Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 4

European Convention Intergovernmental Conference: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I am pleased, in the unavoidable absence of the Taoiseach, to have the opportunity to open what is a timely and important debate. At the conclusion of the Convention we undertook to make time available for this purpose. The Intergovernmental Conference began in Rome on 1 October and we are, therefore, at an early stage in proceedings. The Government is committed to keeping the House, the relevant Oireachtas committees and the public fully informed of developments. Following the Intergovernmental Conference and European Council meeting this week, the Taoiseach will report to the Dáil on the outcome. In addition, the National Forum on Europe will hold a plenary session on 23 October on the outcome of the Convention which he will address.

Over the past two years there has been a major improvement in the intensity and quality of our national debate on Europe, inside and outside the House. I congratulate Deputy Gay Mitchell and his colleagues on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. They are vigorously using the new scrutiny procedures to examine the Government's approach to issues on the European agenda. I also pay tribute to the outstanding work of the forum. The forum has already produced a valuable account of the Convention text. The short explanatory guide that my own Department has circulated to all Members is also intended to serve as a reference point. It is intended to be clear and succinct, though not fully comprehensive, and I hope it is useful.

The more thoroughly we discuss issues nationally, the better prepared we are to take part in debate at Union level. However, the greatest challenge we face is to widen the discussion beyond that initiated to ensure the public understand and support what is happening in its name. The Taoiseach made the point at Rome that the Intergovernmental Conference as a whole needed a proper communications strategy.

This time last year we were on the eve of the second Nice referendum. A highly positive aspect of the process was that it kindled a national debate about Europe. The people broadly endorsed not only the Nice treaty and enlargement in the referendum but also Ireland's place in the Union 30 years on. The verdict was the Union has been instrumental in creating a peaceful and prosperous Europe, which has been good for Ireland and in which Ireland has played its own distinctive part.

The Union has expanded and changed immensely in the 30 years since Ireland joined. Ireland has also changed and developed, in some ways almost out of all recognition, but the fundamental points remain. Europe remains vital to our prosperity as a small, outward looking economy. It has encouraged the modernisation of our society and its values of tolerance and respect for human rights and the rule of law are our values. They are relevant both in Europe and throughout the world. The Irish people are not naive or starry eyed about Europe as they recognise its shortcomings but they have a basic sense of its enduring promise and of its practical benefits.

That is the context in which the proposed constitutional treaty should be analysed. It is highly significant but, as is inevitable in a negotiation, it is possible to get too close to the detail. Standing back, the Convention draft does not fundamentally alter the nature of the Union as a unique experiment in the voluntary sharing of sovereignty by independent states. It does not fundamentally alter the Union's powers or its relationship with member states, the mix of policies that has worked so effectively for Ireland or the balances between the institutions and among member states. If the people support the Union and our membership of it – and I am sure they do – then they can be broadly happy with the Convention outcome.

The Convention itself was an innovative approach to treaty change. A body representative of the peoples, states and institutions of Europe was established rather than having the preparatory work carried out by anonymous officials behind closed doors. All the member and applicant states were represented at both Government and parliamentary level and the European Parliament and the Commission were also present. All had their say. Thousands of pages of draft texts and amendments were considered and finally a single text was produced. It is right that the Convention approach has won widespread approval. I am pleased that the draft constitutional treaty recommends that it continue to be used in the future. I do not believe there can be a return to the old ways. The Intergovernmental Conference has its own role to play. It cannot be a rubber stamp, but the great bulk of the Convention's work should stand.

Ireland's team at the Convention has been thanked for its work by the Taoiseach in the House. It is fair to say that Ireland was most ably represented and our representatives from the Government and Opposition benches made a positive contribution to the debate in the European Convention and to the Convention's outcome. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, preceded by Ray MacSharry and Bobby McDonagh for the Government, as well as Deputies John Bruton, Carey and Gormley and Proinsias De Rossa MEP, were active and positive. This positive engagement enabled Ireland to bring to the table its values and interests and to have them reflected in the text.

The Convention allowed a broad consensus to emerge on a range of hitherto difficult issues. The consensus covered the legal personality of the Union, a simplified and comprehensible legislative framework, a clear delineation of the roles of the union and member states, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the draft constitutional treaty without expanding the EU's area of competence and the consolidation of the existing treaties in a coherent and comprehensible way.

It will be possible for the first time for the concerned citizen to see in one place – the opening parts of the draft – a clear description of the Union's values, objectives, powers and institutions. This is an important and welcome step forward. Article 2 of the draft treaty, for example, states that the European Union is founded on human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Article 3 confirms that the EU's aim is to promote peace, freedom, justice, sustainable development and full employment.

I am also pleased the Convention has taken a serious look at the important position that national Parliaments occupy in the democratic life of the Union. A range of measures has been proposed to enhance the role they play. The most significant of these measures involves oversight of the principle of subsidiarity – ensuring that things are done at the most appropriate level and only at Union level when that is the best approach. The Convention recommendations would enhance our own national scrutiny arrangements. When the Commission is thinking of bringing forward proposals in future, it will do so in the knowledge that it will be open to national Parliaments to challenge the proposals for failing to respect subsidiarity. If one third of Parliaments challenge them, they will have to be reconsidered. I hope the brake will not have to be applied too frequently, but its existence should help to ensure that proper thought is given before proposals are made.

At our meeting in Rome on 1 October to open the Intergovernmental Conference, the Heads of State or Government of the member and observer countries, including the Taoiseach, set out their broad negotiating stances. The Taoiseach made clear that Ireland will respect the outcome of the Convention as a good basis for our work. We do not wish to see all the work unravelled, but we have a number of key concerns. These include decision making in taxation matters and in the justice and home affairs area. There will be ongoing political discussion regarding the institutions before we reach a final agreement.

Ireland supports the further extension of qualified majority voting, in general, as well as co-decision by the European Parliament. As the Union becomes larger, the risk of deadlock becomes correspondingly great. We have already benefited from efficient QMV decision making in areas such as the internal market and agriculture. Similarly, the greater involvement of MEPs as directly elected public representatives is also appropriate. It is well known, however, that we believe unanimity should remain in a very small number of areas. One of these is taxation, which is particularly central to the relationship between citizens and their own Governments. I am glad the Convention draft retains the need for unanimous decisions in nearly all areas of taxation. The Government will continue to oppose any departure from this principle and it will want to see a watertight final text.

The Convention has made important advances in recommending enhanced European action against serious cross-border crime. Deputy John Bruton, as chairman of the relevant working group, played a major part in this regard. It is important, however, that the new arrangements do not affect the deeply rooted traditions and practices of member states or the constitutional rights of their people. We will seek to ensure that this is guaranteed.

Security and defence policy is another priority area. The Government would like the European Union to play a greater role for good on the international stage in a way that respects the values of member states. We can welcome many aspects of the Convention proposals. The appointment of a Union Minister for foreign affairs will bring greater coherence and visibility to the EU's external action. The objectives that will shape the EU's external action include, at our suggestion, support for human rights, conflict prevention, sustainable development and the UN Charter. The EU is making an increasing contribution in support of international peace and security. It has undertaken missions this year under the ESDP in the western Balkans and central Africa. Kofi Annan has acknowledged that this growing capability for conflict prevention and crisis management is fully consistent with support for the United Nations.

The Convention made a number of proposals in the security and defence area. Ireland's view is that the proposals, particularly those in respect of structured co-operation and common defence, require further consideration by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government's approach is that new arrangements in this area should be inclusive and accountable to all member states. It is clear, however, that we will retain our right to make our own decisions on whether to participate in EU crisis management operations. I have made clear to the House that this will involve Government decision, Dáil approval and UN authorisation. The proposals drawn up by the Convention do not change the present situation as regards common defence. Our position is clear – while we will not stand in the way of others, Ireland could only participate in an EU common defence with the prior consent of the people in a referendum.

We are working at the Intergovernmental Conference to ensure that these core concerns are reflected in the final text of the constitutional treaty. We think that improvements can be made in respect of a range of other issues without radically changing the draft. We will take the opportunities that will arise to support such improvements without losing sight of the overall balance and coherence of the text. For example, ECOFIN Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, have been developing a consensus on changes to certain economic and budgetary articles. The Government will support a reference to God or Europe's Christian heritage in the preamble of the constitutional treaty, should an agreed wording be possible.

A great deal of time will be devoted to institutional issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government's view is that the overall balance achieved on institutional issues at the end of the Convention was a reasonable one. The text was greatly improved from the earliest drafts. It is an important priority that the individual interests of member states, particularly smaller member states, are protected. It is true that the current arrangements in terms of the Commission and the Council have suited us, but it is equally legitimate to question whether a system originally designed for an economic community of six is fully adequate for a much wider Union of 25 or more. It makes no sense to be dogmatic or confrontational in relation to these matters. The different and valid perspectives need to be reconciled.

Media coverage has tended to present the issues as being a question of big member states against smaller member states. I do not deny that the small countries tend to have certain interests and objectives in common in relation to the institutions – this is also true of the large countries – but the reality is that the great majority of issues do not break down in this way. There are significant differences among the smaller countries, as there are among the large. Some smaller countries were among the early advocates of a long-term President of the European Council, for example. We did not seek the creation of this post, but we now think it is defined in a way that protects the interests of the Commission and will ensure that its holder is more chairman than chief. We hope the post will, as its supporters argue, bring more coherence and a longer-term perspective to the work of the European Council. Similarly, a small number of member states believe that a restricted Commission is more likely to be collegiate and effective than one in which every member state is represented. The countervailing and increasingly supported argument – that a Commission drawn from the widest possible range of member states is more likely to be aware of and responsive to concerns on the ground and thus more legitimate – is also very strong.

The essence of the Convention compromise, that all member states should be represented at all times, but with a smaller number of voting Commissioners appointed on the basis of strictly equal rotation, is broadly acceptable to us as it builds on what was agreed at Nice. Aspects of the arrangement need to be teased out, however. For example, what would be the precise roles of the voting and non-voting Commissioners? On the other hand, many countries are arguing strongly for one voting Commissioner per member state. If this can be achieved on terms which protect the genuine equality of all Commissioners and all member states, as was agreed at Nice, we would very much welcome it. At the end of this process, we want an effective Commission which embraces genuine equality and serves and reflects the interests of all member states, big and small.

