Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 4

European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 24 and 25 October together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. The Minister of State with special responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, was also a member of the delegation. The European Council marked a major watershed in the enlargement process. In particular, the agreement on the financial aspects of enlargement was a major achievement and a most satisfactory one from Ireland's point of view. The meeting was the first European Council meeting to be conducted according to the shorter and more focused format agreed at the Seville European Council. Copies of the Presidency Conclusions have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The positive outcome to our referendum on 19 October laid the basis for achieving a successful outcome to the meeting. The Irish people stretched out the hand of welcome and friendship to the peoples of the accession countries. By doing so, we removed the last major obstacle on the path to enlargement.

In Brussels, we decided that ten candidate countries close to concluding their negotiations will be able to become members of the European Union in 2004. These countries are: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. As Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union from 1 January 2004, the honour of welcoming the new member states will fall to us. The dynamic created by the successful outcome of our referendum on Nice should not be under estimated. The resounding and positive welcome by the Irish people to the people of the candidate countries was enormously significant. This sense of historic opportunity was shared, not only by the members of the European Council, but by the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, who addressed the members of the European Council on this issue.

I am also happy that, as a result of the positive outcome to our referendum, Ireland's place at the heart of Europe, where we belong, has been secured. I took the opportunity to thank the members of the European Council, including the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, for their positive response to the referendum outcome. I thanked them also for the support they had shown to Ireland, in particular the adoption of the declarations agreed in Seville last June. While much work is required to be done to conclude the negotiations at the European Council in Copenhagen in December, the key elements of the European Union's approach to the enlargement negotiations, including the financial aspects, were agreed. The Financial Perspective for the period 2000 to 2006, which was agreed at the Berlin European Council in March 1999, included a provision for the application of the Common Agricultural Policy, with the exception of direct payments, to six new member states.

The Commission's recent proposal that direct payments should be gradually extended to the ten candidate countries considered ready to join the Union in 2004, required a new decision from the European Council on the agricultural aspects of enlargement, at least for the period 2004 to 2006.

The Commission proposed that direct payments should apply incrementally to the new member states, with the first increment of 25% of the level applicable in the Union of 15 to apply in 2004, followed by three increments of 5% in the next three years, and, from 2008, by annual increments of 10%, reaching 100% in 2013. The European Council accepted the Commission's proposals. Direct payments are made a year in arrears and consequently the budgetary impact of, for example, paying 100% direct payments to the new member states in respect of 2013 will not be felt until 2014. The cost of this proposal is estimated by the Commission at €1.3 billion in 2005 rising to €4.7 billion in 2013.

The Brussels European Council decided that the total annual outlay on market-related expenditure and direct payments should not exceed the amount in real terms of the ceiling set for these expenditures for the Union of 15 for 2006 by the Berlin European Council, plus the amount of these expenditures for the ten new member states in 2006 as estimated by the Commission. These two amounts, €42.8 billion and €2.5 billion respectively, constitute the baseline for future years. The European Council decided that expenditure in nominal terms over the years 2007 to 2013 should be kept within this baseline, increased by 1% a year. These decisions relate to a Union of 25. A separate decision about funding for Bulgaria and Romania will have to be made prior to their accession which is at present targeted for 2007.

The annual 1% increase in the budget over the 2006 baseline provides funding of €48.6 billion in 2013. The cost of market-related expenditure and direct payments in the new member states in 2013 is estimated by the Commission at €5.5 billion. That leaves a balance of €43.1 billion for the existing Union which compares favourably with current levels of expenditure of between €40 billion and €41 billion. These decisions of the European Council are stated to be without prejudice to future decisions on the Common Agriculture Policy and the financing of the European Union after 2006; any result following the implementation of the reviews of the Agenda 2000 agreement provided for by the Berlin European Council; and the international commitments which the Union has undertaken, inter alia, in launching the Doha round of WTO negotiations.

While the Brussels agreement is, as I stated, without prejudice to the outcome of the mid-term review of Agenda 2000, there is now little likelihood that a qualified majority can be obtained for any significant change in Common Agricultural Policy until 2007. A further positive feature of the Brussels agreement is that no upper limits have been placed after 2006 on rural development expenditure which includes agri-environmental programmes such as the rural environment protection scheme, forestry and farmer retirement. The European Council also emphasised that the needs of farmers living in disadvantaged areas should be safeguarded and that multifunctional agriculture should be maintained in all areas of Europe.

In arriving at its conclusions, the European Council strove to balance the need, as perceived particularly by the net contributor member states, to restrain expenditure on agriculture with the need to make a fair offer to the new member states and the need to provide all farmers in the enlarged Union with a reasonable degree of stability. I believe the agreement reached in Brussels meets those needs in a balanced way. Direct payments will be extended to the new member states in a gradual manner which will minimise the distortions which, in many cases, would result from sudden huge increases in income and which will not unduly hinder the widespread structural changes that are necessary. The agreement also provides assurances to the net contributor member states that the extension of the Common Agriculture Policy to a Union of 25 will not place intolerable burdens on their exchequers and, in the process, provides safeguards for the farmers of the existing member states, including Ireland. In so far as can be foreseen, budgetary provision for the Common Agriculture Policy is now in place until 2013 and there is no budgetary reason why direct payments should be reduced during that period. In addition, the absence of a limit on rural development expenditure and the emphasis placed on the importance of rural development amount to a significant commitment by the European Council to protect and enhance the economic and social fabric of Europe's rural areas.

In addition to the issue of enlargement, the Brussels European Council resumed the ongoing discussions on how the European Union can undertake peacekeeping operations, an issue that has been on the agenda of successive European Council meetings. Because the European Union is not a military organisation it requires access to NATO infrastructure, particularly in the Balkans, to carry out its peacekeeping tasks. This will facilitate the European Union playing a central role in response to humanitarian and other crises that may arise. The European Union is considering taking on responsibility for the current peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. This mission provides security to unarmed European Union monitors. These monitors are led by an Irish official. This is fully in line with long-standing European Union decisions and Ireland's position of military neutrality which is fully recognised in the European Council Conclusions. I want to emphasise again that Ireland's participation in any EU humanitarian or crisis management operation will be subject to the three conditions of United Nations authorisation, a Government decision and Dáil approval.

