Vol. 533 No. 3
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if, further to his reply to parliamentary questions on 7 March 2001, he will clarify the position concerning the status of the ratification of the Nice Treaty by other European Union countries; and the way in which this impacts on the schedule for Ireland's intended referendum on this issue. [7791/01]
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans he has for official trips abroad between now and July 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8723/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I am happy to clarify the thrust of my comments during supplementary questioning on 7 March in relation to ratification of the Nice Treaty. On that occasion I indicated that there was a broad level of support for the Nice Treaty in every member state of the European Union, as indicated both in parliamentary debates and in the media. The ratification processes in other member states have begun in a number of Parliaments across the Union. I gather there is little likelihood that serious obstacles to ratification will arise. While it is not possible to be certain about the exact timetable, I understand it is expected that most member states will be in a position to ratify the treaty later this year.
Even in Denmark, where it has been felt legally necessary to hold referendums on previous intergovernmental conferences, there will not be a referendum on this occasion as it has been concluded that the Treaty of Nice does not involve any extension of the EU's competences. I understand Danish parties which previously campaigned against EU treaties support the Nice Treaty.
The Government has decided, on the basis of the Attorney General's advice, that a referendum is required to allow Ireland to ratify the treaty. It is our intention to hold this referendum on 31 May, subject to the development of the foot and mouth problem, and we intend later this week to publish a Bill containing the wording of a constitutional amendment. The White Paper on the Treaty of Nice will be published tomorrow.
I am glad the public will have a chance to vote on the Treaty of Nice, which, as I have often said, is intended to prepare the EU for enlargement. I have no doubt that people will express their support for enlargement. This is the right thing to do, as well as being to Ireland's practical benefit. I also have no doubt that people continue to recognise that our active membership of the EU has been, and remains, vitally important in our development as a country. While debate is welcome and important, I have yet to see any well-informed or realistic arguments put forward against the ratification of the Nice Treaty. I am disappointed by the narrow and selfish tone adopted by numerous opponents of the treaty, which is at odds with what their counterparts elsewhere are saying.
In relation to my plans for official visits abroad between now and the end of July, I will attend the Gothenburg European Council on 15 and 16 June and will go on an official visit to Iceland on 25 June. I also plan to go to Brazil and Argentina on an official visit from 17 to 26 July. While detailed arrangements have yet to be finalised, it is envisaged that in addition to meetings at political level, I will have a series of business meetings to discuss trade and investment opportunities for companies. I have accepted an invitation to pay an official visit to Scotland. The dates have not yet been finalised but it is expected the visit may take place in June.
I am not surprised at the Taoiseach's reply given that the Nice Treaty is a Government negotiated document. Does the Taoiseach recollect that on 7 March he gave a clear impression that most of the other EU states had already completed their approval of the Nice Treaty and that Ireland being the only EU state allowing its citizens a referendum was holding the process up? In response to my question to him, does he recall saying he did not see how anyone could say we were dealing with it in haste when most parliaments had finished with the matter? Does he not agree now that this is clearly not the case? No EU state according to the information I have received from the Commission has approved of the Nice Treaty and yet the Taoiseach says they have. Does he not agree that that was misleading this House and that on 7 March the ink was barely dry on the signatures and it would have been impossible for other states to have disposed of the matter?
The final version of the Treaty was not signed and the linguistic versions were not signed. In theory they have not yet ratified it. However, most parliaments, including the European Parliament – President Fontaine gave a report to the European Council the other day – have had a long debate on it and it has gone through the committee system and they have come out strongly in support of it. Most parliaments have European affairs committees as we do here and it is correct to say that although the formal ratification process has not taken place they have discussed, debated and had their committee structures on the Nice Treaty. They have declared that they are not having referenda and that they support it. Technically the Deputy is correct but the reality is that the only people across Europe who have issued a word against it are the Tory euro sceptics.
I am glad the Taoiseach cedes a technical point. I am sure, he does not wish to be interpreted as misleading the Dáil. Given the debate he mentioned that has already taken place in other countries and that we have not had extensive debate so far, does he not agree there is no mad rush on the timing of the Nice referendum? The general public need to absorb the many issues raised by Nice. Given that and the complications of adding three more non-related issues in referenda on the day, as proposed, would he not consider, particularly with the foot and mouth crisis, that the referendum might be better postponed until the autumn?