The question of how a qualified majority is defined is shaping up to be crucial at the Intergovernmental Conference. We recognise that the proposed new dual majority system would be simpler to understand and more efficient in terms of decision making. We would be quite happy to stick with the more complex Nice formula, but are prepared to accept the Convention's proposal. Our influence will always depend more on our capacity to network and on the effectiveness of our arguments than on any arithmetical formula. In practice, votes are rare.

Our overall approach, therefore, is pragmatic and reasonable. We do not want the Convention text to be dismantled, nor is it holy writ. Improvements and clarifications are possible. If alternative wordings attract more support that can be welcomed, but what is most needed is a sense of proportion. Each of us needs to rise from the table having secured key national interests but must also recall that the common European interest is also significant. We have a shared stake, not just in a successful outcome but in an outcome achieved in the right spirit. We do not need prolonged stand-offs and unnecessary acrimony. To date, the mood of the Intergovernmental Conference has been positive in that regard.

The discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference will be intense and concentrated over the next two months. It is the ambition of the Italian Presidency to complete the Intergovernmental Conference in December. We fully support Italy in this. We believe that if the Intergovernmental Conference focuses on the main concerns of the member states, the negotiations can be completed within the proposed timeframe. If, however, the conference runs into our Presidency, we are fully prepared to take on the task.

Each participant must be able to see its concerns reflected in the outcome. This will be important for the member states when they come to ratify the constitutional treaty that is likely to emerge. A significant number of states have indicated that they may hold referendums. Whatever the system of ratification, it is important that the constitutional treaty that emerges serves to unite the member states and the citizens across the European Union.

What matters most is that the final outcome is a constitutional treaty which equips the Union to be as successful and effective in the future as it has been for almost 50 years. We are on the right track. We are approaching this Intergovernmental Conference in the same way that we approach all our interaction with the European Union – positively and with a view to finding solutions. Our past experience will inform our future practice.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I thank the Minister for his kind comments about me and the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

What marks the Intergovernmental Conference process, the Convention on the constitutional treaty and the Intergovernmental Conference itself, is that at every opportunity a real effort has been made to inform both Houses of Parliament, through the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and the public, through the forum on Europe and the public meetings organised by the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The Government and Oireachtas representatives on the Convention appeared at several meetings of the European affairs committee to discuss what had occurred and what was coming up. Those meetings often took place on Fridays when delegations had only arrived back in Ireland and Members of the Oireachtas, who are traditionally in their constituencies, made the effort to attend.

Today's debate is part of that process and is very welcome. No one who is serious about ensuring ongoing peace and stability in Europe and that we never return to the type of instability which gave rise to the deaths of 60 million Europeans in the first half of the last century will make false claims about informing the public about this process. I do not know what more one could do, other than have a permanent television station covering proceedings, to convey the message to the public. Despite public meetings of the forum and the committee and the various meetings the Joint Committee on European Affairs has had with the Minister, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and our Oireachtas and Government deputations to the Convention, it has been difficult to get media coverage of the issues. There is no point in complaining about the media. Journalists have difficulty getting space for this sort of issue as it does not sell newspapers. However, we must apply our minds to ensuring, when the time comes to ratify, that people are aware that the concerns expressed during the first Nice treaty referendum have been addressed and that a real effort is being made to close the democratic deficit.

From Ireland's perspective and from the perspective of those who respect constitutions and constitution-making, the institutional questions are of primary concern, particularly proposals for a constitutional treaty for the European Union. Bunreacht na hÉireann separates the powers of various arms of State. The President, the Taoiseach and Government and the courts have certain powers and the Houses of the Oireachtas, specifically Dáil Éireann, have wide powers. The distribution of power ensures that democracy functions, that there is accountability, that the rules are clear and that there is a clear separation of institutions.

Much of what has been written and spoken of in Ireland relates to whether Ireland should keep its EU Commissioner. I hope each State keeps a full Commissioner but if not, the Nice proposals, as modified by the draft constitutional treaty, seem to be fair. In all of the institutions of the European Union, the role of the Commission is of vital importance. The Commissioners are honest brokers acting on behalf of the member states. If the Commission is either unfairly constructed or overshadowed by another institution, the institutional balance will have changed outside of a constitutional framework and to the detriment of the Union as a whole, of its member states and, in particular, of smaller member states.

For this reason I am concerned about the proposal to appoint a chairman of the European Council. The appointment of a chairman may well mean that the work of the Council is more effective. The European Council itself will become an institution under the current proposals and will have a chairman for a fixed period of two and a half years, renewable once. If the chairman were a powerful figure like Giscard d'Estaing or Baroness Thatcher, he or she could easily overshadow the President of the Commission and the Commission itself. If, as now seems open, the President of the Commission is allowed also to be chairman of the European Council, this could allow for a breakdown in the separation of powers and could, in effect, bypass those separate institutions which are intended as the institutional arrangements of the Union.

The European Council is a product of national parliaments. It is made up of Heads of Government and State. Therefore, it seems appropriate that a provision should be included in the terms of reference of the chairman of the European Council that he or she must resign if, say, one third of national parliaments pass a vote of no confidence in him or her. The removal of the chairman of the European Council should not be left to the European Council itself, except for incompetence or malpractice, for example. National parliaments should have a role in this. This does not require re-negotiation of the draft constitutional treaty. It could be provided for in the chairman's terms of reference. I ask the Taoiseach and the Minister to consider this matter and to raise this issue. I am anxious that we would have a mechanism whereby the national parliaments could intervene where the separation of powers within the institutions of the Union are being fudged or used to the detriment of member states by a powerful chairman of the European Council who might ignore demarcation. The separation of powers in the roles of the institutions is vital if the Union is to operate transparently, democratically and in the interests of all member states, especially smaller member states. We have a very small representation in the Parliament, now to be reduced. We have one Minister at the Council of Ministers, where there is rarely a vote. That is certainly very helpful, but if it comes to a vote we have a small number of votes.

The role of the Commission remains important and anything that would overshadow it would be of concern to member states. The Parliaments of member states should be empowered to intervene if this should ever happen. It would be a clear warning to any permanent head of the European Council not to blur the lines of difference between the institutions.

The protocol on defence has yet to be written. I am grateful to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which sent us today the short explanatory guide to the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. It alludes to the new subsection 9º of Article 29.4 of the Constitution, as inserted after the referendum on the Nice treaty: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty [the Treaty of Nice] referred to in subsection 7º of this section where that common defence would include the State." It then states that Ireland cannot enter into an EU common defence arrangement without the consent of the people in a referendum. This should be the case. I have no difficulty with it and those who made allegations on this matter prior to the last election should now admit that they should not have done so, that we are not part of a common defence arrangement and that we cannot be without a referendum, as the Minister stated.

I am grateful to the National Forum on Europe for circulating a summary of the draft constitutional treaty, in which it provides a glossary of terms. Under the heading "Protocol" it states:

A protocol is a legal text, which is usually added (annexed) to a treaty and which deals in a more detailed way with a certain topic e.g. in the draft Constitutional Treaty there is a protocol on subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments. A protocol to a treaty has the same legal status as the treaty itself when it has been ratified by the Member States.

The phrase "when it has been ratified by the Member States" is important. Because the protocol on defence has yet to be written, an opportunity presents itself to Ireland to have an input into the content of that protocol and to have it drafted in such a way as to meet our concerns for the future defence of Europe and Ireland's role therein.

I have long since argued that not only should we be part of the security and defence architecture of Europe but that we should be one of the architects. If we do not participate in making rules to meet our concerns and our vision for the future of Europe, they will be made by others. As is the case with EMU, states joining later will join according to the rules made by others. Therefore, it is time to bring an end to Ireland's so-called neutrality. Ireland should be part of an EU defence community.

Central to our concerns is what is known as the Article 5 provision of the Western European Union treaty. This provides that if any member state is attacked, other member states that have signed up to the treaty will automatically come to its defence. This automaticity would remove from the Dáil its current constitutional right in the area of defence and security to approve such action if it were to be accepted. However, if an Article 5-type commitment could be included as a protocol – not a full treaty provision but a protocol drawn such that it would apply to some member states in one way and to others in a different way – we could arrange that the member states that wish to sign up to the principle of automaticity from the beginning could do so and that those that do not wish to sign up to it, such as Ireland, could do so by agreeing to the protocol on a case-by-case basis. If other member states want to make it automatic, let them do so. However, there should be an opportunity for the neutral and non-aligned states to build into the protocol a respect for their traditional positions and a mechanism whereby they could agree to it on a case-by-case basis.

If a member state were attacked, the Dáil would probably approve going to its assistance. The protocol would not make a huge difference. If we keep our heads down while others are making the rules, we will not influence those rules. The protocol will simply be drawn up as a full treaty provision with no exceptions. A country will have to be part of it or not. If at some future date – we live in a very dangerous and changing world – we wanted to join, we would have to do so according to the rules made by others. It may serve us as politicians to make claims about these rules or to accuse the Government or Fine Gael of having a particular agenda – it will not be the politicians' children that will be in the front line. It will be argued that a front line will come about very quickly. However, the difference between politician and statesman lies in recognising the reality that we have a golden opportunity to have a protocol shaped in the way Ireland envisages the future of Europe and its role therein. Some will ask who would attack us. Who would attack any member state? Why do we not argue that all member states give up their defence arrangements?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Is that not exactly what happened when Hitler killed many millions of people in Europe? I hear Deputy Ó Snodaigh saying, "Hear, hear," but the giving up of defence arrangements by member states is exactly what an attacker would want. There would be nobody to defend against tyrants when they rise.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Fine Gael tyrants.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Have we learned nothing from history? Member states have a right to have defence forces to ensure that some of those who would usurp this and other states would be stood up to and faced down. We may have to do this within the State and may have to do so in Europe. The rules are being made now and the Minister should not listen to the protesters who constantly put their own interests before those of the people. The rules are in the process of being made for half a century perhaps. If we sign up to a common defence arrangement later, let us not do so according to the rules made by others. Let us make the rules now to suit what we consider to be our best interests and the interests of Europe. If we thought about this we could secure a provision in the protocol on defence that would allow those who want to sign up to automaticity to do so and those who want to join on a case-by-case basis to do so, such as the four neutral and non-aligned states.