As the Presidency Conclusions show, the European Council strongly condemned the hostage taking in Moscow as an act of terrorism. The European Council also endorsed the approach adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on Kaliningrad. This issue will now be discussed at the EU-Russia Summit later this month. At their separate meetings on the Thursday evening and at lunch time on Friday, the Foreign Ministers discussed a range of foreign policy issues including Iraq and the Middle East.

I had a very constructive bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Simitis of Greece. The Prime Minister outlined the priorities of the incoming Greek Presidency from 1 January next. These priorities include enlargement, with the accession treaty due to be signed in Athens in April. The incoming Greek Presidency also promised to pursue vigorously the European Union's goals and objectives on the wider agenda. Greece will pay particular attention to developing the enlarged European Union's relations with its neighbours.

When I met with Prime Minister Blair in the margins of the European Council meeting in Brussels, we again emphasised our full commitment to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. In the course of our ongoing contacts with the parties, including Sinn Féin, we will be working to ensure that all issues are addressed in a way which will promote confidence and trust and will allow for the restoration of the devolved institutions as soon as possible.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Danish Presidency for the efficient and effective way which in which the European Council meeting was managed. I look forward to the European Council meeting which will be held in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December. There, once again, the main item on the agenda and the major priority will be the enlargement of the European Union with a view to concluding the negotiations with the accession countries. The full agenda for this meeting will be prepared in due course by the General Affairs and External Relations Council. At this stage, it is expected that, in addition to enlargement, we will discuss an initial report by the Presidency on reform of the Council on foot of decisions we took at Seville. The Brussels European Council proved once again that the European Union works. At the Council, Ireland proved once again that it is committed to the European Union and that it is able to further its national interests within the framework of stability, prosperity and peace provided by the Union.

The Brussels Council was extremely important. It has been well recorded that so much progress was made because the Irish people had voted to accept the Nice treaty. This allowed the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, to come to agreement with the French. That agreement then moved into the extended Council securing a very satisfactory agreement on the Common Agriculture Policy until 2013. I do not think anyone believed we would have concluded that agreement at this meeting – many believed that it would have been discussed and dealt with in Copenhagen.

I wish to register my appreciation to Deputy Kenny and his colleagues in Fine Gael, Deputy Rabbitte and his colleagues, the social partners and other groups who campaigned to secure a "Yes" vote. It allowed enormous progress to be made and several months work was dealt with in one fell swoop. I also thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, who did an enormous amount of work in recent months.

Mr. Kenny

I wish to share time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach's last comment is a clear indication of the value of the method of conduct of the Nice treaty campaign here and its outcome. It proves the essential point that Irish politicians, Ministers and Taoisigh negotiating on substantive issues relevant to this country need political allies and that sense of generosity and friendship was generated as a consequence of the ratification of the Nice treaty by Ireland. I attended a meeting of the European People's Party in Lisbon the day before the referendum was held. Prime Ministers from Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Spain and Portugal were in attendance and I pointed out to them that far from being a disgrace in the eyes of Europe as a country that has received €43 billion in supports from the EU, Ireland has become a role model for the development of the Union by bringing the people along with the politicians. It was clear to them that it is fine to sit in ivory towers and make decisions in theory but it is a different matter when a decision is taken to obtain the people's verdict on a treaty as complex or as broad as the Nice treaty.

That was brought home to Prime Minister Berlusconi and others. It should be stressed by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that ratifying a complex treaty such as this requires an information conduit between the political establishment and the people, an understanding of the issues involved by the people and an effort to address their concerns and questions so that a measure of trust and confidence is gained in the political process by them and they make their choice in as fully informed a way as possible.

We always said the treaty would be good for Ireland and while Fine Gael took stick at the beginning of the campaign for making the pragmatic and patriotic choice of defending Ireland rather than backing the Government up politically, we were justified because 500,000 more people voted "Yes" in this referendum. I was proud of the part my party played along with the other pro-treaty parties.

Mr. F. McGrath

Do not forget the 37%.

Mr. Kenny

Europe is on the agenda in our homes, farms, offices, factories, public houses and so on and it would foolish of us to lose that political momentum. The debate on the Nice treaty brought home the issues of enlargement, voting power, commissioners and sovereignty and they have become matters for general discussion.

It is also revealing that a range of issues which were not relevant to the treaty per se became sticking points and obstacles in the ratification process, which brings me to the issue of the Select Committee on Europe Affairs, the chairman of which is sharing time with me. If we are all serious about bringing Europe to the people and shortening the distance between Irish homes and European institutions, that committee must be resourced by Government so it can attempt to explain what will happen in the future.

Prime Minister Berlusconi was adamant that a revision of the Treaty of Rome would take place during the Italian Presidency. While Italy will hold the Presidency shortly, that is his ambition. If that is to happen, the Referendum Commission should operate on a permanent basis as more treaties will come down the line following intergovernmental conferences.

The decision taken on the Common Agricultural Policy could not have been achieved without the generosity and goodwill generated by the people in the referendum. The Select Committee on Europe Affairs in future will call on Ministers and officials to explain decisions, treaties and so on so that they, in turn, can be explained to the people and that is necessary because much of the resentment and confusion surrounding the Nice treaty related to issues that were not relevant to the treaty per se. Referenda will be enduring features of civic and political life in Ireland and the Government could examine the issue of providing the Referendum Commission with a continuous stream of information rather that providing such information on a need to know basis prior to a referendum.

Ireland's status has gained immense moral and political credibility as many of the applicant countries look to us as an EU success story. The deal that was struck at the Brussels Summit means that discussions with applicant countries can be concluded, perhaps in time for the Copenhagen Summit. There is no doubt we are moving into a critical period regarding the future make up of the EU given the differences of opinion that exist regarding a united states of Europe and a Europe of united states. These issues need to be discussed on an ongoing basis. The convention is doing valuable work and it will complete its recommendations by spring 2003. This will be followed by an Intergovernmental Conference and a further treaty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should keep Europe high on the agenda.

