearly, if a legal document were to be created, far more extensive work would be required to ensure compatibility with national constitutions, legal systems and traditions.
Our concerns with the charter, which were reflected by the positions adopted by my representative to the convention drafting the charter, related, in particular, to the risk of creating parallel and competing human rights regimes and to consequent conflict in jurisdictions and jurispru dence as between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
There was also a brief discussion of a Commission document on oil markets which outlined a strategy for the management of the Union's oil supply. It recommended that efforts be made to increase oil supply both from OPEC countries and from closer co-operation with Russia; that alternative sources of energy be examined; and that consideration be given to increasing the Union's strategic reserves of oil. I gave my support for the approach outlined and indicated that we should strive to ensure a better co-ordinated response to any future oil crisis.
President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia attended the closing lunch of the Biarritz Summit. I wrote to him in advance of seeing him at Biarritz where I congratulated him on his victory. I took the opportunity to assure him of Ireland's full support for his efforts to restore democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Serbia. I was pleased the Union declared it would do everything possible to assist Yugoslavia in its return to democracy. I informed him that I looked forward to strengthening relations with the Federal Republic, both within the Union and bilaterally. I will also press for the earliest possible implementation of the decision to move towards the full normalisation of relations with the Union. I was pleased to invite him to visit Ireland in due course.
President Kostunica also attended the Zagreb Summit meeting between the EU and the five Western Balkan states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Discussions at the summit focused primarily on relations between the EU and the Western Balkan countries. The summit, which was jointly chaired by President Mesic and President Chirac, marked a further stage in the development of relations between the EU and the Western Balkans regions. The declaration adopted by the summit reflects the mutual commitment of the EU and Balkan states to the achievement of enhanced relations and economic, social and political development. The summit also marked the opening of negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement between the EU and Croatia, and the conclusion of an agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The summit also provided an opportunity for EU leaders to assess President Kostunica's progress in consolidating his position and the development of his relations with other key figures, such as President Djukanovich of Montenegro. I am confident the summit not only recognised the progress already made in developing EU-Balkan relations but will be seen to have provided a fresh impetus for the development of trade relations between the EU and the Balkan region and also between the Balkan nations.
During the summit I met President Trajkovski of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I congratulated the President on the initialling of the Stabilisation Agreement between his country and the EU. President Trajkoski outlined to me his hopes for the development of closer links between FYR Macedonia and the EU and its member states. I assured the President of Ireland's support for the development of such links and offered to share the experience of our industrial development agencies through exchange visits by the relevant personnel.
Given the worsening situation in the Middle East, leaders at Biarritz issued a declaration on the state of the peace process. We appealed to the Israeli and Palestinian people to bring an immediate end to all violence. The declaration emphasised that for the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority there is no way other than peace and negotiation on the basis of what has been achieved at Camp David.
I held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Blair on the margin of Biarritz and en route to Zagreb summits. We took the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland and many of the issues which were considered in detail at these summits.
I met the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Mihaylova, in Dublin on 5 October. We discussed enlargement and the situation then in Serbia. I took the opportunity to re-emphasise the Irish Government's support for enlargement and indicated that Ireland would be happy to assist Bulgaria in its accession process.
My address to the European Movement Ireland on 6 November, which has been placed in the Oireachtas Library, afforded me the opportunity to elaborate on the Irish position on many of the institutional issues which I have already outlined and to situate Ireland in the debate which will take place after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference on the future of Europe. My speech makes clear the reasons for the positions Ireland is adopting at the Intergovernmental Conference. I outlined our overall approach and attitude to the process of European integration and to the enlargement of the Union. I am pleased reaction to the views set out in the speech have proven generally positive and indicate that Ireland remains at the forefront of thinking on the development and role of the European Union.