There is a case to be made for making some reference to God in the European constitution. I was very taken aback at a European Forum meeting I addressed in Stillorgan when a lay Presbyterian leader – the same man who bent over backwards to facilitate the secularists – was almost mocked when he suggested that there might be some reference to God. I ask the so-called liberals who almost mocked him if it is not the mark of a true liberal that he or she respect the rights and beliefs of others. It would surely not offend anybody if proper wording could be found to make reference to almighty God in a way that meets the concerns of persons with religious beliefs without offending others. Is that not what unity in diversity is all about? Will the Minister ensure that the role of national Parliament, through the Committee on European Affairs in particular, continues to evolve. I thank him, the Minister of State and their staff for their assistance to the committee.

Next year we will host COSAC, the Conference of the Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the EU. The European Parliament will send two vice presidents and Mr. Brok, who is Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Parliament. Other member states send former Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers to COSAC meetings. I hope the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will make themselves available for the opening of the conference and we will be in touch with them about this in due course. I have been to Athens and Rome and noted that the Heads of State and Foreign Ministers have always made themselves available.

Mr. M. Higgins

When this debate reaches the public, I hope it will not be a very arid confrontation between theists and secularists and that people will not put themselves into paroxysms of reaction regarding impending invasion of this country or the European Union. The issues are more serious. It is very interesting that the draft constitution, at the very beginning, contains a reference in Greek to Thucydides. In his work on the nature of Europe, Thucydides took a much more reflective view than the one we just heard from Deputy Gay Mitchell. To be compared to Thucydides is a great compliment, even on a Wednesday afternoon. He would be offended by the view of Europe as some kind of bus on which one leaps as it leaves the station or a club suffering from severe anxiety about its rules.

What has emerged from the Convention process for discussion extends beyond a project. With the greatest respect to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the text, even in terms of initiating a debate, has certain difficulties in that it is described as a constitutional treaty. The terms "constitutional" and "treaty" do not sit easily together. The nature of constitutions is their certainty. According to Giovanni Sartori, perhaps the most distinguished writer on the nature of constitutions, even when they are old, constitutions steer the way. The principle of constitutional garantisme– what a constitution guarantees – is perhaps most important. Given that a treaty comes either in the middle or at the end of a process, the two terms almost contradict each other, which is not just an academic point.

I pay tribute to those who have patiently stuck with the project of Europe. As its chairman, Deputy Gay Mitchell has sought to expand the competence of the Joint Committee on European Affairs with only minimal resources at his disposal – the committee needs more resources. Attempts have also been made to involve the Forum on the Future of Europe and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I sense an enormous gap between the Europe which may be coming about at a conceptual level and the people's impression of it. I say this as a person who favours developing a wider interdependency, which has a European dimension. It is for this reason that the debate will become seriously dislodged if it becomes concentrated on confusions that are almost extraneous to the central thrust of Europe.

It is necessary, for example, to define terms. The confusion of war with terrorism is a hopeless quagmire in which to get involved. People have started wars and ended them with treaties, addressed issues of terrorism with security, which, in turn, has been defined in the long term by various governments, including the Irish Government, as eliminating, for example, the sources of terrorism. The term has not been defined in a strictly military sense. To speak of security, defence and militarism in the same breath, almost bracketed together, is an invitation to the public to view what is being proposed negatively, which would be a great pity.

With regard to the important point I made about the nature of constitutions and treaties, it will take a great deal of effort to explain to people the distance between treaty and constitution, but also the term, institutional reform, upon which the greater concentration of interest has fallen. I know of no constitution ever that referred to concepts such as financial stability, reference to which the European Central Bank would like included in the constitution. This is not the stuff of constitutions.

In a curious way, however, the statement published by the European Central Bank in September, exposed an enormous problem with the entire project. The bank wanted a specific assurance that the constitution would refer to fiscal policy being performed within a single, neo-liberal economic model. In other words, it wanted to have lodged in the constitution what would be regarded in the history of economic thought as an aberration from Keynesianism. The European Central Bank expressed its disappointment, not only at the lesser role it was accorded in the final document, on which I congratulate those who participated in the Convention, but also because the specific reference it desired was not included in the final document, which would have been disastrous, not to mention contradictory.

There are achievements in the document, among them the explicit reference to social Europe. There is no point, however, in dancing around the difficulty which emerges as a result. The commitment to social Europe is entirely contradicted by that which was sought in the commentary issued by the European Central Bank in September.

Mr. Gormley

That is correct.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is a flat contradiction. It would suggest, for example, that social protection is the same as the rights accorded under a liberalised labour market or, as it would be called now, a flexible labour market. The most recent figures from the United States show that the average worker there works 147 hours more than in 1974 to maintain the same wage assurance. Flexible labour markets mean a diminution of life chances and so forth.

The reference to social Europe is an achievement which allows me to envisage a shape to the European project that is generous. In a way, the contradictions in the text could become a source of a new phase of evolution in Europe. If an economy is seeking to transform into something more, namely, a political entity, which, in turn, is trying to operate in terms of global interdependency redefined, it needs a vision beyond the economic, which is precisely what social Europe affords us.

While I do not have time to dwell on the issue, I was disappointed by the failure throughout the entire process to rise to the challenge of envisaging what Europe was, is and might become in a cultural sense. This is generally regarded as something one does as an offshoot of the entertainment industry. When Ministers are weary, where does one bring them? The answer lies somewhere between Michael Flatley and Alexander the Great.

This failure to find the competence to say something significant culturally reveals something else about the document, namely, the diversity to which it refers but to which no commitment is given. I find it offensive that the debate opened up in narrow terms around a question of whether Europe should be regarded as a fundamentally Christian entity or structured on theist systems or something else. We, in our time—

Mr. G. Mitchell

Why is the Deputy offended?

Mr. M. Higgins

I am not what was described as—

Mr. G. Mitchell

We all have the right to express our views. I object to the Deputy's comment.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is the point I am about to make. I am not stopping anyone expressing their views.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Deputy said he found offensive the expression of a point of view.

Mr. M. Higgins

I did not say such a thing. The Deputy should not talk nonsense as I was saying quite the opposite.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am as entitled to express my view as everybody else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. M. Higgins

Nobody is preventing the Deputy from doing so, nor did I refer to him as a so-called liberal.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am entitled to express my view.

Mr. M. Higgins

My point is the opposite of what Deputy Gay Mitchell believes it to be, as he would find out if he had the patience to listen, which is not his habit. I was making the point that Europe consists of more than simple divisions between rationalists and theists or Christians and, as the Deputy charitably called them, so-called liberals. Europe has carried many influences for a long time. The best of Greek scholarship, for example, was saved in southern Spain by Arabs.

With the greatest respect, I dislike being shouted down by a Deputy expressing the narrow view that it is a matter of confronting people who are either rationalist—

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is not a narrow view. The Deputy is making objectionable, arrogant comments.

Mr. M. Higgins

I would oppose any reference in a European constitution to rationalism alone. Rationalism is a moment in the history of western philosophy. I have never advocated the reduction of European philosophy to rationalism because all the influences in Europe, including the Christian faith, other faiths and the spiritual values that happen not to have been given a name, must be respected and heard. That is my view and I will not have it distorted.

If we are to face into the future we have to listen to those who have interesting debates on, for example, the nature of constitutionalism. Constitutionalism existed before democracy. Constitutions do not automatically create democracy. That raises other valuable points in this debate, including the incorporation of the charter on human rights. It is important that they be turned, through instruments of monitoring, implementation and peer review, into something meaningful and achievable. There are lessons in this historically. The United States constitution existed for a long time before everybody had the vote and when people were segregated to the back of buses.

Interestingly, there is a distinction between liberalism, constitutionalism and democracy. With regard to my earlier remarks, far from being a so-called liberal, which I am not, I appreciate that the crude and ignorant views of neo-liberal economists have been mitigated to some extent by those who participated in the Convention and I congratulate them on that. Certain words trip off the neo-liberals' tongues. They never speak of the rights of the person but of the rights of the individual. They are not able to rise to the rights of the person, which is in the fundamental jurisprudence irrespective of whether one has property. Individualism comes out of the bankrupt rational tradition that gave us Friedrich von Hayek and the other people that influenced the poisonous theories of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

There are other interesting and important matters which I hope we will discuss in the course of this debate. An interesting issue arises for those who participated in the Convention and those who will participate in debates during the Irish Presidency, that is, the kind of myth which has been created – I am using the term "myth" in the positive Greek sense of muthos– that if there is a founding myth in Europe it is that Europe would be at peace and never at war again. If one wishes to move beyond that, given that it has been translated with accession countries into an increasing emphasis on trade and so forth to create a strong, viable economic entity, one must ask oneself what would be an appropriate vision or myth for the next phase.

The distinctive characteristics of European culture are empowering and enabling. The idea that there would be a large number of countries with a vast population, diverse influences on their culture, many different belief systems which are not simply materialist and which is committed to different forms of production, offers the capacity to create something other than an empire which is unamenable to accountability and democracy. That is the opportunity. It is different from an economic area in which there would be unaccountable transnational corporations operating without regulation with regard to labour and environmental standards. All the opportunities are before us if the vision is created.

I am happy that the document provides for a considerable amount of protection. I welcome the words "social Europe" and "sustainable", as a powerful if insufficient restraint on the concept of growth. I also welcome the inclusion of rights even though I would prefer that the specificity of their achievement and implementation were more clearly defined. I look forward to the debate. It is welcome that we should be thinking so positively as to try to envisage a world without war. There is nothing wrong with envisaging a planet that could live without the scourge of war and those who purvey the politics of fear have a negative and dark vision of our world.

Mr. Gormley

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Harkin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gormley

I welcome the fact that the Minister has clarified a number of issues and I echo his comments about the Irish participants on the Convention. I pay tribute to them and to the members of the Civil Service who did, and continue to do, such magnificent work in the Intergovernmental Conference.