With regard to the Taoiseach's meeting with Prime Minister Blair, they should focus on the completion of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The political vacuum that exists cannot continue indefinitely because that is when all the trouble surfaces. I am glad the Taoiseach is reactivating the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation and I hope he keeps in regular contact with the Prime Minister and the pro-Agreement parties. We cannot allow the Agreement to fail and it is preposterous to think that it could. It behoves every pro-Agreement politician to do everything they can to end paramilitarism on all sides and to understand that everybody must share the island together in the future. I will support the Taoiseach in his efforts to re-establish the Assembly so that elections can take place and those who are elected can continue to make decisions in respect of the people they represent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am grateful to my party leader for the opportunity to contribute. The Select Committee on European Affairs has made real progress in terms of bipartisan agreement between the Government and the Opposition but it is important if the democratic deficit is to continue to be addressed that the committee is resourced accordingly. It is difficult for chairpersons of committees because they do not even have minimal resources to call on so that they can provide leadership to their respective committees. I am grateful for the resources that have been made available to the committee thus far and I hope they can be strengthened so that we can do the job we have been asked in a fair and impartial way on behalf of the Oireachtas.

Enlargement is important and is the main issue on the agenda but it is not clear how the Cyprus issue was addressed at the European Council. Cyprus has the right to accede to membership of the Union and it is the hope of the House that that will involve a united Cyprus. I have been involved in European affairs for a considerable time. I was Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs in the rainbow coalition and I was director of elections for the referenda campaigns on the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. I also played a role in the Nice treaty campaign recently. I consider myself to be very much pro-European and I am a former vice-president of the Council of Europe movement.

I am not a Eurosceptic but there are not only two choices facing us. Certain people think the choice facing us is a totally intergovernmental or a totally federal Europe, which is not the case. I do know what the title is for this change but in political science the important building of governance in the EU does not have a precedent and, therefore, does not have a title. I have called it "quasi-federal" but that is not an accurate description.

We should not be forced into bringing about a fully federal Europe because that is the way it is done in other jurisdictions and in the United States. There is a middle way. Some of the proceedings and institutional arrangements must be supranational, while others must remain intergovernmental. We should not try to be simplistic and say we will have a new far reaching federal constitution on which every member state must vote. We have got to the stage we are at incrementally and we will get to where the people of Europe want us to go.

I am pro European integration because 16 million people lost their lives in Europe in the first half of the last century because there was no organisation like the European Union. Not only do we have peace and stability, but we have prosperity of which peace and stability are the pre-requisites, as I constantly remind the House. We do not have to fit a square plug into a round hole. We should design the systems of government we want in Europe. While the full and final report of the Convention on the Future of Europe will be a welcome input to the intergovernmental conference, it should not be any greater than that of the reflection group on the Amsterdam Treaty process of which I had the honour to be the Irish member. We should take it as a working document on which Governments can negotiate and then it should be sent to the member states for ratification. We should not be pushed into a position by anyone. This is not only a concern among people who have misled us about Europe for 30 years. I want an integrated Europe, but all member states must have an input. I do not want a simplistic formula taken off the shelf and put to the people across the Union in a referendum as the basis for a new constitution. That would be a recipe for disaster and could undo the acquis which has brought peace and stability to the European Union to date.

It is central to the interests of large and small member states in the East and in the West that the European Commission is not undermined in any changes. We should be sceptical about any talk of a president of the Council of Ministers whom the Americans could telephone if they wanted to find out about Europe. Anything which overrides the role of the Commission is not in our interest as a member state or in the interest of the Union generally because the Commission is the protector of the treaty and plays an important role. The balance between the institutions of the Union should not be diminished, especially at the expense of the Commission. I hope the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will keep that to the fore.

As regards Iraq, I feel certain it was discussed at lunch, dinner, in private session or in whatever way such sensitive issues are dealt with. I note the comment by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that one cannot be against unilateralism and multilateralism at the same time. During discussions on the European Union some people in the House eulogised the UN and said everything must be done through it. However, when it comes to doing something through the UN, they denigrate it. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. F. McGrath

What about Chechnya?

Mr. G. Mitchell

I start from that position. We have a seat on the Security Council. I will raise this matter again this evening on the Adjournment. As a parliamentarian and as the spokesman for my party on foreign affairs, I want information on what basis our member of the Security Council will make a decision. We should learn from Nice. We must be informed and we must know the basis of any decision we will make at the Security Council. I will return to that issue later this evening. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr. Rabbitte

The outcome of the European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October and the agreement in respect of the financing of enlargement, if it can be called an agreement, is to be welcomed. However, even if the agreement is not quite what it appears to be, it represents a framework agreed by member states which secures the planned enlargement of the Community. In that regard, even if there is still some tweaking to be done, it should be done on the side of the principles of solidarity and generosity as opposed to the principle of parsimony under the name of budgetary discipline.

For well over a decade, EU leaders, commissioners and parliamentarians have talked about a people's Europe, a citizen friendly Community and so on. There has been regular acknowledgement of the gap which has opened up between the Community or the Union and the citizens and the need to tackle that problem. If the Brussels communiqué is anything to go by, we are as far away as ever from the realisation of that ambition of a people friendly Union. The official communiqué released on the conclusion of the Council is notable for its obscurity, opacity and general devotion to making the work of the Council mysterious and impenetrable. What, for example, is meant by the sentence, "The general efforts towards budgetary discipline laid down by the European Council in Berlin should be continued in the period beginning in 2007"? I do not know. What is the citizen to understand by the term "lump-sum, degressive and temporary payments"? I do not know and I do not know if we will all get them.

I do not know what FYROM means. Is it intended to be the first deployment of the rapid reaction force, including Irish personnel, early next year? I am told that FYROM is the acronym for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and an acknowledgement to Greek sensitivities. However, have we properly communicated to our national and Union citizens what we will do in FYROM? What exactly is the PSC – the Political and Security Committee – and what is the EUMC – the European Union Military Committee? How open will be its deliberations? Have we properly and effectively communicated the rationale for these developments to our citizens?

Part of the art of diplomacy – the communiqué is a diplomatic document as well as something that purports to enlighten us about what happened at the Council – is to ensure that fundamentally opposing sides can agree to disagree and represent their disagreement as agreement. Thus, on the agreement reached in respect of funding enlargement and the CAP, President Chirac was reported as emphasising that the CAP is safe until 2006 and that next year's mid-term review is nothing more than going through the motions. Chancellor Schröder in his comments after the summit reportedly looked forward to 2007 and an inevitable fall in farm subsidies from that date. The fundamentally different ambitions of these two leaders in respect of the future of the CAP remain fundamentally different. The French commitment is to maintain a large CAP, while Germany, given that it is the major paymaster, continues to strive for a significant reduction and reorientation of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Taoiseach's view seems to lean more to the French than to the German interpretation.