We will have to wait to see how that develops. That might be the case. I do not rule it out but will continue to take advice from the expert group. The expert group is very close to giving its final views on the census. It looks almost certain now that the census will not take place. All those matters will have to be taken into account. I would not agree with the Deputy on the issues of the debate. I was asked by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties pre Nice that as well as having a debate in the House we should ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to go before the various committees, something which had not been done previously, and he did that both prior and after Nice. I have agreed to a debate in the House, at the request of the whips. There has been some discussion about having a meeting of the constitutional committee if that is considered necessary. The matter will be well and truly debated. The formal ratification process in a number of member states' parliaments will be just that. It will be a formal ratification process following the debates that have already taken place.
There is a strong view that there has been little discussion among the general public on the contents of the Nice Treaty. Will the Taoiseach accept, on foot of the statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, that a period of 30 days should elapse after the final UK case before we have the all-clear here and that it would be insensitive to embark on a national campaign until that date is arrived at? Will he further accept that confusion on this matter serves no good? Will he also accept that four separate issues, three of which are virtually unexplained even to Members at this stage, are being taken and that a matter of weeks is not sufficient to allow an informed debate on matters of the importance that are expected to be accepted and voted on by the people at the end of May?
I have said what I have said about the foot and mouth disease. We will have to be guarded so no useful purpose can be served by saying any more other than that it will be kept under review.
The confusion about it and the timing is not helpful—
It will be on 31 May unless it is decided not to have it on that date.
When will the Taoiseach decide?
If it is not on 31 May, the date we have already decided on a number of weeks ago, it will be on a date after 31 May. I do not think there is any confusion about that.
Of course there is confusion.
What is the confusion?
The confusion is that we need a platform explaining these matters to the public. This is not a matter for an in-House debate here. This is a constitutional amendment that will finally be settled—
The original Cabinet briefing did not say that.
It did—
No, it did not. The Deputy's party leader asked, even if the Attorney General stated that we did not strictly need a constitutional referendum, as other countries have indicated, based on constitutional grounds that it was not seen as an extension of the treaty, that we should have a referendum anyway, which would have been a plebiscite. I answered in the positive but time has moved on and we got the final text and the linguistic text. When the Attorney General had his first opportunity to examine it he said we were required to have a legal constitutional referendum.
Will it be a constitutional amendment or will it be—
It will be a constitutional amendment based on exactly the same format as Amsterdam, as the same council advised on it. The structure which all parties agreed on at Amsterdam is exactly the same model. We went through that position before. I do not believe the issues are complicated; in fact, they were highlighted at the end of Amsterdam and are not new issues. I would accept that the public, up and down the country, have not been debating them every night but it will not be hard to explain them. They are institutional changes for the requirements of enlargement. There are four or five points we will have to explain, for example, qualified majority voting and enhanced co-operation – a new issue introduced by the Lisbon Summit. I was asked by the Fine Gael Party to give a commitment that I would not have a referendum on the abortion issue with the other issues and that I should keep these issues together. I did that, and that was a fair argument. The public will not be confused as to whether it is for or against hanging. They will not be against the international convention about which I have been questioned. I have been ridiculed in this House by Deputy O'Keeffe who rightly asserts that we should have had it ratified last year, as there is general agreement on it. The House has debated at length the issue of lay involvement in the judicial process. If someone does not try to create mischief, there will not be any confusion. People will be in favour in the referenda here, and we will be able to explain the issues.
Will the Taoiseach outline the legislative programme for the referenda, starting with the publication of the White Paper on Tuesday? Will the Government introduce two Bills or a series of Bills? What will be the debating schedule for the passage of the Bills?
Has the Taoiseach overcome the constitutional issue which cast doubt on whether we can pass the Bills and then defer the referenda indefinitely or whether they have to be taken within the period set out in the constitution?
In linking the date of the referenda to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, does the Taoiseach agree that the crucial issue is not the day on which voting takes place, whether 31 May or otherwise, but it is the campaign which might lead to a risk of the spread of the disease? Since the campaign will officially commence on the day the legislation is passed, is it not mandatory for the expert group to advise us within the next ten days of whether the referenda can go ahead? Does the Taoiseach agree that the campaign starts once the legislation is passed in the manner indicated by him to the Whips? Does he agree that the campaign and not the polling day is the issue?