Chancellor Schüssel of Austria made a working visit to Dublin on 23 November. Coming just two weeks before the Nice European Council, our meeting focused on the Intergovernmental Conference, enlargement, security and defence and the Stockholm European Council. In my discussions with the Chancellor, I outlined the Irish position on the items on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda. Austria and Ireland share similar views across a broad range of the issues under discussion and the Chancellor and I undertook to work together to put across a common position on several items at Nice. I will also meet Prime Minister Verhofstadt of Belgium in Dublin tomorrow, 29 November, to discuss the issues arising at Nice. In addition, I will meet President Chirac of France on 30 November as part of the Presidency's tour of capitals in advance of Nice. This meeting will focus on the items on the agenda for Nice and, I expect, our work together on SECCO in the coming two years.
I have not received a formal agenda for Nice. Clearly the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference will figure predominantly. In addition to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Security and Defence developments, I expect enlargement to be discussed in light of the European conference which will take place with the candidate states on the first morning of the summit. Issues such as the Union's social agenda, the employment action plan, employment guidelines and maritime safety, together with the situation in the Middle East peace process, are also likely to arise.
Whatever about creating a multi-speed Europe, I congratulate the Taoiseach on his speed reading technique which has been developing and seems to be at a zenith.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the outcome of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Is it true that he was in the minority of leaders who strongly opposed giving the charter legal effect? How will environmental sustainability and children's rights be given effect as a basic political declaration? Where does the European Charter of Fundamental Rights end and the Council of Europe Court of Human Rights begin? Do they overlap or have they got separate jurisdiction? Does the Taoiseach regard this as an attempt to provide a framework for a constitution for a new European super state, given that there is already a common currency and that there is the appearance of a common army in formation? Is that what this charter is about?
I do not accept Ireland is in the minority in this regard. An enormous amount of work was done in a short time on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Much more was achieved than was envisaged at the outset. The charter was submitted by the convention which was established to draft it at the end of September. Given the timescale, an enormous number of amendments and sections were being introduced up to the last few days. We were able to agree this because the final draft text took on board the concerns we had expressed, particularly in relation to the possible conflict with the role of the European Court of Human Rights. We argued that point at the very last meeting. I discussed the background to that matter some weeks ago with Deputy De Rossa. I believe we dealt with the matter satisfactorily at that stage, given the way the amendments were being brought forward.
The Deputy's question referred to his concern and the duplication which could arise from it. This matter has been debated in the media nationally and internationally. Our concern regarding the possibility of competing jurisdictions and interpretations of the charter arose from the possibility that the European Court of Justice and the Council of Europe Court of Human Rights might refer to the charter as a political document agreed between all member states, in reaching decisions on cases. A difficulty could arise from different interpretations. The legal interpretation is clearly set out by the European Court of Justice and those rights are extended in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. All countries agreed. The matter was rushed and difficulties arose because of that but it is a good charter and a readable document.
The Deputy asked if it would proceed to become a legal document. Many people would like to see that happen. The European trade unions group lobbied for it and continues to do so. However, for time reasons it was not possible. It was not referenced back against the constitutions or legal systems of member states and it was not dealt with as a legal document. The debate will continue and I welcome that.
As far as Nice is concerned, there may be a reference. Some people want to see that and some do not. It is unlikely it will happen in Nice but the charter will not end where it is, as a political document. There will be further discussion and member states will be asked to look at their constitutional, legal or traditional positions. In time, it will become a document which, if not a constitution, will set down clearly what people's rights are at present and how they will extend into the future. That is no bad thing.
Does the Taoiseach believe Russia and the People's Republic of China should have a veto on Irish participation in EU peacekeeping?
No.
How, then, has the Taoiseach reached his stated position that Ireland will only participate in EU peacekeeping operations if there is a United Nations Security Council mandate? Both China and Russia have a veto on that body and, thereby, have an effective veto on Irish participation.
Our legislative position is that we follow the UN mandate. We do not have a legislative provision to do otherwise than that, nor do I propose to seek one.
Is it not the case that Russia and China have a veto on UN mandates?
I am not sure why Deputy Bruton proposes to bring Russia and China into such a position.
They have a veto on the Security Council.