The assessment of the president of the Party of European Socialists group in the European Parliament is relevant. Enrique Baron welcomed the agreement on enlargement, but also remarked that, "This compromise will be superceded", and that, "Agricultural reform cannot be left until 2006". There are divided views on what the agreement amounts to, when exactly the present CAP will come under the microscope and what that will mean.

The reported Blair-Chirac tiff is another indication of the type of tensions that lie beneath the surface in the great game of EU musical chairs. Such tensions are inevitable. National interests conflict and differing political views and outlooks clash even in a body such as the EU. However, there is a problem, part of which is that there is a fundamental question which is still being avoided by the Council.

Given the conflicting visions of Europe and the European Union, the question is summed up in the words, "Which Europe?". The Commission and the summiteers will argue that this question is being dealt with in another forum, namely, the Convention on the Future of Europe, which, while true to some degree, is most certainly not the case in other respects.

The convention, as I understand it, is not really dealing with the future shape of the Growth and Stability Pact or the Common Agricultural Policy, for example. These are very real issues which affect the lives of everyone in the European Union. At this stage its main focus seems to be on what appears to be a technical and legal exercise, namely, the drawing up of a possible treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. However, such a task is not a mere technical exercise as it goes to the very heart of the question, "Which Europe?".

Whatever one's view of the Common Agricultural Policy, it is beyond argument that it has given the European Union a certain socioeconomic structure and a certain shape and configuration to its countryside, farming and agri-business. The CAP in both its dimensions, the guarantee section and the guidance section, grew out of a certain vision of and for Europe among the founding fathers, the politicians who negotiated and nurtured the development of the project that was to become the European Union. Similarly, this applied to coal and steel and the early development of regional policy. These were major interventions, large scale exercises, in social and economic engineering, which configured and curtailed, controlled and shaped marketplaces and market forces, economic development, reconstruction and social change, all in the name of a certain vision of Europe. This was the Europe Ireland joined in 1973.

There were also in that design real ambitions for citizens which can be summed up in the word "equality", which encompassed equality of treatment in respect of pay and working conditions, equality of opportunity for all citizens, the ambition to raise living standards both generally and for backward regions and so on. Strangely, this vision for society, which was implemented, for example, through the European coal and steel community, the CAP, regional policy and the agenda for a social Europe, was drawn up and implemented originally by a body which purported to be simply an economic organisation, namely, the then European economic community which was essentially concerned with creating a single market as outlined principally in the Treaty of Rome. It was drawn up by democratic politicians, public representatives full of ambition for the project they were directing, rather than bureaucrats, technocrats and lawyers.

Beyond the early developments there were further initiatives, such as the elaboration of the policy of cohesion within the Union and, in the wider global arena, development aid and trade as represented in, for example, the Lomé Convention. Today it is all rather different. Europe is remote from its citizens. The phenomenon of euro-scepticism has grown. There are enormous problems of communication and impenetrable jargon. There is a plethora of acronyms and stultifying summitry and an endless cycle of diplomacy and meetings as well as a distinct sense that "it"– whatever "it" is – is all being done by faceless, anonymous elites and bodies, such as COREPER, about which most citizens know very little.

Mr. Gormley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Rabbitte

Ironically, this all developed as the Union moved away from purportedly being simply an economic organisation to being purportedly something much bigger and broader in scope, that is, a real community and a union. Even the European convention seems remote and removed from everyday life. This is the body currently engaged in drawing up that most fundamental of political documents, as we in this polity are aware, namely, a constitution. We must ensure the convention does not succumb to the same syndrome of "clubiness" and "the lodge" that characterises too much of life in the European Union. I am confident the members of the Party of European Socialists will, for their part, oppose any such tendency.

There is an obvious need for a more general diffusion of information on the work of the convention and greater public debate and argument on the scope and thrust of the draft constitution, such as we had here in the months prior to the Nice treaty referendum. After all, the convention is discussing and debating a constitution, which is a fundamental document. In this regard it is incumbent on all political parties to ensure citizens are informed about and engage with what is an enormous project, the possible establishment of a real, new political entity in the world. I suggest that the preliminary draft be the subject of parliamentary debate at an early date in both Houses. The Labour Party will seek such a debate.

Part of the problem is that the early tasks of the then EEC, the rationalisation and management of change in the hugely important coal and steel industries, the development of the Common Agricultural Policy in the context of the then enormous importance of agriculture, the evolution of a regional policy and so forth, were actions which had a major impact on people's lives throughout the Union. The mythical standardisation of the "euro-sausage" does not quite have the same resonance.

Part of the problem is that, as the European Union has grown and expanded its competencies, scope and membership, it has necessarily become more complex. While this should not have meant increased remoteness, somehow it has meant precisely that. Democratic development and accountability have been the poor relations of the European project. What exactly is a body which is governed by four separate elements, comprising more than 1,000 articles, none of which has been consolidated, as well as a forest of protocols and consisting of two different entities, the European Community and the European Union? Whatever it is, it does not readily and easily come within the scope of citizens' comprehension.

It is also problematic that the European agenda has changed, as have the forces which dominate the Union. Somehow, this all seems to have happened surreptitiously and principally to the benefit of technocrats and elites. At least that is, with some justification, the widespread perception. I will cite just two examples. With the adoption of the 1992 project, the Single Market, big business achieved a level of influence with the organs of the Union it did not have heretofore. The Union and the Commission were seen to have become even more concerned with the interests of business as opposed to citizens and consumers.

Then we had the single currency project. Even after exchange rates had been locked in and national currencies reduced to no more than local shadows for the euro, banks were allowed to continue charging foreign currency commissions. With a version of the single currency actually adopted, bankers achieved an increase in their power that one must question from the point of view of accountability. It is particularly evident in the structure of the European Central Bank. While I accept it is critically important that the ECB is independent, is it necessary that it be entirely unaccountable? Not even the "Fed" in the United States is so removed from political accountability as is the ECB. Mr. Greenspan must regularly turn up on Capitol Hill to face and field questions from elected public representatives at congressional committees.