The question we must ask ourselves from the outset is, to what type of Europe do we aspire. I aspire to a Europe which is ecologically sustainable. We need to look at the present constitution and ask where we are going with it and whether we are making advances. The answer is that we are not making any advance on Amsterdam. The eight big environmental organisations put down certain amendments but, unfortunately, they were not accepted. However, we did not go backwards, which is a victory of sorts. Likewise, we aspire to a Europe that is nuclear free. Again, we avoided having the EURATOM Treaty included in the constitution but there is still no sunset clause, for which we had called. A number of members of the Convention signed an amendment to that effect but it was not accepted. We are as we were, so to speak.

Do we want a Europe that is more militarised? Deputy Mitchell and I part company on this issue. I accept his point of view and I hope he accepts mine. I hope he will not make charges that I am trying to mislead people because I am not. One of the welcome aspects of the constitution is its clarity. Article 40.3 states:

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. A European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency shall be established to identify operational requirements, to promote measures to satisfy those requirements, to contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector. . . .

That is clear. I do not support it. I do not see the need for us to compete militarily with the United States, which seems to be the objective of some in the Convention. Article 40.7 is also clear:

Until such time as the European Council has acted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer cooperation shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards mutual defence. Under this cooperation, if one of the Member States participating in such cooperation is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other participating States shall give it aid and assistance by all the means in their power, military or other. . . . .

My colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, referred to the Article 5 commitment and this sounds like an Article 5 commitment. It is up to those states to participate in closer co-operation. Does that closer co-operation require a referendum in this country? The reference is: "Until such time as the European Council has acted. . . " and that is the reference that was made by Deputy Mitchell. It seems clear that this type of co-operation would not require a referendum in this country.

I also aspire to a democratic Europe and a Europe that treats its citizens and states equally. I do not have a problem with the idea of inserting references to God into this constitution although it should not be an exclusively Christian God. I take the arguments that have been made by my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, on rationalism. He is quite right. The point is that we aspire in the charter to a social Europe, but what is going on in adopting the neo-liberal policies – and we refer to it in Article 133 of the Nice treaty – is that, regarding commercial policy, education, health and social affairs are now no longer exceptions. Those areas are open. Perhaps Members watched Hans Eichel deliver his budget speech. The Germans, who for me exemplified the idea of a social state, are cutting public spending and reducing taxation. That is where we are heading. On the one hand, we aspire to a social Europe, but in reality we are copying the neo-liberal policies of the United States.

The Minister has said that it makes no sense to be dogmatic or confrontational. It is difficult to imagine the Minister being confrontational. As we know, it is simply not in his nature. The Minister should go in there and negotiate. He has said today that many countries are arguing strongly for one voting commissioner per member state. Is he arguing for that? I ask him to do so. In Dublin Castle, he said that the present constitution represents an advance on Nice regarding the Commission. It does not, and the Minister acknowledges that here. He should go in, bat for us and negotiate. I have no problem with his negotiating, and I wish him well.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Pé cruth a bheas ar an dréacht-bhunreacht do Aontas na hEorpa ag deireadh an phróisis seo, beidh ról ollmhór caillte ag Éirinn amach anseo. Cé go n-aontaím leis go bhfuil gá leis an conradh reatha atá ag an Aontas a shimpliú agus a tharraingt le chéile, ní aontaím gur gá flaitheas náisiúnta a laghdú nó cumhacht breise a thabhairt don Aontas mar a dhéantar ins an dréacht. Tá muidne in Sinn Féin i gcoinne bogadh i dtreo stát a dhéanamh den Aontas, agus de réir sin, ní ghlacaim leis an argóint go bhfuil gá leis an bhunreacht.

The draft constitution is more than a necessary consolidation and simplification of existing treaties. It makes fundamental changes in the structures of the EU, giving them more powers, and it gives the EU a single legal personality for the first time. The effect is to shift the balance of power yet further from sovereign national parliaments and towards the EU, the biggest single step so far towards the creation of an EU super-state. We have already communicated to the Government the minimum changes we believe the Irish negotiators should be demanding in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to protect Ireland's sovereignty.

Our more serious concerns include Article I-5(1), which states that the Union shall respect "national identities" and "regional and local self-government". Significantly, it makes no reference to national sovereignty or national self-government. The constitution should recognise that "the social and economic well-being of their people" are among "essential State functions". That would emphasise the right of states to control their own economies, a right currently undermined by the EU. Article I-10 states that the constitution and law adopted by the EU institutions "shall have primacy over the law of the member states" in exercising competences conferred on the EU. That would firmly establish EU law as superior to national law. That, in effect, creates a federal state and a federal law, and we believe that the provision entails the diminution of basic democratic rights.

The new EU constitution will require Ireland to cede most or all of her remaining independence in foreign policy to the EU. Article I-11(4) establishes EU competence in the area of common foreign and security policy, thus giving it primacy. The draft constitution states at Article I-15(1) and (2) that the Union shall have a common foreign and security policy that covers "all areas of foreign policy and questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence". The draft constitution also requires the convergence of member states' foreign policies. At a minimum, our negotiators must protect the Irish exercise of sovereign independence in international affairs by securing an explicit statement that EU competence in foreign policy is shared and that, as with development co-operation and humanitarian aid, the exercise of EU competence in foreign policy will not result in member states being prevented from exercising their competence in foreign policy.

We have long warned that the EU is becoming progressively militarised. Some dismissed that as exaggeration, but the provisions in the constitution confirm that prediction. It provides for the establishment of a common defence that can act outside the Union, including to strengthen international security using member states' capabilities. It allows that to include the deployment of forces to third countries to support counter-terrorism campaigns, and it takes very little imagination to see the potential for significant problems and that the doctrine of pre-emption that promoted the invasion of Iraq is thereby indirectly authorised. It further states that EU defence policies shall not prejudice NATO states – and further, shall be compatible with NATO. However, the special rights and responsibilities of militarily neutral states are not explicitly acknowledged, and that is one of the main duties of our negotiators in the weeks and months ahead.

Ms Harkin

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to contribute briefly to statements on the European Convention. Before I outline the issues about which I am concerned, I acknowledge once again the efforts made by all members of the Irish delegation in the convention and the Praesidium, as well as the ongoing briefings by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, to the Joint Committee on European Affairs regarding upcoming Council or Intergovernmental Conference meetings. It certainly gives us an opportunity to hear the Government's stance and voice our concerns. Whether they are taken on board is for the Minister to say, but at least we have the opportunity to make our point.

At the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs last week, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, made it clear, as he has done from the very beginning, that his position and that of the Government is that the Intergovernmental Conference cannot simply be a rubber stamp for the work of the Convention. According to the Minister, the draft treaty is a good basis on which to work, and Ireland will come up with some constructive proposals to effect change in certain areas. While I accept the Minister's assurances and his intentions in this regard, the signals coming from the EU are somewhat in conflict with his assertions.

The stated aim of the Intergovernmental Conference is to depart as little as possible from the balanced text which resulted from 18 months of negotiations. The Presidency has proposed the principle of alternative consensus, whereby the current draft should stay if agreement cannot be found on an alternative proposal. That means that they will rely on the text of the convention if no other proposals are put forward. However, if other proposals are put forward and there is no agreement, it seems to be the intention to revert to the original draft. According to the Minister, Ireland will have several key concerns which he will press. Yet it seems that the proposed timetable – the Italians are determined to see this through during their Presidency – and the principle of alternative consensus that I have just mentioned will make for very difficult negotiations.

I will comment briefly on some issues of concern to me in the draft treaty. The first is the composition of the Commission. The Nice treaty offered a constitutional guarantee of equal rotation of the full voting members of the Commission. It also provided that, of the enlarged membership of 25, each member state would have one Commissioner with voting rights, and that only after the treaty of accession of the 27th member would a system of rotation come into force. That principle must be upheld, and I agree with Deputy Gormley that the Minister should negotiate very strongly on the issue. I am not quite sure of his exact position. However, as far as the Irish people are concerned, they have only just voted on Nice and accepted its conditions, and they will not easily be convinced that what is now being proposed is better.

It is also critical for Ireland's interests to maintain unanimous voting on fiscal issues. In contrast to the draft constitutional treaty, the Commission proposed to move towards qualified majority voting, particularly in the domains of taxation in connection with the operation of the Internal Market and the role of the European public prosecutor in safeguarding the Union's financial interest. Ireland must maintain the line that has already been agreed on this particular matter. I was pleased to hear the Minister state: "It is clear, however, that we will retain our right to make our own decisions on whether to participate in EU crisis management operations." Unanimous voting on this issue is critical and I welcome the Minister's comments.

The principle of subsidiarity could be even further strengthened in the new draft treaty. I am aware of a provision – the Minister already referred to it – whereby if one third of the states object to a draft directive or proposal on the grounds that it breaches subsidiarity, it can be challenged. This means that nine out of 25 countries would have to object. While this is a new and worthwhile development, I suggest that 20% or five of the 25 countries objecting might be sufficient to put the wheels in motion. Five is a substantial number and it would ensure that an issue would be of transnational concern and transgressed the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is already enshrined in the draft treaty so there would be a solid basis for the argument to try to change the numbers involved. In addition, it would send a powerful message to all European citizens regarding the importance of subsidiarity and the ability of the EU to respond flexibly to those concerns.

I agree with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, that the debate needs to be widened nationally. I recently spoke to a European colleague and asked if his country will put forward the draft treaty in a referendum. His response was that it would not do so because public opinion could not be trusted. I am glad our Constitution ensures that we must trust public opinion on these issues.

In recent years, people in this country have lost faith in large institutions. I will not rehearse the reasons for that now. However, the EU is an extremely large institution and if people are to place their trust in it, they must be fully informed. As Deputy Gay Mitchell stated, we must be imaginative in finding ways to ensure this, we must be consulted and, in certain cases, we must be given guarantees. The Minister stated that it does not always come down to simple arithmetic, but sometimes it does.

