Vol. 526 No. 6
54 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his expectations on the contents of the package on institutional reform of the EU to be agreed at the Nice Summit in early December 2000; and the main outstanding issues which remain to be resolved. [27466/00]
55 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that in the run up to the intergovernmental conference Ireland has clearly and fully established the necessity for the European Union to recommit itself to the fundamental principles and the vision of Europe's founding fathers, with particular reference to fair representation within the Union for smaller states and applicant countries and Ireland's continued commitment to the social, economic and political co-operation and integration within the Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27813/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 55 together.
At last month's informal meeting of the European Council in Biarritz, the Heads of State and Government reviewed developments in the intergovernmental conference, and restated their determination to reach agreement at the Nice European Council, which will take place from 7 to 9 December. Intensive discussions have taken place at ministerial and official level in recent weeks, and over the coming weekend I will participate in the final Ministerial Conclave and General Affairs Council discussion prior to the Nice European Council.
As Deputies will be aware, the major areas under discussion are the composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting, and revised arrangements in the area of closer co-operation. While considerable progress has been made in relation to QMV and closer co-operation, there are, as might be expected, significant differences with regard to the Commission and reweighting which can only be resolved at Nice itself.
With regard to the Commission, we, with other small and medium sized states, continue to maintain our position of one commissioner per member state while the larger states generally support imposing a ceiling on the size of the Commission. We have argued that the democratic legitimacy of the Union is greatly strengthened by one commissioner per member state and that it is particularly important that the newly admitted member states should, from the outset, have the opportunity, through participation in the Commission, to gain experience of all aspects of the Union's work. We continue to support proposals for strengthening the role of the President of the Commission, to ensure the post operates as effectively as possible.
The discussions on the reweighting of votes in the Council are also proving difficult. While indicating a preference for the dual majority model, we have stated our willingness to consider a range of options, provided they do not unduly distort existing balances. In this regard, we are prepared to give effect to the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which provides that additional weighting may be given to those member states which forego the right to nominate a second commissioner.
Concerning QMV, we have indicated that we are prepared to move to majority voting on a substantial number of articles while retaining unanimity for sensitive areas such as taxation. Other issues which remain under discussion, but where we have taken a generally positive position, subject to agreement on final texts, include the common commercial policy, justice and home affairs, human rights monitoring and arrangements in respect of migrant workers.
Considerable progress has been made in revising the procedures in place with regard to closer co-operation. Discussions are continuing with respect to the second pillar, where we are concerned to ensure that we proceed in a manner which maintains the coherence of the Union's policies.
We remain committed to securing a balanced outcome at Nice which will allow an enlarged Union to function effectively while maintaining essential institutional balances, including those between large and small member states. We believe that an agreement is attainable which will serve both our interests and those of an enlarged Union.
I thank the Minister for his reply although I am not at all clear on the possible shape of what will emerge from Nice. Perhaps the Minister is not clear on this either and must await the outcome of further negotiations. Does he accept that with all the emphasis, particularly from a PR point of view, on retaining a commissioner per member state which will happen in some shape or form, there is a great danger that we will find ourselves having a far more modest voice at the Council of Ministers? Does he further accept that the issue of the reweighting of votes is not being sufficiently emphasised and that there is a danger that Ireland's position and that of other small member states will be substantially modified? Is the Minister aware of this danger and does he realise that any change made in this regard would essentially be a permanent one which would considerably diminish our ability to secure a qualified majority or to be part of a blocking minority?
A number of assumptions must be made if one puts the case the Deputy has advanced. If one actually analyses the pursuit of Irish interests at European level, the idea that there are ten small states which are united on all issues in opposition to five large states united on all issues does not reflect the reality of the position. In fact, it is difficult to find any issue on which the five large states are agreed. This reality has been lost in the negotiations because those states with two commissioners are pushing very hard for the reweighting of votes, be it the Italians who are seeking a substantial reweighting or other states which are adopting a more realistic approach. I do not believe that reweighting would result in the diminution of the Irish voice at the table, presuming we can arrive at a modest reweighting proposal which would meet with everyone's agreement.