The ideology of Europe has also changed. Gone is the vision and the agendas of the politicians who pioneered the project and people like Jacques Delors in terms of social purpose and ambition. Everything now is about the market, market forces, competition and the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment. The European Court of Justice, an increasingly important force in the life of the European Union, remains a mysterious body. The Commission is a black box, the Council appears to be a gigantic photo opportunity and post-Council communiqués remain impenetrable. All this must change in the direction outlined in the document entitled Priorities for Europe published last October by the Party of European Socialists, of which Labour is a member in the European Parliament.

The communiqué is notable for the consideration given to military matters, which encompass the European Union's clear intent to develop an autonomous military capability as well as relations with NATO. Referred to in the communiqué as ESDP, it is yet another acronym which stands for European Security and Defence Policy. The communiqué again reports a breakthrough, essentially in respect of relations between Greece and Turkey, as a result of which the European Rapid Reaction Force can proceed. We have the solemn Seville declaration on our neutrality and the terms of the recent constitutional amendment regarding Nice included, at the request of the Labour Party, a specific constitutional guarantee that Ireland will not join in any common European defence without the express consent of the people through a further referendum.

Furthermore, the military capability of the Union is being cast through the framework of the Petersberg Tasks of peacekeeping, peacemaking and crisis management within Europe. We must ask if we have properly explained to citizens what is being developed and why. One reading of annex 2 to the presidency conclusions suggests that the autonomous military capability being developed by the Union, in respect of which we need to have further debate, seems capable of becoming closely connected with NATO. As the communiqué annex states, all of what is described is "as provided for in the Nice arrangements". The development of a Rapid Reaction Force is, within the context of the Petersberg Tasks, included in the Maastricht treaty and the EU's autonomous military capability is being developed within a framework of European security, crisis management, humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping and peacemaking.

Mr. J. Higgins

I wish to share time with Deputies Gormley and Ó Caoláin.

The recent meeting of EU leaders in Brussels was devoted to sketching out the future direction of the Union and it is clear from what they envisage that the future will not be one created primarily in the interests of ordinary working people. The future is being sketched out in the context of an economic policy dictated by the powerful lobby groups such as the European round table of industrialists, the liberalisation of trade in services groups and others representing major multinational corporations. It is an economic policy agreed and supported by the Government which envisages the destruction through privatisation of publicly owned services and industry, a policy being implemented on a weekly basis by this right-wing Administration of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. We have seen the very beginnings of the outline of the two-tier Europe we warned about in the course of the debate on the Nice treaty. It is clear that post-Nice, France and Germany are determined they will decide the direction of events and the fact that it will be 2014 before the applicant states are at the same level of agricultural payments as existing ones shows clearly how they are being treated. In the meantime, their small farming communities will be at the tender mercy of the major agri-business corporations operating from the existing EU states.

The most sinister developments arising from the EU Council meeting are in the area of militarisation and they fully vindicate our view in the course of the debate on the Nice treaty that nothing less than the full militarisation of the EU is being planned. Fully vindicated also was our criticism of the narrow scope of the Seville declaration which the Government pretended was a declaration of neutrality. We know now that the European Union foreign policy representative, Javier Solana, has been delegated by EU leaders to negotiate the way in which the Rapid Reaction Force can link with NATO and there is even a suggestion that he is negotiating funding from NATO for that force. In The Irish Times today, journalist Paul Cullen outlines how at Prague later this month the Republic of Ireland will for the first time be present at a NATO summit. The so-called war against terrorism will be the subject. We see through the dishonest ploy of the Government in saying that Ireland will be at a European-Atlantic partnership council rather than a NATO meeting. This is being done under cover of the Partnership for Peace and we can see clearly that Fianna Fáil reneged on its promise to hold a referendum on PfP because the people would never countenance what is going on.

The Government is bringing us down a treacherous road and the Minister, who may be at that meeting, should know it is not just a gathering of political and military representatives. Seedy arms merchants, the creators of weapons of mass destruction, will also be there selling their wares to the various Governments. Ireland, under various disguises is being involved in the biggest military alliance on the face of the globe. The United States of America and Great Britain are dominant forces in that alliance and they have shown utter immorality in pursuing their interests under cover of a so-called war against terrorism. The United States now believes it can send pilotless CIA planes anywhere in the world to shoot Hellfire missiles to blast to smithereens those it alleges are terrorist suspects, without trial, judge or jury. Their friend, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and other leaders are welcome to wrap the flag of the fight against terrorism around themselves to cover similar crimes. The European Council declaration on the hostage-taking atrocity in a Moscow theatre which occurred during its meeting is scandalously one-sided in its condemnation. Every citizen of this State abhors the violence against innocent people by those saying they are fighting for independence in Chechnya, but it is absolutely irresponsible for EU leaders to ignore completely the appalling catalogue of torture and murder by the Russian Army in that country.

If five minutes have passed, I will leave it at that in order not to cut across the time of the other speakers.

Mr. Gormley

The summit will be remembered for the re-emergence of the Franco-German alliance, which was clearly signalled by Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder in their last minute deal on CAP. Mr. Chirac also suggested that Berlin and Paris forge a common position at the convention on the future of Europe and that is clearly what has happened. Giscard d'Estaing is running away with the convention, has been described as an old man in a hurry and wants to go down in history by drafting a constitution. Joschka Fischer has arrived on the scene now to add a bit of dynamism to the proceedings, though he is really there to keep an eye on the French who were running away with the ball, as anyone who attended could see.

It is interesting to read the draft constitution produced by Giscard d'Estaing and in the very first line of Article 1 he talks about giving the Union the name the United States of Europe. When I suggested during the Nice referendum campaign that we were heading towards a United States of Europe, I was dismissed as alarmist, yet two weeks later we see it has become a reality. One can call it what one likes.

Mr. G. Mitchell

A reality?

Mr. Gormley

One can call it a European Union, but the fact is that as far as Giscard d'Estaing and the majority on the convention are concerned we are dealing with a United States of Europe.