Mr. Carey

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Given that I have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I wish to state that it was a real honour to be asked to serve and represent this Parliament on the Convention. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, on the energetic way he led the delegation, Deputy John Bruton on the vigorous way he represented Irish interests – among others – at the Praesidium and the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs for the wise guidance they provided at all times.

The Convention was asked a number of questions, including those relating to how the Union might be brought closer to its citizens, how it might be better organised and how it can best play a positive role in the wider world. In my opinion, the Convention has succeeded, in large part, in finding solutions to these questions. We have seen the beginning of a useful debate and I would recommend to Members, if they have not yet had the opportunity to do so, that they read the report from the Institute of European Affairs which provides a good initial analysis of the draft constitutional treaty. We should try to connect with organisations of that nature in respect of this issue.

The outcome of the Convention is to be warmly welcomed. However, its achievements should not be undermined by the Intergovernmental Conference. I was pleased by the Minister's comment – he has made it on previous occasions – that he sees the document as the basis for a successful Intergovernmental Conference.

The draft constitutional treaty is easy to read and understand. Part 1 makes clear what the Union is, what it does and what are its values and objectives. It makes absolutely clear that powers are conferred on the Union by the member states, not vice versa, and that any powers not conferred remain with member states. It is disingenuous of people such as Deputy Ó Snodaigh to try to twist the language of the draft constitutional treaty around to portray the position as being otherwise.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I do not need to twist it, that is what it says.

Mr. Carey

I welcome the Deputy's initiative in articulating his view. However, I believe that view is wrong and we should ensure that it does not gain any active currency.

The report sets out, clearly and concisely, the division of powers between the Union and the member states. There is a significant reduction in the number of legal instruments. A great deal of that was painstakingly thought out by the various working parties and it should mean that decision-making will become more understandable to citizens. The renaming of the instruments should further contribute to this. It might be a small exercise but it is important that the renaming should be almost self-explanatory.

The charter of fundamental rights was discussed at great length in order to clarify its scope and application. It is clear that the charter will apply to all the EU institutions and member states only when they are implementing EU law. No new competences are created as a result of its proposed incorporation in the draft treaty. It is encouraging that the charter of fundamental rights is being inserted as part of the treaty. This will significantly shift the thrust of the development of Europe and will create for it a new dynamic. Rather than focusing on military aspects and other issues, as some people inside and outside the House would desire, we will be discussing a sustainable, social, caring and inclusive Europe. When it comes to the ratification, there should be many good reasons for our being prepared to recommend the treaty to the people.

The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality have been restated and strengthened. The national parliaments have been given an enhanced role in monitoring compliance. This Parliament is well able and prepared to take up that role. I compliment Deputy Gay Mitchell on the diligence he has displayed since undertaking his job as Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I also compliment the Minister and Minister of State for coming before the House on numerous occasions to keep Members abreast of developments at General Affairs and External Relations Councils.

The institutional changes proposed respect the key principles of equality of member states and the balance between the institutions. I do not have time to expand on this issue but I believe it is important and worthy of discussion.

The draft proposals on Commission composition guarantee equality of access to all members states to the Commission on the same terms. This was a central feature of the Treaty of Nice. Deputy Gormley has some concerns in this regard but, having listened to the Minister both today and on previous occasions, I believe that the equality of member states ultimately will be protected. The draft proposals are, however, a step forward from Nice in that all member states will continue to appoint a commissioner. Under Nice, once the Union had reached 27 members, a smaller Commission was to be agreed. While the current arrangement is good, it would obviously be a further boost if one commissioner per member state is achievable in terms of equality.

I am one of those who holds the view that the next Commission should be used as a testing ground to see how effectively it will work with a membership of 25 – ultimately 27 – and with one commissioner per member state. We may well discover that it will be possible to have a very effective Commission of 25 or 27. As stated earlier, with the accession of the ten new countries, a new dynamic will be created within the Union. The development of the latter will be interesting to observe.

The double majority system of voting will have the advantage, in my view, of being easier to understand. I would be happy to retain the system agreed at Nice, but I defy most people to tell me that they understand the intricacies of weighted voting or qualified majority voting.

While the overall outcome of the Convention is to be warmly welcomed, as the Minister said, the Intergovernmental Conference should not be a rubber stamp. It is important that real negotiations can take place. I served on the working party which discussed the area of taxation. Our view, articulated with the assistance of Department of Finance officials, prevailed at the working group. The Government identified the issues of taxation, criminal procedure and security and defence. These would benefit from further debate at the Intergovernmental Conference. The work programme of the Presidency appears to offer the scope to raise these issues and I welcome this.

I share the Government's view that unanimity is appropriate in the taxation area given its fundamental centrality to national political and economic life. It is an area that we should ensure is copper-fastened. Reading the reports of the discussions that have already taken place, I am confident that will be the case.

Ireland's distinctive legal tradition also makes it appropriate to maintain unanimity in some of the new articles on criminal law, especially on procedural aspects. I agree that these are areas of great sensitivity. From our experience in discussing this issue with our European colleagues, I believe it is not well understood that our common law system is different from the legal system which applies in the rest of Europe. It should be possible to come to an arrangement where mutual recognition of particular provisions would be possible and certain areas of criminal procedure could be advanced.

As regards defence, I feel further work is required to avoid the risk of fragmentation and incoherence in the Union. This is a serious risk. There is a need to look carefully again at these ideas. However, it seems clear that Ireland is not being asked to take on any obligations incompatible with our neutrality.

The Convention has done much good work. Both the Government and the Oireachtas representatives have helped to produce a draft treaty which, I hope, will be well received. It is now up to the Intergovernmental Conference to conclude that work.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This is an important debate. However, it is important that it be conducted on a rational basis and without reference to slogans. Without being unduly critical, in the contribution of our Sinn Féin colleague I noticed that he shares an approach with the British Conservative Party in the very narrow view of the EU as being a super-state. The powers of the EU in many ways are less than those of the State of California, that has been so much in the news lately. As Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, I recall being sent to every capital in Europe begging the member states to provide temporary funding. The EC, as it was at the time, did not have the power to borrow money. As far as I know it still does not have that power. Let us be rational about the debate and not deal in slogans.

How will the Government ensure that Ireland's interests are best protected during the Intergovernmental Conference? There is almost bound to be an over-spill into the Irish Presidency and this will create particular difficulties. While I am not in any way impugning the ability of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, in this issue, Ireland will then be in the position of an honest broker between 25 countries that are all trying to look after their own interests. Ireland's supreme concern at that time will be to act as honest broker and this will leave us without the weight to single-mindedly pursue our national interests. Let us see how that might cause problems. Before he left for Nice, the Taoiseach assured virtually the whole world that we were going to have a Commissioner with a vote in perpetuity. He had to compromise.

There is also an issue regarding tax harmonisation and qualified majority voting. Britain and Ireland were in a common position. I suggested in a light-hearted manner to the Minister at a European affairs meeting recently that we were on the coattails of Britain. If we have a common interest we should obviously use that position. I agree with Deputy Carey that it is important for the country, for a variety of economic and social reasons, that we ensure we hold to unanimity on this issue. I am quite concerned about recent reports that Britain may be shifting, or at least weakening, on this. I can see how it could happen and could cause difficulties for us in the Presidency.

Let us consider the defence arrangements. Of course, there is a difference between the group led by France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and pre-Berlusconi Italy which has a particular view of the future defence arrangements for the Union and the other group, led by Britain and including the Netherlands and Denmark which represents, as it were, the pro-NATO view within Europe. It may be that the French view will not be accepted. My concern is there might be a quid pro quo as far as Britain is concerned. Is that the reason it has sent out signals that it might weaken on the tax harmonisation issue? By coincidence, the French, Belgians and others in that camp, really want tax harmonisation. I foresee difficulties and I am warning the Government to be prepared for the difficulties that may arise when we have the Presidency. It will not be all glory. There are national interests that will have to be defended and we must be prepared to do that.

The same will arise regarding the Commission and that needs to be teased out further. The Commission has always been the ally of small member states. I am a little concerned about the two-tier Commission with the voting college and non-voting college, something like the position of Ministers and Ministers of State. I am concerned more so that the voting college of 15 will consist of a president, who may not be from a small member state, plus the Union's Minister for Foreign Affairs. I detect a signal from the Minister of State that there will be rotation involved. There will be a reluctance to have a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs from a small member state.

There has been a volte-face to some degree on the charter of fundamental rights. At Nice, Britain and Ireland did not want any justiciable charter – we were in for a political declaration. The British have gone the other way and so have we. We need to have an understanding as to why we took that position and why there has been a change. I am not saying that I object to the change, but I think it needs to be explained to the people.

As regards the preamble, I do not adopt a holy Joe approach. At the same time, I do not think we should go overboard in ignoring the reality that is a common Christian heritage. Of course there are minorities and we have to look to the accession of Turkey. I see no reason why the reality should not include a reference to our common Christian heritage. Why not? As it is currently framed, it is like a French secular constitution ignoring reality, ignoring God. This should be re-examined.

I would like to refer to the legal instruments proposed by the Convention. Generally, I think the change is good from the perspective of a re-christening of regulations, which is what they are as they are directly applicable. It also re-christens the directives as European framework laws and this is a correct description as the onus is on member states to implement them. This raises the issue about our deplorable record of implementing directives. I have raised this issue before and would have thought that coming up to the Presidency, we might have shown some good example. I am horrified by the responses to some Dáil questions I tabled recently. An enormous number of directives have not been transposed and clearly will not be transposed by the time we take over the Presidency. Clearly they will not be transposed by the time we take over the Presidency. In the environment area, there are 12 directives to be transposed, five of which are overdue. We could be hauled up before the European Court because of those five directives. That would not be a good start to our Presidency.

In the transport area, there are 19 directives to be transposed, 15 of which are late. The Minister for Transport is missing the bus on this matter. In the finance area, there are 13 directives to be transposed, three of which are late. In the health area, there are ten to be transposed, which is an unhealthy outcome, and seven of those are late. The area I must mention is the Tánaiste's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Her reply on this matter was very coy and did not mention the number of directives to be transposed or the number which were late. She referred me to a website, but when I checked it, it was not accessible. I wonder whether that was by accident or design, but is it a coincidence that we have the most appalling record in the Tánaiste's Department, where 30 directives are waiting to be transposed? Coming into the Presidency we should be setting some kind of example in so far as that is possible.