We have set down our position on European defence issues. Under the Petersberg Tasks and throughout the negotiations leading to the Amsterdam Treaty and the subsequent referendum, which Deputy Bruton oversaw, our involvement has been on the basis of the Petersberg Tasks and the upholding of human rights. It was not on any other basis. Our involvement in these missions was also on the basis of the UN mandate and assumed that the UN had given approval for them. That has been the basis of this discussion throughout and will continue to be so. We will be involved, on a case by case basis and under the ambit of the Petersberg Tasks, in crisis management and humanitarian issues and that the Irish forces, as they have since 1959, would continue to engage in that provided it is the desire of the Security Council. It is not our wish to take our line from anywhere other than the UN. That has been our clear position for several years – it is understood and respected and continues to be.
I call Deputy Quinn.
May I ask a question?
I will call you again. I have called you three times.
A very brief question.
Deputy Quinn submitted ten questions.
If Deputy Bruton wishes, he may ask a final question.
Thank you very much, Deputy Quinn. I appreciate this because it is impossible to follow any sequential line of questioning if one does not have the opportunity to intervene.
Is it not the case that Ireland could not have participated in the Kosovo peacekeeping operation since it did not have a UN mandate because of a Russian veto? Is it not the case, therefore, that in saying there must be a UN mandate for any EU peacekeeping operation in which Ireland takes part, Ireland is, in fact, saying Russia and China have the final say on what we do, or do not do, as far as European peacekeeping is concerned?
Does the Taoiseach agree that this issue is entirely separate from the Petersberg Tasks – a separate decision from what is, or is not, in the Petersberg Tasks? Does he agree that the Petersberg Tasks include peace making – in other words, intervention in a war to restore peace – and that it is very difficult to distinguish that from any other normal military intervention in any conflict? Is it not the case that peace making is one of the Petersberg Tasks, that it is not all just humanitarian goody goody stuff and that there is actually peace making in it? What is the difference between that and any conventional military operation?
I do not consider the Petersberg Tasks, or any element of them, including prevention, to be goody goody. The people in Kosovo – the huge force in Kosovo – initially had to suppress a military rebellion. They then had to move on to try to put together the civic, administrative and policing functions right up the recent free elections.
That is not the question I asked.
The question is the issue.
The Taoiseach is not answering the question I asked.
Deputy Bruton described some of the functions of the Petersberg Tasks as goody goody. They are not goody goody; they are very difficult operational issues in which to be involved.
Peace making means intervening.
It is peace making. Peace making is not goody goody when the enemy is trying to kill you, or the people in the middle, which is what happened in Kosovo and what is happening in most of the areas. Our position is, as in legislation passed by this House, that we cannot engage in actions unless there is a UN mandate. That is the stated position.
Peace making and peacekeeping are different.
I will not go back to the debate in this House on Kosovo when people were calling for this, that and the other. Effectively, the Security Council stands for a lot in the democratic and free world. In terms of the mandate of the European Council working, I do not see the UN or the EU as totally exclusive issues – in most cases, they are mutually reinforcing and would be working together to resolve conflicts. That is the role we will play, as we have done in the Americas, Africa, central Europe and in the Middle East for the last 40 years.
The Taoiseach has not answered my question.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach three related questions in the recognition that there is a difficult task ahead for all the governments. The outcome from Nice is far from certain at this point. Is the Taoiseach of the view and will he give a commitment to the same that Ireland will work towards having some reference made to the political document so described, the Charter on Fundamental Human Rights, linked in the treaty text coming out of Nice which would call on, require, or, in some way, introduce a dynamic into the treaties that would require member states in the future to incorporate the values and the principles of the charter into domestic legislation, including constitutions? It is a complex legal area, but it loses its value if it remains only a political statement. My first point relates to some dynamic sentence in the conclusions in Nice.
My second point relates to Ireland and the Commission. As the Taoiseach is aware, there is thinking abroad that after the Commission term of 2005 to 2010, the automatic entitlement of each member state to a Commissioner would be up for review and there could be some form of rotation. Will the Taoiseach ensure that such a proposed rotation does not take place? The efficiency or otherwise of a body of 27 Commissioners is not challenged because of the number. The representational and iconic role played by Commissioners, particularly for small member states, will be as important after 2010 as it is now.