In comparison to the other delegations, we are under-resourced. There are six people representing Ireland at the convention and the back-up we have is appalling when compared to that of other states. The Government has only a passing interest in the convention because it feels the Intergovernmental Conference will look at this matter in more detail and that the real work will be done when the time comes. This is a mistake. The Government has to get in and work the convention hard and provide the necessary resources. It is scandalous that representatives go there and have no back-up. I go there every week and on Monday, Thursday and Friday I was there with no resources. I ask the Minister to address that because it is not good enough for Deputy McCreevy to say there is no money available. We have one room and one telephone while the resources of the French, Germans and Italians show they are taking this seriously. It is a problem and while it may be typical for this Government I ask the Minister to reassess where he is going on this.

I listened with great interest to what Deputy Rabbitte had to say. He has woken up and smelled the coffee, but I wish he had spoken with the same frankness during the campaign on the Nice treaty. He talks about it happening surreptitiously but this has not happened in that way. We have had treaty after treaty where we have tried to explain the direction in which Europe is heading. We tried to explain the link between NATO and the European Rapid Reaction Force, but again were told that we were being alarmist. We tried to explain that we were leaving the back door open for membership of NATO and that provision to guard against that would not be covered by the Government's constitutional amendment, but again this was dismissed. We tried to explain to people that under Article 133 we were letting big business rule the roost within Europe, but again that was dismissed. Who is calling the shots now, the European round table of industrialists, the European federation of employers? These are the people who are calling the shots and we have less and less democratic control.

To return to what Deputy Gay Mitchell said about federalism, it comes down to what is the definition of "federalism". Is it the "centralism" of France? Is it the more federalist view Germans have where there is democratic control? The point is that we are moving more and more towards the French version, which is about bureaucracy, centralism and having very little democratic control. I welcome that there is a proposal to open up the Council of Ministers for legislation, but it must go beyond that. We must empower national parliaments to scrutinise the question of subsidiarity.

It is clear from the communiqué on defence issues – there is reference to the Nice provisions – that Mr. Solana has been mandated to forge closer links between NATO and the European Rapid Reaction Force. That is the reality. I wish people had listened, but we must continue to make these points.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

This is the first opportunity I have had to address EU affairs in this House since the referendum. I commend the progressive parties, groups and individuals, including Deputies here, who campaigned against the treaty of Nice. Despite the onslaught of the establishment, the "No" vote held firm and just over 37% of voters were not prepared to be coerced into reversing their decision of last year. The result of the referendum was disappointing and is a setback for Irish sovereignty and neutrality and for the accountability of EU institutions. Unlike the Government and its allies who dismissed the people's verdict on the last occasion, we have accepted the outcome of the recent referendum, but will maintain continued vigilance against the growing inequality within the EU, a process which the Nice treaty is already clearly accelerating.

In no previous referendum did the print media, particularly The Irish Times and the Irish Independent display such blatant bias and lack of balance in their coverage, which has had major implications for democracy. In contrast, the radio broadcast media was by and large fair and balanced.

The European Council meeting in Brussels saw the enlargement process move on, something that would have happened anyway irrespective of the referendum result. I welcome the Brussels Summit endorsement of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cypress and Malta as ready to complete accession talks in December and to join the European Union in 2004. That accession must be subject to the approval of the people in each of those states. It is significant that despite the endorsement of these ten states there were sharp differences between them and the existing EU states on future funding.

There are major problems ahead, particularly in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy, something which has not been properly examined nor debated in Ireland. There has been little examination of the long-term impact of the accession of tens of millions of farmers to the European Union. There is little long-term planning about the future of farming here with its massive over-dependence on EU aid. There must now also be a focus on rural regeneration, the sustainable development of agriculture and the building of rural communities. That change must be driven by Ireland and by those rural communities. It is not realistic in the long-term to sustain Irish agriculture and our diminishing rural communities on the basis of CAP, yet it is the short-term view which predominates and we rarely look beyond the next meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers. That is the pattern. The Government does not appear to have a strategy to deal with Commissioner Fischler's CAP reform proposals other than to hope that the French will be able to veto any detrimental changes. That is not good enough.

The Government and its supporters told us neutrality was not an issue in the referendum and that our neutrality was not under threat, but look at what has happened in the days and weeks after the referendum. The Brussels European Council meeting accepted the text of a joint NATO-EU declaration whereby the EU Rapid Reaction Force will be funded by NATO. It mandated EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to continue negotiations with NATO on that funding. The Brussels approved text is to be discussed at the NATO summit in Prague later this month and we learned yesterday that for the first time ever this State is to be represented at that NATO summit, to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs will lead a high level delegation. That is a shame and a disgrace.

The Department of Foreign Affairs must take the Irish people for fools if it expects them to accept its explanation that the Minister is not really attending a NATO meeting but a meeting of the Euro Atlantic Partnership. The EAPC is meeting in the same building at the same time as the main NATO event and they will have shared meetings. The EAPC is the political wing of NATO's so-called Partnership for Peace, an integral part of NATO. Is it not time for the Government to end the charade and to admit that it no longer has a policy of military neutrality? It is pathetic for the Government to allow Shannon to be used by foreign powers as a military staging post and then to pretend that it is normal and something about which no one should worry, but people are worried about it. It is equally pathetic for Ministers to slink in and out of NATO meetings. The dust has hardly settled on the Nice referendum and already the Government is breaking its commitment to honour Irish neutrality.

I call for an early debate on the proposals for a draft EU constitution that have emerged from the EU convention. These proposals would pave the way for a fully fledged united states of Europe with a central government. They are currently outline proposals and there is a major divergence of opinion on their implications, but now is the time to have that discussion here in order that at the earliest stage representatives of the people will have a full input into the process.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That completes statements and 20 minutes is now allocated for questions, and I emphasise "questions".

Mr. G. Mitchell

Does the Minister agree that the report on the Convention on the Future of Europe is not due in its final form until some months hence? Does he also agree that its findings will go through the process of an intergovernmental conference in due course, the outcome of which will be laid before this House and that if a treaty results from that process a referendum will have to be held on it; in other words, that nothing will be imposed on the Irish people from the Convention on the Future of Europe?