I compliment the Department of Foreign Affairs on its explanatory guide, which is simple, clear-cut and will contribute to the public debate. I want much more openness and transparency in the public debate on this issue. The Government should be prepared to tease out issues as they arrive so that when the final treaty is ultimately agreed, we can all, or as many of us as possible, endorse it wholeheartedly and ensure the referendum is passed.

Ms Sexton

I wish to share my time with Deputy Eoin Ryan.

The purpose of the Convention on the Future of Europe was to simplify the European treaties, to make Union policy-making more effective and to bring it closer to the people. The first two aims could be seen as legalistic and technical, perhaps to be understood only by lawyers, administrators and some politicians. The third aim is the key – to bring the European Union closer to the people.

This means that the writing of a new constitutional treaty for the European Union is a political project and the process and the text are complex and technical. The new text has involved the work of thousands of people as well as hundreds of delegates at the Convention, but it will only reach its full conclusion when it is put to a referendum in our country and in others.

We can only hope to bring political institutions close to the people if they are relevant, effective and subject to their control. In national politics, we do not try to impress people by elaborating on the Standing Orders of the House. We do not try to show them the importance of the Oireachtas by arguing about who heads which committee. We do not show them democracy at work by sending them Iris Oifigiúil. We do it by working to solve real problems, creating real opportunities and responding to people's real needs and wishes.

I expect the new constitutional treaty will be judged by its relevance, effectiveness and responsiveness. The people have shown themselves willing and ready to engage in intelligent and informed debate about European issues. The Treaty of Nice referenda and the campaigns in both cases have surely taught us that we have nothing to fear from full debate. People want our country not to be defensive about our role and our interests in Europe, but to be confident in advancing our interests, strategic in our thinking and realistic in our objectives and goals.

There is much in the draft constitutional treaty that Ireland can and should accept. We can reaffirm our commitment to and membership of the European Union that we ourselves have helped develop over 30 years. Much of the substance of the EU will not have changed and that is not a bad thing. We can expect that none of the positive achievements of the European Union will be lost in this new constitutional treaty.

The balance of institutional power in the European Union will change to some degree, depending on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference, but it is safe to say that the sharing of competences in the Union and the checks and balances of power will remain very largely those we have used to date. The EU is not being fundamentally redesigned with a constitution modelled on the federal United States of America.

Let us also be clear, however, that we have some legitimate concerns about aspects of the draft constitutional treaty. These concerns are as valid as those expressed by any other member state. In some cases member states managed to get key national priorities reflected in the text at the Convention and, in particular instances, at the very last moment. It should not matter at what stage of the process, between the start of the Convention and the end of the Intergovernmental Conference, that national bottom lines are addressed. It is clear from the Intergovernmental Conference meeting on Monday that it is proposed that the draft Constitution is useful in setting out a framework and Ireland must be vigilant in negotiation of the detail within that framework. For example, regarding the proposal to appoint a Foreign Minister who would have a foot in two camps, it is imperative that the detail regarding this appointment is hammered out and pinned down very securely to ensure that no tensions are created.

We have not yet achieved the clear position on direct tax policy that we want, namely, that unanimity will continue to apply in all cases and as a permanent constitutional matter. I am confident that the Irish position on tax will be achieved by the Government negotiators and I have supreme confidence in the Minister of State with responsibility for Europe, Deputy Roche, given what was achieved at Nice by the Taoiseach and in our second Nice referendum, when we said a "Yes" vote would confirm our people's approval of that negotiating stance and outcome. Now we have the strength of a direct, strong mandate behind our position on tax.

In the area of defence and security policy, the text is still up for negotiation to a large degree and it is difficult for all of us to predict the final shape. However, there is no prospect of the Union developing any automatic defence commitment such as NATO's mutual defence policy in its Article V. Not many countries want that and Ireland certainly does not.

At the same time, let us not pretend to the public that Europe as a whole does not have security issues to address. We have issues regarding maintaining peace, security and human rights in bordering States. We have to counter human trafficking and we have to combat terrorism and international crime. No self-respecting mature state in the world exists without a security policy. Our security is bound up intimately with our EU partners and the international security situation. There is no reason that we cannot voluntarily, and on a case by case basis, show a willingness to help fellow member states in certain emergencies, just as we would be grateful for their help if we faced a crisis. So long as we retain national control over our defence forces in all cases, as we will, we have nothing to fear from the development of a European security and defence policy.

I was heartened to see also at the Intergovernmental Conference on Monday that a broad consensus emerged on a number of general guidelines like the extension of the Petersberg Tasks and the solidarity clause in combating terrorism. It is vitally important that if we are proposing to extend our participation beyond the existing commitments, the Government must clearly spell out in detail how Ireland will become involved in these tasks and explain to the electorate that our traditional neutral position and support of UN-sanctioned peacekeeping and monitoring activities are not undermined. The European Union is be a key force for peace and security and I wish the Minister well in his negotiations.

Mr. Eoin Ryan

I thank Deputy Sexton for sharing her time. I too welcome this draft constitution and congratulate all those involved in it, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputies John Bruton, Carey, Gormley, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and Gay Mitchell, the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and Mr. Bobby McDonagh and the Department of Foreign Affairs for all the work they have done so far. This has been a huge task and many wondered at the start if those involved could achieve it, but they have done so because they worked together. As has been said, the process took approximately 17 months but this is an important and exciting document and on behalf of all of us I thank them for the work they have done over the past 17 months.

The document will help to make Europe more democratic and more governable, as other speakers have said. It was not put together behind closed doors. The process was very open – all member states were represented at both Government and parliamentary levels, the media covered it extensively and hundreds of papers were involved in the process. The Convention allowed us to see a clear description of the EU's objectives, values, powers and institutions. That is a good aspect because those of us who knocked on doors in support of various EU treaties are aware that people have found them difficult to understand. In many cases people voted for previous treaties because they trusted politicians and others. During the campaign on the last EU treaty people wanted a clear description and understanding of exactly for what they would be voting. That is why this constitution is timely.

The Intergovernmental Conference faces a great challenge. As the Minister said, it is important for those involved in looking forward to also look back. The Europe Union is a success. One need only reflect on what it has allowed this and other member states to achieve. We have had a common market for our commercial development. Some 25 member states are discussing a new constitution for the Union. Who would have thought that possible a few years ago? We have a new strong currency, the euro, which is probably too strong for some of our exporters. Who would have thought a few years ago that development would have occurred, having regard to the exchange rate mechanism that was in place and what happened in regard to the English pound, with people running scared of the introduction of the euro and saying it could never work? It has worked. Who would have thought it would have been possible for the European Union to be involved in Bosnia? Many positive developments have occurred within the Union.

Another such development is that the Union is about to absorb 75 million people from eastern Europe. The European Union has it critics and problems, but it is moving forward. When one considers the influence of certain people currently in the United States, it is important that Europe is seen to be strong and that its people stand together and make sure we stand up to some of the influence currently being exercised within the American system.

There have always been sceptics in every member state about the European Union, but alongside them have been those with a passionate idealism about what Europe is and its importance. Those people have clashed in many ways, but that debate has been a driving force for the Union. It is sad to read the comments of the leader of the British Conservative Party on this draft constitution.

I wish the Intergovernmental Conference well. Those involved must take account of national interest and common European interest. They must look back as they look forward because one need only reflect on the positive developments and the gains achieved in the Union. There are many more gains to be made in the future through this draft constitution. I wish the Government, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, the Taoiseach and all those involved in this process well. The future of Europe lies in the provisions of this draft constitution. This is an exciting time for all of us living in Europe. I hope the debate on the draft constitution will be a success.

Mr. Durkan

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.

Acting Chairman (Ms O'Sullivan)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Durkan

I congratulate the Minister on his contribution. As the previous speaker said, this is an interesting time for Europe, but it is also a challenging time. We have come through the first phase, that of the first 50 years, successfully. The next phase is a challenge. It is a bigger arena where there are more competing powers and there is the re-emergence of nationalism that existed many years ago. There is also the matter of our own nationalism. Every member state would like to have absolute control over the future of the European Union, what direction it takes, its policies and its constitution. If one accepts that principle, we will reach the stage where the more powerful will survive. We have seen some evidence of that in more recent times, where the more powerful tend to influence everybody else. That is a slight departure from what my colleague, Deputy Michael Higgins, used to poetically refer to some years ago as the situation where everything was very communitaire. He was correct because everything was very communitaire in the lead up to where we are now. However, there tends to be less emphasis on those who are less powerful and a little more emphasis in moving us inexorably in a particular direction and telling us where we are going when we are there.

I pay tribute to the stance taken by Deputy Mitchell, particularly in relation to defence, although many Members present would not agree with that. We can either be outside calling on those inside to listen to our voice or we can be inside influencing the outcome. We have a choice. Those who are in the position of making that choice should do it now and ensure that we retain influence at this crucial juncture. Deputy Mitchell is absolutely right in his stance. He was right in his reading of the situation in the run-up to the Iraq war and events have since proved him correct.

We also need to recognise that we must get the correct balance in Europe as it evolves. I was a member of the original Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and at one of the first meetings I attended I could not understand why we were going that route, given that it was a simple matter to introduce a constitution. What worries me now is that the draft constitution is slightly more complicated and longer than I would have thought at that time. It is difficult to assuage the fears of many people and to meet the requirement of others to ensure the constitution is short and succinct. That presents a difficulty, but it should not be forgotten that the simplest of constitutions will remain in the public mind as well in the mind of the nation.

In the time available it is difficult to develop one's thinking on this issue. However, the Minister said that we need to become more aware of Europe and Europe needs to be more aware of us – by "us" I mean all the nations of Europe. Instead of looking at each other as if we were British, German, French, from Luxembourg or one of the new applicant countries, we need to look at each other as Europeans. We need to recognise that we have an equal right to whatever happens in Europe and that in developing our economic, social, political and any other policies we want to trot out we should proceed in a way that will recognise the rights and the need to provide equity throughout the Union rather than in a way that is oblivious or impervious to the needs of others.