My third point relates to a European Parliament comprising 27 member states, which is the figure currently in use, and a ceiling of 700 Members. Will the Taoiseach indicate what level of representation the Republic of Ireland will have in terms of the reduction in numbers? Every member state will have to reduce the number of MEPs it elects to accommodate that shrinkage. Ireland currently has 15 MEPs. What is the Taoiseach's position on the residual number of Irish MEPs in an EU comprising 27 member states and a European Parliament with 700 Members?
Regarding the first issue of fundamental human rights, I accept all the work done in this area would be for nothing if it became only a document on a shelf. That would be of no value. It cannot become a legal text at this stage because it was drawn up on a different basis. However, this should not prevent ongoing work. People are pleasantly surprised that the text is good, readable and useful. However, it requires more work, and there should be a reference to that ongoing work.
It cannot be dropped; that would be unfair to the people who put in all the work. My feeling is that it will be included. If the Deputy had asked me a few weeks ago, I would have said that perhaps it would be linked to Article 6 in some form. That may still happen, but others are against such a move. However, it should be linked.
Regarding the argument about economic and social rights, as I said over the past year and in Biarritz, our contention is that they are different but not inferior to civil and political rights. It has been the view of the European trade union movement that the economic and social rights are not lost. In our view, the civil and political rights in the charter are traditionally referred to the courts for interpretation. The issue can be resolved.
The Deputy's third point related to the numbers. If the European Parliament motion is accepted, Ireland would lose six Members. Needless to say, we have argued against it. If there was an across the board balance, Ireland would lose three Members. I am more attached to that suggestion; I totally rejected the other suggestion. I hope that is where it will fall. Undoubtedly, we will lose some Members.
Everybody will lose.
Yes. In terms of the way it is weighted in the European Parliament, smaller countries proportionately would lose most unfairly. In such a scenario, Ireland would lose six Members. On a straight balance, while there may be a difference about whether it should be three or more, there is a sustainable argument for three.
Regarding the Commission, as the Deputy is aware, there have been almost as many proposals as clauses in the treaty. The line we have taken is that we are working towards an outcome which will protect our right to nominate a Commissioner. We are prepared to take account of what will happen in the future. We do not believe we should tie down what will happen in the future. I do not support the case being made that we should say in 2005, when there may be 27 members, or in 2010 that we should do X, Y or Z. If it is all to be set down in stone at this stage, we might as well say what we are going to do now. The argument does not hold up. The bigger countries argue that much of the detail of this should be written down at this stage, to try to pre-determine the development and workings of the Union at either of the dates the Deputy mentioned. I do not agree with any of those arguments.
Do I understand correctly that the Taoiseach is prepared to argue for some kind of dynamic clause being written into the treaty conclusions, calling upon member states to explore ways in which the provisions of the charter of fundamental rights could be enacted in domestic legislation? I see the Taoiseach nodding, which, in the interests of brevity, means he agrees to that, unless I have misunderstood him.
I also want to impress on the Taoiseach that the right of Ireland to nominate a Commissioner after 2010 could be construed as a right to nominate a Commissioner to a rotating post. It does not necessarily mean we would have an exclusive right to a Commissioner beyond 2010, when the size of the Commission will be larger because the Union will be larger. Is it the clear position of the Government that it will not be satisfied with anything coming out of Nice that could be construed as meaning that after 2010 Ireland could potentially lose the right to have an Irish nominated Commissioner in the Commission at all times?
That is the basis of our argument. The larger countries have not yet, ten days before the Nice meeting, accepted the right of any member state to keep a Commissioner. They have not moved, despite people saying at Biarritz that they would do that. The big five are still holding out on that. It is argued by many that they will move from that position to try to stipulate in very clear terms what will happen down the road, as we move from 15 to up to 27 member states. As Deputy Quinn and I have said, we will continue to say we should have representation. While the Commissioner does not represent the country, which nobody ever argues, it is an important part of the Union.