The Deputy's questions are reasonable. The White Paper will be published tomorrow and the legislation will be published the following day. The legislation will take the form of the wording used in the poll on the Amsterdam Treaty. The legislation on these referenda will be taken between now and Easter.
The issue is not so much the passing of the legislation but the enactment of the order. The referenda will have to take place within 90 days of the order being enacted. There will be a good deal of flexibility. However, the Government will listen to the advice of the experts.
Yesterday the experts indicated their views on the census. The Government was anxious that the census be held but the arguments for and against have been put. Unless there is some change the census will have to be put back by one year. It cannot be taken at another time because of the comparative nature of the findings.
The time limit only applies from the date on which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government signs the order. I accept the Deputy's point regarding the campaign and that is the issue which has to be taken into account.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the campaign commences as soon as the Minister for the Environment and Local Government signs the order? It is not a question of focusing on whether there is a case of foot and mouth disease on or around 31 May but on whether there is a case of the disease in Ireland or the UK in the last week in April. Does the Taoiseach agree that the time for a decision is upon us?
No, the matter is not that simple. When the legislation is passed the Minister for the Environment and Local Government then signs the order. However, he does not have to sign the order immediately. Polling must take place within 90 days of the signing of the order. However, the Minister does not have to sign the order after the legislative process has been completed in the Houses. If there is still a difficulty when we finish our work we can decide on the date. If we are still in the same position we will do that. We have put a number of these issues to the expert group and it is the best way of doing it. We will take stock of the situation at the Easter break and decide what to do. I accept that we have to watch what is happening in the United Kingdom.
(Dublin West): In a previous statement the Taoiseach took advantage of a clarification to launch a blanket attack on people who are opposed to the ratification of the Nice Treaty. Which opponents of the treaty is the Taoiseach referring to as being narrow and selfish in their approach? Does he recognise that opponents of the treaty have rational arguments? I appreciate the Taoiseach is tied into a Europe that is dominated by big multinational corporations.
A question please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach is now tied into the position of the big powers, which is to create a huge economic unit with a military wing. Is the Taoiseach aware that there is an alternative which involves a coming together of the peoples of Europe and planning their future in the interests of the majority, the environment and people's well being rather than in super profits of the major corporations that dominate the EU at present, and the interests of the armaments industry that are lurking on the sidelines waiting to foist their trade upon an enlarged Europe? The Taoiseach should recognise that legitimate arguments can be discussed in the course of a debate rather than making a simplistic denunciation, as he has done here today.
Since there are only nine weeks remaining until the end of May, will the Taoiseach name a date – which, I presume, will have to be towards the end of April – by which a final decision will be made with regard to whether there will be a referendum on 31 May? This would allow for a rational and comprehensive debate on the Nice Treaty, which might disabuse the Taoiseach of some of his erroneous opinions about people, such as those in the Socialist Party, who are opposed to the treaty but who are interNationalists, not narrow Nationalists as he is attempting to portray them.
We will have to make that decision around Eastertime, and we will do so. The purpose of the Nice Treaty is to make the necessary changes to prepare the European Union for enlargement. It does so by ensuring that a Union of 27 members will be in a position to operate effectively while, at the same time, making sure that the essential safeguards for smaller countries remain in place, as they have done since 1956. As a country that continues to benefit greatly from Community membership, it is in our interests that the Union can operate and take decisions, even with a larger membership. We had many debates on this issue in the House last year, including how the new system will operate and how we can protect our position. Ireland is well placed to take advantage of the benefits offered by an enlarged Union. The Single Market will expand to over 500 million people and the opportunities for exporters, and people generally, are obvious. Irish companies have already demonstrated this and have moved into countries, such as Poland, which provide excellent investment opportunities through growing markets.