Mr. Ring

I am glad this debate, the first of many such debates, is taking place. I point out to the Minister, the Government and to everyone who is pro-Europe that there are people who are anti-Europe and who do not agree with what is in the draft constitution. Those people have rights and they will not be dictated to by central government or the leaders of political parties. These people will have a right in the next few months to put forward another point of view. They will have an opportunity to debate this issue in public with the Ministers of the day and the Government. I hope the Government and everyone involved in this process will get the opportunity to explain, in simple layperson's terms, to the people what is involved in this process and that they will not hide particular issues under the carpet.

The previous debate on Europe got nasty at the end and the people decided wisely. I am a democrat and I accept whatever the people decide. The people will get another opportunity to decide in this regard because people in the past talked about this constitution. We can look back to the foundation of this State and to our Constitution. The people who drafted it were wise and it has stood the test of time. I am worried, as are many people, that we will be taken over by Europe, that the introduction of a European constitution will take over this country.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue visited my constituency today while this House was sitting. He has no respect for the House or the Parliament if he is away opening swimming pools and leisure centres on a Wednesday when he should be in this House. If we have no respect for the House, we are merely rubber-stamping the legislation coming in from Europe. We are already doing that and will be doing much more of it if this draft constitution goes through.

What sickens me about Europe is that it reminds me of what used to go on in this country for the past 50 years. Failed politicians were shoved into the Upper House, the Seanad. Some of them got jobs as group leaders, spokespersons or leas-chathaoirligh after losing their Dáil seats. We now have a situation whereby former taoisigh and Ministers will, just as happens in Britain, be shoved into Europe and given jobs for the boys and girls. It is happening already. It is a bit like the dual mandate, with dynasties being perpetuated. An ex-Minister who loses a Dáil seat or resigns, and fails to get a seat in the Seanad to act perhaps as Leas-Chathaoirleach, will be given a plum job in Europe. That is what is happening now.

We then have the situation regarding the EU Commissioner, a most powerful man. We are talking of a president of the European Council who will not even be elected. The Irish Commissioner should go before the people and be elected by them. Otherwise he or she should not be allowed to represent the country. The current selection process is not appropriate. It looks like we will lose our own Commissioner. We have already lost two MEPs and we will lose more. Our influence in Europe will diminish.

In the area of European law, someone referred to the euro. The European constitution is a joke, as is the whole European scene. I will give two very simple examples. If the euro is working so well, why is Britain allowed to stay outside the eurozone? We are either in Europe or not. The second example is one I always give when speaking about Europe. As far back as when we joined the EEC, we were told that we would have free movement of people and free movement of cars. To this day, one cannot go into any European country and buy a car without being obliged to pay VRT when arriving back with it at an Irish border. Is that not disgraceful?

Mr. Durkan

Absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Ring

We are either in Europe or out of it and cannot be in between. The Government attitude is that Europe can be blamed for all the bad points.

Mr. P. Power

Together with other Deputies, I am happy to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. When the draft constitution is ultimately passed by the member states in the Intergovernmental Conference, when it comes before the people and becomes the constitution of the European Union, history will show it to be one of the most historic documents ever to be passed or agreed to by the nations of Europe going back 100 years. It will be seen to be more significant than the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Maastricht, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Single European Act. For the people of Europe to agree to combine all the past piecemeal agreements towards the integration of Europe in one agreement shows the ultimate maturity and coming together of the nations of Europe.

There are different views within this House on this agreement, and as Deputy Ring has pointed out there are very different views outside the House, which we should not disregard. Whatever one's views, one should not deny the enormity of the task and of the achievement in reducing the common goals and aspirations contained in all of the treaties to date to a very simple, straightforward and short text such as this. That is an enormous achievement. Huge credit should go to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and to all those involved in the Convention, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, as well as Deputies Gormley and Carey who assisted in that enterprise.

The most welcome part of this draft constitution is the fact that any citizen of the European Union and any citizen of Ireland can take it up – unlike any of the previous treaties which ran to hundreds of pages and were bogged down in the complexities of European administrative language – and see at first hand what the European Union is about and to what we are subscribing if we support the constitution. That is a great achievement.

I will confine my comments to Articles 2 and 3 of the draft constitution. I wonder if it is a coincidence that these two articles set out the values and the objectives of the European Union in the same way that the Irish Constitution formerly set out our national aspirations. As we all know, we ceded and diluted those aspirations for a greater goal. In subscribing to Articles 2 and 3 of the EU draft constitution we will again be ceding our national aspirations for the greater goal of European integration, that great goal to which we have been aspiring for many years.

I will quote if I may from Article 2: "The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These values are common to the member States in a society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination." This is plain and simple English. Everyone in this House and in the member states of the European Union should be able to subscribe to those values. Having said that, listening to the Private Members' debate last night I wondered if some Members of the House subscribe to the rule of law. I do not want to go down that road at this particular time.

Mr. M. Higgins

One wonders about all of the judges as well.

Mr. P. Power

The judges subscribe to it. Ultimately, they are the people who enforce the law in this country. Either we are democrats or we are not. If we subscribe to a constitution and to a rule of law, we must abide by it. Unfortunately, a small minority in this country does not do so. That is the ultimate inexpression of democracy if I may put it like that.

I am very pleased to see that concepts such as sustainable development are now incorporated into the draft text in a positive, prescriptive way. It states: "The European Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between men and women, solidarity between the generations and protection of children's rights." These are values to which everyone in Ireland can and should subscribe. The text is presented in plain and simple English.

Article 3(3) of the draft text notes that the Union "shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity and shall ensure Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced". That is very important because it recognises the diversity of the European nations and people. Part of the difficulty we have in selling, so to speak, a treaty or constitution such as this, lies in explaining to people that this is not a takeover by Europe, as Deputy Ring might have us believe. It respects the diversity of the peoples of Europe as well as the countries and their unique traditions. That is something I very much welcome in the draft text.

Most important, it recognises the principles of sustainable development and recognises that the Union we have today, with its rights, obligations and duties to citizens, is not just for the citizens of today but for the generations to come. In terms of sustainable development and the protection of the environment these are positive obligations, which in my understanding have not been incorporated quite as explicitly into previous treaties.

I welcome the title of the constitution in terms of the Union competences and subsidiarity and proportionality. For the first time, the principles binding all institutions of the EU, in particular in the area of competency of the institutions, have been set out clearly and concisely. In that regard, I also welcome the provisions on defence taxation and criminal procedures. The essential essence of our sovereignty as a sovereign country lies in the defence of our people, our ability to raise tax and spend money and on the protection of our people. I am glad the constitution respects those important principles.

Acting Chairman

As I am not due to call the Minister of State until 6.45 p.m. perhaps he might concede some time to the other side. Two more Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Roche)

I do not think I can. I specifically want to address some of the points raised.

Acting Chairman

Will the Minister of State agree to give them three minutes each?

Mr. Roche

It will be impossible for me to answer all the questions raised in the time available to me, but I will do my best.

Acting Chairman

The Deputies concerned have two minutes each.

Mr. Boyle

I thank the Minister of State for being so accommodating.

We should welcome the existence of an all-embracing document taking into account all preceding treaties and the simplicity of language, which replaces the convoluted legal prose of the existing treaties. We should welcome the existence of a process that was far more open than any process linked with the preceding treaties.

This process emanated from those in Europe who expressed scepticism, those in Denmark and France who asked questions on the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties and those in Sweden who raised questions relating to the euro. It is a belated attempt by decision-makers in Europe to come to terms with the fact that a democratic deficit continues to exist between them and the people of Europe. We should, for this reason, welcome the belated acceptance that has brought about the constitutional treaty which in many respects is a huge improvement on what has preceded it

Unfortunately, gaps remain in the process. The accession countries have not been properly involved. They have expressed reservations and are entering into the Intergovernmental Conference making known those reservations which were not aired in the convention because they did not have voting rights. This is what we have been told by the accession countries.

The trend of individuals making decisions on behalf of the many still remains. Power is being concentrated in favour of the larger countries instead of the smaller ones. These concerns will also come before the European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference. We retain the fascination that a military component should exist as part of the European Union, most evident in the proposal for a European armaments industry in the actual text of the constitution. Why not propose a European pornography industry or a European recreational drugs agency? That would have the same benefit in terms of the economies of Europe and would operate on the same moral basis.

While this document is a huge improvement on what has gone before, it has many flaws which the Government must be prepared to tackle not alone in the interests of this country but on behalf of the individual citizen in Europe and on behalf of smaller countries within the European Union.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thank the Minister of State for allowing me two minutes of his time to contribute to this debate on the European Convention.

It is essential that in all debates on Europe the views of 40% of Irish people are listened to and respected. These people, whom I represent, have genuine questions about Europe and it is a disgrace that the political, social and economic elite are often dismissive and constantly try to distort our vision of Europe and the world in general. These are the real issues that should be dealt with in this debate. Many of us have genuine democratic concerns and are trying to defend the interests of working people and the more marginalised in our society.

A Europe that does not respect and take care of its people is going nowhere. Among our concerns are the following: Will this European constitution override the national sovereignty of each member state? Is this a further step in the formation of a super-state? We all support closer economic and social co-operation but is this the EU sticking its nose into the business of other states on internal matters? Have we not learned from history? There is nothing wrong with Ireland taking a strong, independent line on international and national issues. Will this create a more centralised and democratic Europe? These are fundamental questions which deserve honest and straight answers. I am concerned about the direction in which we are moving. An open debate must be top of the agenda.

I welcome the earlier comment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Irish people are not naive and starry eyed about Europe. However, many of us feel the Minister and his colleagues in Government are starry eyed about it. Its reaction during the Nice referendum showed a lack of tolerance for the "no" side. I challenge the major political parties in this House to listen to the views of our citizens. A classic example is Article 2 of the draft treaty – some call it a constitution – which states that the Union is founded on human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Article 3 confirms that the Union's aim is to promote peace, freedom, justice, sustainable development and full employment. These are principles on which we can all agree. For a while I thought I was listening to the words of Wolfe Tone or Robert Emmet. These articles could easily apply to an independent Republic, which I hope we will achieve some day in the future.