It is a presence.
Some people say we are trying to change the ground rules. They then argue they are prepared to give up their Commissioner, in strict alphabetical rotation.
And so relegate the Commission.
Precisely. That is what I have said. We are now heading to Nice, where institutional discussions on the future will take place. I do not see the benefit in five or ten years – or next week – in not having the French, Germans, British, Italians or Spanish represented in the Commission for those discussions. I do not see how that would ever work – and this is where we must be careful in the future – unless there was a smaller, more executive type of Commission with strict rotation, qualified majority voting and reweighting the order of the day.
That is why I and others have argued strongly that the internal dynamics should be towards strengthening the Commission, to give more powers to the President of the Commission, to allow the President to hire and fire, to allow the Commission have more vice-presidents and to allow them have a stronger role. That does not find much favour with the larger member states, not even the debate on it. The reason will only be apparent from a consideration of the likely circumstances in five to ten years. Along with four or five other small member states we have been very active in asking what is the agenda. An answer is never provided, which is unhelpful. For that reason I would be reluctant to tie anyone to rules dealing with future developments.
I understand the difficulties and dynamics that will ensue when there are 27 member states around the table. The implications of attempting to move to that position must be spelt out. At that stage a case could be argued. When it is suggested that a solution would mean the non-attendance of Germany or France at the table the agenda can be fairly pre-supposed.
Will the Taoiseach comment on a report in The Irish Times today that there is a likelihood that at the 12th hour the Government will move away from its position of blanket opposition to any introduction of qualified majority voting with regard to taxation, especially with regard to, for example, regulations on VAT governing a company that might operate on both sides of the Border and that qualified majority voting may apply to that kind of issue? Is it the case that the Government rejects that on the basis that everything decided on taxation must be unanimous?
Does the Taoiseach consider that the proposed EU constitution will become a basis for litigation in our courts against the Union and against member states? Does he not see the risk here, where the work of the Union would be delayed by it becoming a lawyer's playground?
On taxation, unless an issue has not yet been tabled for consideration my position is that there will be no movement.
That is a good answer. The Taoiseach is leaving his options open.
It would be unwise not to. It is highly unlikely that such an issue will arise because it has been debated at length. The new area for debate is fraud, under which everything is considered. I will not fall into that trap either. I see no reason we should move away from our stated position. It is for domestic administrations to order their tax affairs on their merits. Given that issues in the tax code are interlinked, no arguments, cases or grounds for change have been put to me with which I would agree.
I see the danger of the proposed EU constitution becoming a lawyer's playground. That is why the fundamental charter cannot be adopted and implemented. It must be considered against existing constitutional and legal checks. It was drafted as a political document. The argument made by us and many others is that it must be examined to ensure it is constitutionally correct. When that happens it should be in line with rulings of the European Courts. It would be incorrect to proceed otherwise and it is now accepted that this must be done. There is nothing to fear from a document becoming legally usable that incorporates all current individual rights, including those that may be extended in the future.
(Dublin West): I caution Deputy Quinn against taking a nod from the Taoiseach as a yes.
I wrote it into the record.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach is in a party where a nod is as good as a wink and he might have been winking instead of saying yes.
I thank the Deputy for the advice.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree with Article 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which states that any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic or social origin shall be prohibited? Although the Taoiseach says this State supports that charter, does he agree that while nodding there is some thing else going on when certain agencies of this State routinely discriminate against people on the basis of race and colour, as the intolerable detention of seven Pakistan nationals at Dublin Airport at the weekend, despite having all their papers in order, demonstrated? People of colour routinely experience this type of occurrence when they arrive in this country.
The Deputy should ask a question.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach's support for human rights, as he has outlined, mean that he will insist on them being implemented in this State?
The Taoiseach mentioned the discussions in the Middle East. Did he publicly condemn at any of the fora at which he spoke and on which he reported today the naked violence of the Israeli state in using deadly live and lead bullets with the most appalling abandon against youngsters throwing stones and the dreadful toll of death and destruction being imposed on people trying to fight for their basic state and national rights? Will he go on the record in that regard?