The Government's view, and that of many others also, is that the decisions taken at Nice fully protect our essential interests. First, we achieved our priority objective whereby all decisions on taxation will continue to be made on the basis of unanimity. Second, a balanced outcome was achieved on the European Commission whereby, starting with the next Commission, the five biggest member states will give up their right to nominate a second Commissioner. There will be one Commissioner per member state, so I do not accept what Deputy Higgins said about the super powers being in a dominant position. I have almost 14 years' experience of attending European Councils and I never felt that at any time. I am sure that others who have represented Ireland at Council of Ministers' meetings over the years since 1972 have not experienced that either. I do not know from where the Deputy obtained the notion that a number of superpowers are lurking under the table or outside the window. Quite frankly, I believe he imagined it.
When the number of member states reaches 27 – this could take a decade or more to happen – a rotation system will be introduced. An important achievement in Nice was that this system will operate on the basis of strict equality. The reason for this was that some countries believed that if we were to wait to expand the number of member states to 27 at some time in the distant future, the concession on strict equality might no longer apply. Everyone was satisfied that we can operate a large Commission involving 27 countries. I have stated on many occasions in the House that I could not see how we could administer the Commission if there were 30 countries involved and if changes were not made. We argued our position at Nice and obtained a satisfactory agreement.
Under the new system, an Irish commissioner will serve in exactly the same way as a French or German when the number of member states reaches 27. As part of the deal for surrendering their right to a second commissioner, the voting weight of larger states has been increased. Ireland's voting weight will be only marginally affected and, as previously, will remain the same as that of Finland and Denmark. It is also important to note that most decisions of the Commission are taken by consensus. In practice, it is rare that there is a large state-small state division on an issue.
Many other arguments have been put forward. What I referred to earlier were some of the arguments put forward. For example, it has been stated that we should oppose enhanced co-operation because it might mean a two-tier Europe might be created merely because two countries might want to take action on an issue in respect of which they have reached agreement. I do not believe that argument stands up to scrutiny. In his meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, Franz Fischler has argued the benefits of this for small countries and I agree with his assertions in that regard.
I am not opposed to the debate on this matter; I welcome it. I am sure the Deputy does not oppose my emphasising the positive aspects of it. On each occasion we have debated Europe, whether in respect of our entry in 1972, the Single European Act in 1987, the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1998 or the Nice Treaty this year, people always seem to want to debate everything that is not contained in the relevant treaties and are concerned about under the table dealings. As soon as the relevant referenda are passed, however, they state that there is no difficulty and that what went before is water under the bridge. These people then use the same erroneous arguments on the next occasion we debate a new treaty. I do not believe their behaviour is either logical or fair; it is merely represen tative of the type of scaremongering with which we have had to contend for the past 30 years.
The Taoiseach will be aware that, as my party's director of elections, I was involved in the campaigns on the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. Does he share my concern that, in light of the forthcoming change in the centre of gravity in Europe following eastern enlargement, the fact that Ireland will become more peripheral while also becoming a net contributor to the EU budget, the advent of enhanced security co-operation, reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy, the fact that Ireland will, in due course, lose its commissioner under the rotation system and that its number of MEPs will decrease, it will be more difficult on this occasion to have the referendum passed? Does the Taoiseach agree it is inappropriate to hold this referendum on the same day as three others? What is the Government's fall-back position if the referendum on the Nice Treaty is defeated?
I am confident the people will vote in favour of the referendum. Like the Deputy, I served as my party's director of elections during a number of referenda campaigns and I know he did a great deal of work during those campaigns. He will recall that people stated the world would end if the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty was passed in Ireland. I was Minister for Finance at that time and remember the dire warnings of what would befall us if we passed the Maastricht Treaty. The reaction to the Amsterdam Treaty was similar. It was suggested that world super powers would force us to join world armies if that treaty was passed.
(Dublin West): It is moving in that direction.
The referendum was passed and Ireland managed to stop these huge armies from attacking us. The arguments were not well debated during the referendum campaigns of 1992 and 1998. It was hard to put the arguments to the public because some people wanted to discuss other issues.
Whether to have a billboard campaign focusing on the word "Yes" was not debated either.
In 1998, the fact that most people were focusing on the simultaneous Good Friday Agreement referendum did not do the vote on the Amsterdam Treaty any harm. On the question of relating the amendments, I said last year that we would deal with some of the issues together and keep other items separate. I gave that pledge during Question Time in the House. There are perhaps ten matters where referenda might be suitable, but only four can be dealt with immediately. Three are straightforward issues and two are referenda where there is total agreement by all parties. There might be some debate on the third, and on the Nice Treaty referendum.