I hope the Minister of State took note of the genuine concerns expressed by the people in the recent opinion poll in The Irish TImes on the EU and the people's desire for Ireland to assert a strong, independent foreign policy line.

Mr. Roche

The articles to which the Deputy referred are fine articles that outline aspirations which sit very well with the tradition of Wolfe Tone and Emmet and the democratic traditions of this House.

It was my great honour to represent Ireland at the Convention. I join with the Minister in paying the warmest of tributes to those Members of the Oireachtas who played a constructive role in the discussions. Ireland was the only country attending the Convention where the majority of the representations were not from the Government parties. Ireland had the most open approach to the Convention. Some said, at the time, it was a gamble but it was a gamble worth taking because the contributions made by Members from all sides of this House meant we had the most extraordinarily cohesive approach in the Convention.

I pay a particularly warm tribute to other representatives who did an extraordinary job, in particular, Mr. Bobby McDonagh from the Department of Foreign Affairs who played an extraordinary and patriotic role in the Convention as did other officials from the Department. I also thank colleagues from the House for the role they played in facilitating a more active and lively debate on European issues. I thank in particular Deputy Gay Mitchell and his committee and Deputy Ruairí Quinn who is not often mentioned in this regard but whose advice and guidance I greatly appreciated.

It is true that in discussing the future of Europe we are discussing issues of great consequence to every citizen not just in this country but right across Europe. From my attendance at the Intergovernmental Conference earlier this week, it is clear that much of what the Convention has proposed will stand. That is so because much of what has been proposed is good. There is widescale appreciation that significant progress has been made towards making European fundamental law and the constitutional treaty more legible and more accessible to the people. It is a legal document and legal text tends to involve tensions between the need to make a document like this clear while at the same time creating legal certainty. This does not always result in the most elegant form. In fact, there are areas in the Convention which are not elegant and could do with improvement. However, while the Convention text is not perfect, it stands head and shoulders, as Deputy Boyle said – and I recognise his positive contribution – above the treaties it will replace. It is readable, legible and understandable, as it should be.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins queried the use of the words "constitutional treaty" in conjunction with one another. I was one of those who wished to make it clear this was in a stand-alone category. Deputy Higgins is a scholar in this area, but I draw his attention to another scholar, Professor Weir, who said that a constitution is "a treaty by a people to themselves". It is, therefore, apposite to use the two words together.

Mr. M. Higgins

He meant to say it was a contract.

Mr. Roche

Like the Minister, I welcome the enhanced role the national parliaments have been able to play as a result of the Convention's work. I have no doubt these important proposals will be accepted by the Intergovernmental Conference. We know that citizens sometimes perceive a distance between them and Europe. Deputy Boyle rightly said there is a gulf which must be bridged. Involving the national parliaments to a greater degree than ever before in an instructive manner is a valuable step towards bridging that gap. Deputy Boyle also rightly said that the Convention process was much more open than anything that went before and, therefore, the documents emanating from it reflect a political view.

The Convention also did valuable work in ensuring that agreement can be reached, including the charter of fundamental rights in the new treaty. The work done on the charter, by Ireland in particular, made it possible to include it. The additional articles, from Article 51 onwards in Part II of the treaty dealing with the charter, were the result of work initiated by Ireland. In this regard, Mr. McDonagh made a considerable contribution. Ireland and the United Kingdom forged those articles which allowed the charter to be included. They will ensure it does not do violence to constitutional traditions.

The Government has always supported the charter as a clear description of the rights citizens enjoy in their dealings with the institutions of the Union and their governments, in so far as they are implementing European law. However, taking a political declaration and giving it legal effect is not an exercise to be undertaken without careful scrutiny and detailed consideration. We took the most positive approach possible in this regard and did so from a position of strength. We have a strong written Constitution and have some expertise in this matter. We were listened to.

For the charter to be included, all concerned – citizens, institutions and governments – must be clear and certain as to its scope and the level of its application. The impression should not be given that it did more or less than it does. The Convention did particularly significant work in advancing this aim, making judicious amendments where necessary and showing that in the interpretation of the charter, the courts will have regard to the explanations accompanying its promulgation.

Overall, the new document will give a simple and clear statement of what the Union is and does. I have no difficulty in calling it a constitution or, more appropriately, a constitutional treaty. Many kinds of organisations have constitutions which set out their basic rules and purposes. It should be clear that the constitution will be established by a treaty between member states, all of which must agree and then ratify individually according to their constitutional provisions.

It is also proposed that the constitutional treaty can only be amended in future by the unanimous agreement of the member states and by subsequent ratification. The fears that have been raised in this regard are false. This is not a supranational state with a constitution that will supersede Bunreacht na hÉireann. As citizens, we will be in a formidable position. As far as Europe is concerned, bunreacht na hEorpa will protect us, but Bunreacht na hÉireann will protect in so far as we are citizens of this State.

It is important that the Union has the right values and objectives. It is also important it has the right policies and decision-making procedures. It will also need a set of institutions properly equipped to drive it forward. In many ways the Convention was a dry run for enlargement. All of the countries wanting to join the Union participated fully. I disagree with Deputy Boyle in this regard. I sat around the table with the representatives of all the accession states last Monday and Tuesday as an equal, not as a superior.

Mr. Boyle

That is not what the Polish delegation was telling us.

Mr. Roche

If anybody says the contrary was the case, he or she is wrong. All the countries waiting to join the Union participated fully. This brought a new and positive dynamic to our work. However, it also highlighted the difference between having 15 people sitting around a table and 25 or more. Meetings will take longer as there are points of view that must be heard. We need to be sure that the Union's institutions are fully prepared for the new reality. That is why there was such a degree of interest in the institutions.

The Convention has recommended the creation of a new post of president of the European Council. Some are wary of the idea while others wish to give this office an ambitious and wide-ranging remit. What has emerged from the Convention strikes the right balance and addresses the concerns touched on, for example, by Deputy Gay Mitchell. The president of the European Council will be of assistance to prime ministers in chairing their meetings and following their work. He or she will help to prepare meetings and will facilitate coherence and consensus. Where appropriate, the president will represent the Union internationally in this work. The office will not be in competition with the President of the Commission, nor will the president of the European Council be directing the work of the Council in its different formations. The office will not have a superior role over the other formations of the Council. As long as the Convention's balance is maintained by the Intergovernmental Conference, I regard the creation of the new post as positive and helpful. As the Minister put it, this office will be one of chairperson, not chieftain.

Similarly, we would all wish to see the Union operating to its fullest potential as the force for good in the world. At present, the Union has two external representatives, one in the Commission's area of competence, currently held by Commissioner Patten, while the other is in the area of the Council's responsibility, where Javier Solana fulfils the role. Both of these are widely acknowledged as having done an excellent job. Not unreasonably, it was felt by many that drawing the two roles together would lead to greater consistency in our approach and to better protection of the Union's voice on the world stage. The Convention has, therefore, proposed the creation of a Union Foreign Minister. Naturally there are detailed issues to be considered and a number of Deputies referred to this aspect. They will have to be pursued in the Intergovernmental Conference where clarity will be sought.

With regard to the Commission, the Treaty of Nice represented a particularly good deal for small and medium sized member states. For the first time, the full equality of all member states as regards membership was established. The Government went to the Convention determined to protect that vital principle, as did all of the other members of the Irish Convention team. We worked hard with like minded partners and against strong opposition. I believe we succeeded. The text is a success in this regard. However, it can be improved.

The Convention proposes that there be 15 voting Commissioners, including the president and Foreign Minister, with guaranteed equality among member states as regards rotation into and out of the 15 slots. According to the Convention proposals, there will be non-voting Commissioners from those countries without a voting Commissioner for a given period. In other words, there would be representation at the table. This set of proposals is now the subject of lively debate, which I welcome. The Minister summarised the point it has reached. This is work in progress, it is not final.

Other proposals are being made at the Intergovernmental Conference. For example, a considerable number of member states, including all of the accession states, wish to revise the Convention proposals. Most are seeking one voting Commissioner per member state. The Commission has brought forward an excellent paper which suggests a way of achieving this. While we are, broadly speaking, happy with the Convention agreement, subject to some elaboration of the text, we would see real attractions in having a full Commissioner per member state. However, we would only seek it on the basis of exact equality.

Similarly, if the Convention agreements are to stand, there are aspects that need to be teased out. We have always said there is room for significant improvement in a number of areas in the text. Like almost all of our partners, we do not support the idea that each country must put forward three candidates, leaving the President of the Commission to make the final choice as to who is the Commissioner. That is not acceptable to us.

Likewise, we are anxious about the appointment arrangements for voting and non-voting commissioners and our views are widely shared. The Government strongly wishes that non-voting commissioners should have a significant role and most partners support them having distinct and substantive areas of work.

The Italian Presidency has made no secret that it strongly wishes that the Intergovernmental Conference should conclude its work in December and we fully support that. However, if this is not achieved, the task will fall to us. The Minister set out the Government's priorities and the broad approach it is taking. We will press our interests and priorities with conviction. Similarly, other member states are pursuing their concerns with vigour. We all must guard against treating the Intergovernmental Conference as a football match. There can only be winners and losers in football and if one team succeeds, another must fail. That is not how the European Union works. We will pursue issues of concern but, with 25 members sitting around the table, we must be mindful of the need to achieve an outcome with which everybody can live. That takes compromise and everybody must leave the table satisfied. It is not a zero sum game.

If our work is to be completed as quickly as possible, as we undertook to do at Thessalonika, we will need to take a Community-minded approach. As committed members of the Union, we have a strong and shared interest in an institution that is effective, efficient and continues to deliver benefit to its citizens. Throughout the proceedings of the Convention, I greatly valued and enjoyed the debates with colleagues, particularly at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, which has taken such a close and informed interest in the process. Members have been kept better and more closely informed throughout the Convention than the members of other parliaments in Europe. That is my ambition and that is how we will continue until the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. I am sorry I do not have time to respond to individual points but if Members wish to pursue particular issues, I am at their disposal.