The Deputy is moving away from the substance of Questions Nos. 1 to 29.
(Dublin West): I do not think so. I am asking the Taoiseach to report on certain positions he has taken.
As regards the first question, all our people worked extremely hard on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and related issues. The issues the Deputy referred to are already covered under the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and in our own laws.
The answer is "yes" to the second question. A number of questions on the Middle East have been tabled to the Minister for Foreign Affairs today. We have taken every opportunity in recent months to support the difficulties with which President Arafat has had to contend. We urge both sides to resume the process and to adhere to the principles of Camp David, which the international community believes is the only way to achieve success out of the horrific events of the past two months.
Does the Taoiseach accept that Ireland's fundamental philosophy up to and including the Nice summit should be that the well defined balance between big and small member states within the Union must be safeguarded? I want to focus on the reweighting of the votes in the Council. Does the Taoiseach accept that any fundamental amendment to this balance is clearly designed to permanently shift the balance in favour of the large member states and prevent the small member states from holding the balance of power which they currently have? Does he accept that what is at stake in relation to reweighting is Ireland's ability to combine with other states to veto legislation where necessary? Does he also accept that if we agree to reweighting on the Council, which makes the decisions in the European Union, it will be next to impossible for small member states, like ourselves, to hold the balance of power as we have in the past?
We might win the Commissioner and lose on the weighted voting.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with Article 52 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which states that any or all freedoms may be limited or suspended in the name of the general interest of the Union? Does he see that as an enormous weakness, regardless of whether it is a political or a legal document?
Who will be responsible for deciding whether these rights, regardless of their effectiveness in the first instance, should be suspended?
Does the Taoiseach envisage any incremental or other change in the role of the Secretary General, Javier Solana – who is also Secretary General of the Western European Union and "Mr. CFSP"– or his successors? What will happen to the Western European Union in the context of institutional changes which may take place?
In all of the discussions we have had, we have been careful to ensure that there will be a balanced reweighting, which is not a stand alone issue, that will compensate the larger member states for giving up their right to a second commissioner and also that there will be an element of flexibility involved. The larger countries have been asked to relinquish their right to a second commissioner—
But they could still win a vote if the balance of the reweighting was on their side.
Yes, but losing a second commissioner is a major concession and there must be an element of quid pro quo. In addition, the reweighting must be balanced and, in that context, we are winning our battle. Ireland takes a tougher line on this than most of the smaller countries, the majority of whom do not become overly excited about—
The Taoiseach should be as tough as he has to be.
—QMV or reweighting. There must be a balance and we must be willing to make concessions. Let us be frank, if there was no reweighting or QMV there would have been no movement at all on the commissioner issue.
Deputy Sargent inquired if Article 57 is weak. He should remember that these articles take from what is already in existence; they are a reflection of the rights on offer through the various mechanisms. At this stage, there is no attempt to rewrite anything. However, that might change in the future. By and large, the assembling of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will involve taking on board that which already exists – I am not quite sure of the position vis-à-vis the article to which the Deputy referred – and using that as a basis to proceed.
Who is responsible for suspending the right?
At this stage if it is a political document, the European Council will be responsible. If, in time, the other rights develop, it will be the European Court of Justice. This relates to the argument we discussed earlier, namely, whether it becomes a legal base. Many of the groups, particularly the trade union groups, argue that the new court should have the same powers as the European Court of Human Rights so that if a person was fighting for a right it would be extended under the mechanisms on offer through the latter institution. However, that is not the position at present. It is a political document which involved the assembling of what was already in existence. I will consider the article to which the Deputy referred to see if it was taken directly from what already exists.
There is no change in the position of Mr. Solana, nor has his role been enhanced. The Western European Union will continue to have a role in respect of Article 5 or mutual defence issues, which are not going to be included under the institutional framework. Article 5 issues will remain in its institutional shell which will remain outside of the changes on CFSP.