Our allies in many of these discussions are not limited to other small states and it is not true that all small states and all large states have the same interests. On a number of issues of fundamental importance, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the position of large states is very much in line with ours. In the technicalities of the discussions, there is a failure to realise that this is not a case of ten small states versus five large states. As a result of the five large states having a more coherent voice in terms of their requirements in the event of losing a commissioner under the protocol, there is perhaps a feeling that the ten smaller states are not as coherent an opposition as they might be. One of the reasons for this is that in regard to pursuing essential policy interests at European level, not all of our interests are aligned with those of similarly sized states. We must superimpose a political judgment on the technicalities of the envisaged rearrangements for a more effective decision making body in an enlarged Union.
It is wrong to assume that the one commissioner per member state has been conceded; it certainly has not. President Chirac's summation of the debate at Biarritz – which albeit an informal Council meeting was a good indicator of the level of outstanding differences – set out the position that there would be at least one commissioner per member state, the detail of which has yet to be finalised, or that states would retain their second commissioner, leaving open the possibility that agreement will not be achieved on this if a common position is not arrived at.
The large states make the point that their voice has diminished in the enlarging Union and they want this issue to be addressed in the context of the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, the interpretation of which is also a source of disagreement. It is not the case that the single commissioner per member state is a PR issue which has been conceded because this issue is totally inter-linked, as far as the five large states are concerned, with whatever reweighting proposals emerge. The idea that all of our interests are aligned with the other nine small states against the big five is not the political reality.
I wish to support the Minister's efforts and want Ireland to obtain the best possible deal. I accept that the single commissioner per member state has not been conceded but I believe there will not be any agreement whatsoever unless that happens. I am concerned that there might be some ambiguous time scale attaching to the proposals to the effect that there will not be any assurance in regard to a single commissioner per member state after 2010. Decision making power ultimately lies at Council level and if we were to opt for the reweighting of votes, we would effectively suffer a permanent diminution of our strength. I am concerned that sufficient emphasis has not been placed on this matter.
When Nice concludes the question of a referendum will remain to be addressed. Article 29 of the Constitution allows us to take any measures necessitated by our membership of the EU. If changes are made in regard to reweighting or an increase in qualified majority voting, does the Minister believe it will be necessary to hold a referendum? If a referendum will be required, the Government should surely be doing more to publicise the issues involved in order that the public, which will ultimately vote on them, would be aware of their content.
The decision of whether to hold a referendum will be made following receipt of the Attorney General's considered legal opinion when the treaty text becomes available. We have only seen drafts of the text in recent weeks. The major difference between these negotiations and the Amsterdam negotiations is that draft treaty texts of the latter were available six months prior to decisions being made. This is a prediction game but when we see what emerges from Nice, subject to attaining agreement there and obtaining considered legal opinion on the treaty texts, the Government will decide whether a referendum will be required. My position is that we should seek the best possible deal for Ireland and if that requires holding a referendum, we will have one.
I accept the point that a referendum in the context of this ICG will be very different from previous referendums in that financial arrangements or transfer of competencies are not envisaged. We are talking about how to get a more effective decision making process in the Commission and in the Council in terms of voting procedures, including deciding the areas which will require unanimity and qualified majority voting. It is linked with the logistics of how the EU will move forward in terms of an historic enlargement phase and how it can continue to operate effectively. I therefore suggest that Government and those who support the process will have to indicate to the electorate the importance of supporting these changes should a referendum be required on the basis that the process of EU integration is in Ireland's interests and that it is important for the second most open economy in the world which lives by its exports to build a Single Market of 500 million people. We will propose that people vote, for what appears a pretty dry text, on general economic and social grounds, in the absence of being able to show a financial improvement in the Irish position, as was evident from the Edinburgh Summit.