In relation to the alleged abandonment of our neutrality so soon after the Nice treaty, does the Minister accept that what has been agreed in relation to co-operation with the use of NATO infrastructure is no more than was provided for in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties approved by the people? Does he agree that it involves only the Petersberg Tasks, including peacekeeping, peace enforcement and humanitarian tasks, perhaps including environmental protection and tasks of a combat force nature on a case by case basis, but that in each case we will have a say on whether the European Union becomes involved and whether we become involved, as is the case in relation to participation in UN exercises of this kind?

Will the Minister tell the House he nature of the discussions at the European Council on Iraq and if a common position on the Iraqi question will be taken by the member states of the European Union who are members of the UN Security Council?

Mr. Cowen

This question and answer session relates to the conclusions reached at the European Council. If Deputies wish to ask me more general questions, that can be done by way of Question Time, which is what it is for. As I understand it, under the Standing Order I am here to answer questions on the conclusions of the Council. I can confirm to Deputy Mitchell that the situation he outlined relating to the convention and the process and procedure he envisaged is as he set out. What happens at the European Council is that a report by the president of the convention on the progress of proceedings takes place and there is then exchange of views. This process takes approximately one hour.

The position with regard to FYROM has been under discussion for many months and a number of states have held the Presidency during that period. The EU capacity is taking up the role that was formerly filled by a NATO-led operation. I welcome the fact that the European Union developed a capacity under the ESDP principles, which allow for full participation by all member states, to take responsibility for the operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I also inquired about Iraq.

Mr. Cowen

At a meeting of Foreign Ministers that matter was discussed over lunch. The Presidency simply asked the three members of the Security Council in attendance – Britain, France and Ireland – to outline their general position. The principles I espoused and articulated at this meeting were consistent with the statement I made in the House last week.

Mr. Rabbitte

I wish to ask the Minister a lay person's question, namely, what lessons does he believe the Government has learned as a result of the Nice experience? Does he acknowledge that some of the criticisms made about communications, impenetrability, remoteness and unintelligibility regarding developments in the EU must be addressed if we are going to engage our citizens in the fashion in which they ultimately were engaged during the Nice referendum? What is the Government's response to the request that we should have an early parliamentary debate on the preliminary draft that has emerged? Does he intend to make Government time available in the House for an early discussion on this matter?

Mr. Cowen

That is a matter for discussion between the Whips. I welcome as much debate as possible on EU issues because I do not believe that adequate time is provided for this. The committee that has been established for the specific purpose of discussing the EU might, perhaps, be a better forum for such a debate, but if people wish to discuss the matter in plenary session I would be amenable to that, depending on agreement among the Whips. The more we incorporate European Union matters into our national debate the better, particularly now that we have learned the lessons of the previous two referenda which clearly indicate the need for an ongoing public debate and dialogue with citizens regarding the relevance of the European Union. I would welcome an expanded debate and I have always stated that there is a need for greater discussion on this matter. In principle, I have no difficulty with having such a debate.

With regard to impenetrability, what arose out of the Nice council was not merely agreement of the treaty but also a declaration which set out the need – this was a recognition by the Council even then – for further work to be done in relation to how we make what the European Union and its institutions do more accessible and comprehensible to citizens. That is an agenda which is recognised by all as being necessary to be addressed. The convention process is, therefore, dealing with some of these issues. It is deciding how we, over a period, develop a complex set of arrangements which reflect the important institutional balances that are necessary in an enlarging Union to ensure that the interests of small and large states are recognised and that we have independent institutions which guarantee the full applicability of both the protections and obligations under the treaties and make these available to states and impose on them where necessary.

We have reached a stage where we clearly need to see – this is what the convention is attempting to do – how we provide a basic text that is understandable and comprehensible to citizens. There is a sense of disconnection, not because the European Union is not doing important work or because it does not have effective common policies. The Union certainly has the latter but there will always be room for improvement. There is a need to communicate with Europe's citizens about the range of competencies that are exercised by the European Union's institutions, why these are so exercised, what is the appropriate level at which certain decisions should be taken, how is the principle of subsidiarity to be properly addressed, what should be the role of national Parliaments and how can we ensure that national Parliaments have a role and, therefore, enhance the democratic legitimacy of the deliberations of the Union in all its aspects.

These are wide-ranging issues which have deep implications. We agreed at Nice to establish the convention, which engaged in a listening phase and is now in the process, through its working groups, of preparing papers. The convention is not of a binding nature, but I accept Deputy Gormley's assertion that it is doing important work and we need to have an input into its deliberations. We are going about doing so at present. The second referendum on Nice has occupied most of our time until now. In light of the outcome obtained at the referendum and having seen that the enlargement process will proceed within the timescale envisaged – it is likely to happen by the end of the year – it is clear that we must all give the work of the convention a very high priority.

Mr. Rabbitte

What about the minimal resourcing of it?

Mr. Cowen

The issue of resourcing arises all the time. I will see what can be done in that regard. I do not know whether people accept it, but I have made bona fide efforts in this area. As far as we are concerned, the resources of my Department are available to all Deputies who are involved with this issue. I do not wish anyone to feel that the resources of the Department are not available to them because that is not the case.

At the end of the day, however, Members were elected to represent the people in the Oireachtas. They can offer their views on this matter and I cannot tell them what those views should be. I am allowing them to put forward their independent views as they so wish. The Government has its own representatives and they are putting forward its views. The Government's representatives intend, as I am sure do other Members of the Oireachtas, to put forward their views to the various working groups and committees to which they have been appointed. I will arrange to consult Oireachtas representatives on an ongoing basis if they so wish and if they would find it helpful. I will do whatever I can to be constructive. However, just as I do not expect people to agree with me on every aspect, I do not believe I am in a position to meet every demand.

Mr. F. McGrath

Will the Minister ensure that Ireland adheres to the three conditions on crisis management and humanitarian assistance, namely, the need for United Nations authorisation, a Government decision and Dáil approval? Will he be vigilant in terms of our independent foreign policy? Will he adhere to this position to enhance Ireland's reputation as an international peacekeeper?

What is the Minister's view of the silence from the European Union with regard to the slaughter in Chechnya during the past four years in which 100,000 men, women and children were killed and their towns and cities, like Dresden, were demolished? Will he point out to the European Council that it is not a consistent or fair policy to condemn hostage-taking, which we all deplore, but say nothing about the rape and murder of the Chechen people? Will he put forward my view to the European Union and the United Nations?