As a representative of an internationalist party committed to the enlargement of the European Union and the deepening of functionality within the EU, I ask whether the Taoiseach agrees that it is an absolute prerequisite that we bring the people with us? Does the Taoiseach agree that we have failed to adequately debate the EU at community level in Ireland? Does the Taoiseach also agree that we have allowed the misinformation which he has mentioned to dominate debate rather than allowing for engagement on the issues that are to be put to the people?
Being aware of the history that the Taoiseach alluded to, does he not accept that it is irresponsible at this juncture in EU history to require this debate to take place against the backdrop of the foot and mouth disease outbreak? Communities, and rural communities in particular, are focused on this issue. Does the Taoiseach agree that rural communities will not thank him for expecting them to engage in such an important debate, which the Taoiseach has conceded is not urgent, at a time when minds are fixed on individual and national economic survival? Does he agree that it is appropriate for this debate to be launched but for the decision to be reserved until the autumn when there can be a clear focus and a proper debate involving all citizens?
I have answered the question but I will do so again. We are asking that the legislative process on this matter be put in place prior to Easter. At that stage the decision will be made whether the Minister for the Environment and Local Government moves the order which would mean a referendum must take place within 90 days. That decision does not have to be made now. We are anxious to get the legislation, the White Paper, and the issues into the public domain. In the absence of that—
The Taoiseach is sticking to the date 31 May.
It is necessary to repeat myself several times. The Government has decided, on the Attorney General's advice, that a referendum is required to allow Ireland to ratify the Nice Treaty. It is our intention to hold this referendum on 31 May 2001, subject to the development of the foot and mouth problem. We intend to publish the Bill containing the constitutional amendment and the White Paper long before any campaign. At the latest, in three or four weeks we will make a decision about the order. That decision will be based on the advice of the expert group and on—
Is there not enough information to make the decision now since the Government has made a decision in relation to the census?
The expert group made its decision yesterday and the Government decided four to five weeks ago that there would be a summer referendum on the matter. There is no urgency about this matter for another three or four weeks. We have to get the legislation through even before the order is prepared, so by the Easter break we will be more clear about it. If there was a campaign it would only be through the month of May but let us get all the information out, including the shortened version of the White Paper, the legislation and the debates here so that we can talk about the real issues. That will be done over the next few weeks.
Has the Taoiseach had any consultation yet with the Referendum Commission? Will he indicate if the Minister for Foreign Affairs sponsoring the referendum has indicated the amount of money he considers would be appropriate for the Government to allocate to the Referendum Commission so that both sides of the argument can be fairly put to the people?
The way this system operates, each of the Ministers sponsoring the referendum have to put forward their figures in terms of the costs that are necessary for the campaign. The Ministers have prepared those figures. They have not yet gone to the commission but I know work is in preparation.
Can the Taoiseach give a ballpark figure?
I could not say because the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for two referendums and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has responsibility for the other two.
First, when we last debated this issue during Taoiseach's Question Time, the Taoiseach indicated that if there was any change in the interpretation of the McKenna judgment, legislation would be brought forth. Can he say whether there is any change? He mentioned earlier that the Amsterdam Treaty model is the one that will be followed. Does that imply there is no change? Second, will the Taoiseach accept that nobody maintained the world would end after the Maastricht or Amsterdam Treaties but that certain controls over our finances would end? Will he accept that is the case? Third, will the Taoiseach agree it is somewhat ironic that while he cites the business opportunities in other countries, the foot and mouth disease crisis is being exacerbated by the difficulty of trying to curtail the spread of the disease which, in many cases, is due to transportation in the agricultural sector? Will he accept there is a need to re-examine whether agricultural produce can be more locally produced, notwithstanding the trends of globalisation?
The Deputy is going off on a tangent.
The irony of it is that the two cases come together on this issue.
The Deputy should put down a separate question.
The Taoiseach mentioned in the last debate that Ireland was more neutral than most other countries. Which countries are more neutral than Ireland, or is there a scale of neutrality about which the Taoiseach would like to tell us more?
In reply to the first question, we had long discussions here between the parties on the last occasion during which we agreed on a model, and we are sticking with that model. There is no change. On neutrality, we are a neutral country and we are not into any scales. Thankfully our position is well understood the world over and in organisations like the UN, the OECD and elsewhere. What was the Deputy's third question?