Mr. Cowen

Deputy McGrath can rest assured that the triple lock relating to participation of Irish Army personnel in overseas peacekeeping missions will be adhered to by the Government since it is the legal mechanism governing this area. For us to do otherwise would be illegal. We are required to adhere to the triple lock under our Defence Acts so the Deputy need have no concerns in respect of this issue.

With regard to the question of hostage-taking in Russia, if the Deputy wishes to consider previous conclusions of European Councils or General Affairs Councils in this area, he will discover that the European Union made its views known in respect of what was happening in Chechnya. When Ireland held the Presidency of the Council of Europe that matter was dealt with consistently over the six month period.

The Deputy should understand what happened with these conclusions. A hostage situation took place in Moscow and the European Council felt that it should condemn it unambiguously and unconditionally. The issue of broader policy in Chechnya or how a political solution should be found to deal with the Chechen problem was not on the agenda of the European Council meeting. In fact, the Lisbon Council devised what I regard as a welcome development for European Council deliberations whereby the Council sticks to a strict agenda. The issues on the agenda for this meeting were enlargement, the financial package if it was possible to agree one and the Kaliningrad issue.

The problem with the work of the Council in the past was that it was open to Heads of Government, in the context of prior consultations by the Presidency with the 15 member state governments before a Council meeting, to put a range of items on the agenda. It meant that none of them was properly addressed in sufficient detail. The result was a detailed number of conclusions referring to anything and everything that was contemporaneous, relevant or topical. That did not exactly affirm the role of the Council which is to maintain a strategic focus on the issues so that the sectoral Councils can get on with their business during the course of each Presidency.

The reforms were introduced as a result of the Seville conclusions. I welcome them and the result was an excellent meeting which began on Thursday afternoon and concluded before 7 p.m. on Friday. Major decisions were taken and there was a focus on the issues that were relevant to the Council's deliberations, that is, enlargement, the financial package and further discussions on Kaliningrad. Other issues were not raised formally on the agenda. It was a question of the Council showing solidarity with the Russian people. It was not a full exposition of attitudes towards that or other problems in the Russian Federation. We should accept it for what it was and not seek to criticise the Council for taking a clear position on the specific issue which arose on that day.

Mr. Gormley

I do not wish to labour the point about resources but a contrast can be made between the resources made available to members for the convention and those made available for the forum. Resources are not made available for the convention. I will write to the Minister and make positive suggestions in this regard. Does he not accept, however, that Deputies such as myself and the Minister's colleague, Deputy Pat Carey, who are Members of the Dáil but are in Brussels three days a week, require assistance? We are disadvantaged by being there for so long. We are committed to working in the convention as it is most important. I hope the Minister will not forget what I have said when he leaves the Chamber but will examine the issue carefully. Deputy Carey agrees with me.

The NATO-EU declaration was drafted a week ago and agreed by the Heads of State at the summit. Does the Minister not accept that we are moving inexorably towards a closer relationship with NATO? The fact is that we cannot carry out major operations without the assistance of NATO. Will the Minister be honest enough to admit that he has, essentially, sold out on Irish neutrality?

Mr. Cowen

I do not accept that at all.

Mr. J. Higgins

Will the Minister outline the precise nature of the negotiations mandated by the EU Council between NATO and the high representative, Javier Solana, regarding the Rapid Reaction Force? Is finance being sought from NATO for the Rapid Reaction Force? Will the Minister be attending the Euro-Atlantic Partnership council in Prague? Will this also deal with the relationship between NATO and the Rapid Reaction Force?

What conclusion did the EU Council arrive at with regard to opening negotiations with Turkey on entry into the European Union? Does the Minister agree that Turkey still has an appalling regime of repression against political opponents and minorities, such as the Kurds? Is it a fact that the United States is putting relentless pressure on the EU to open these negotiations before civil rights matters have been dealt with and rectified?

Mr. G. Mitchell

Does the Minister agree that the reason for putting the Rapid Reaction Force and the Petersberg Tasks in place was the shame that was felt among decent European parliamentarians and Ministers about the lack of capacity or will on the part of the European Union to act when there was horrific genocide in Srebrenica? Will he further agree that it is a bit much for Members of this House to say that they care about the suffering of people in Turkey when, at the same time, they seek to tie the hands of the Union to deal with that suffering when it seeks to alleviate it?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Deputy Mitchell has no monopoly on the word "decent"—

Mr. G. Mitchell

Neither has Sinn Féin.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

—and there is a range of understandings of that. The views expressed by my colleagues are just as valid. With regard to the NATO-EU declaration whereby the Rapid Reaction Force is to be funded by NATO and the fact that Javier Solana has been asked to continue negotiations in relation to this, will the Minister confirm that he will lead the Irish delegation at the forthcoming NATO summit in Prague? Will the Minister be raising the Brussels European Council text on the funding of the Rapid Reaction Force by NATO either in direct engagement in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership meetings or in other side meetings under the NATO umbrella? What is the Government's position in relation to that text?

Mr. Cowen

I will not be raising it because it does not arise. NATO will not be funding the ESDP; the European Union will fund it. The involvement of NATO in the development of the ESDP arises from the need for the EU, which is not a military organisation, to have access to planning capability and resources, transport, etc. which will be required for substantial crisis management missions, as UN mandated operations such as SFOR and KFOR have shown.

Mr. Gormley

It is a sell out.

Mr. Cowen

The issue has been considered by successive European Councils since the inception of the ESDP. At the Feira European Council in June 2000, the EU agreed on principles which specified that there should be full respect for the autonomy of EU decision making, recognition of the different nature of the EU and NATO and no discrimination against any of the member states. These principles have been upheld throughout the subsequent development of the ESDP and are fully reflected in the arrangements which have now been reached.

There is no new development here; no conspiracy theory has come to fruition. There is no suggestion that NATO funds the ESDP.

Mr. Gormley

It is a sell out.

Mr. Cowen

It is a figment of the Deputy's imagination. I have attended two meetings of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership council already so this will not be the first time. I will not attend the next one but the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, will attend. I will be going to the United States, probably to have my arms twisted by Deputy Higgins's people.