The irony of transportation being a bonus for Nice when foot and mouth disease is difficult to control due to transportation.
That is a separate question but issues have arisen out of all the animal scares we have had, from swine fever to salmonella to BSE to foot and mouth disease, which relate not only to the movement of cattle but a number of other issues which are being discussed at the Agriculture Council. That is why Europe is setting up a food authority, which Commissioner Byrne is bringing through the European structures, not unlike what we have done here. That is a welcome development.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the people, including myself, who are in favour of enlargement, not just for the sake of additional wealth within Europe but for the sake of peace and stability in an enlarged Europe, are genuinely concerned about the attitude of some of the larger member states regarding the role of smaller states in Europe. Does he agree that if the United States of America can find a way to have two Senators for every state, irrespective of their size, larger states within Europe must recognise that smaller states must be properly represented if we are to have a proper Union? For that reason, does he accept the view expressed by Deputy Gay Mitchell, which I share, that a referendum on such a serious issue, which probably will be the most important referendum we hold on a European issue, should be held on its own, that we should have a proper debate and that people who have genuine fears should be allowed to express them so that we send a message to the larger states that the role of the smaller state must be recognised? Although I will vote "Yes", I would like my voice to be heard by other Europeans that there is a role for the smaller state and that there comes a point where enough is enough. This debate is important. Those of us, including myself, who will vote "Yes" would like to have the opportunity to let that message be known throughout Europe.
As I said both before and after Nice, the Joint Committee on European Affairs had debates on this issue. I understand other debates are planned where people can air their views. I have no doubt people will do that in public debate.
I have been honoured to sit for five years at the European Social Affairs Council and at ECOFIN for more than three years and I have never got the feeling that small states are taken for granted.
Votes are changing at the Council of Ministers.
I am there with people who represent 80 million or 90 million people.
Two Senators from California have the same voting strength as a smaller state.
The Deputy should not interrupt when the Taoiseach is speaking.
Two large countries, France and Germany, went into the Nice negotiations with two Commissioners but they came out of it with none at times.
We could come out with none.
The Deputy should not intervene when the Taoiseach is speaking.
I apologise.
I will explain it to Deputy Barrett.
I have read it.
The big ones come out with none. There will be a period when they will not have a Commissioner. From 1 January 2005 the five countries which have two Commissioners will lose a Commissioner.
They are the locomotive of the European Council.
They will have only one Commissioner. When we reach 27 some time after that, it will be done on a strict rotation and they will not have any.
That has not been decided.
It has been decided. I know the Deputy is highly intelligent and a decent person, but he has got this one wrong.
The Taoiseach should not patronise him.
The period will come when France will not have a Commissioner and Ireland will have one on the basis of strict rotation.
When the decision is taken.
That is what will happen.
We cannot conduct Question Time on the basis of interruptions.
That is the wrong emphasis.
It is not.
Does the Taoiseach agree he has put the emphasis on each member state having a Commissioner, but the fact is that the larger member states are the locomotive of the European Council?
I was answering a question by Deputy Barrett.
I am asking the Taoiseach another question. They can set the agenda through that procedure. The only influence we can have – I know we have someone at the European Council – is to have a Commissioner who is equal with all the other Commissioners. It is like what Deputy Barrett said in that in the United States there are two Senators from Alaska and two from California.
A question please, Deputy.
What is the problem with having one Commissioner from each member state? As the Union expands, we will become more peripheral. We should not give way on such issues.
The Deputy was the director of elections during a campaign on the Amsterdam Treaty and I am sure he recalls that small countries were against the idea of getting a Minister and Minister of State, a Minister and parliamentary secretary or a Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. We also did not want a situation where 30 countries had one each and 30 people had to operate efficiently and effectively in the Community.
Why not?
That would not have worked. It would be like having 42 Ministers, which would be one from every constituency. The Deputy knows what would happen.
The Taoiseach should not give in so easily
The small countries did not want that arrangement. They did not want it in Amsterdam and they did not want it this time either. What we wanted to ensure was that on strict rotation, small countries would not lose out to larger ones.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We now come to questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Public Enterprise.
