John Gormley
Ceist:1 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the upcoming December 2003 EU summit on the Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27093/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues he will highlight at the upcoming EU summit on 12-13 December 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27094/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visits to Cyprus and Slovakia. [27095/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of Uganda on 10 November 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27146/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed with the President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, during their recent meeting in Dublin; if he raised with the President allegations of corruption and human rights abuses in Uganda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27265/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the December 2003 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27315/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he intends holding on the margins of the forthcoming December 2003 European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27316/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, in Rome on 13 November 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27543/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 12 November 2003 with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi. [27544/03]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting in Rome with the Prime Minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28058/03]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Budapest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28059/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a final agenda for the forthcoming EU summit on 12-13 December 2003; his priorities for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28276/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the other EU leaders he plans to meet in advance of the EU summit of 12-13 December 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28277/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 19 November 2003 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28278/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Bulgaria. [28817/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the response he has received to his letters to European Union colleagues calling for a focused approach to the 2004 spring economic Council and outlining the key areas that Ireland intends to focus on at the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28818/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:17 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28824/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:18 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the December 2003 EU summit. [28859/03]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:19 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of Uganda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28872/03]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:20 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his November 2003 meeting in Rome with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28873/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Denmark for discussions with political leaders in advance of the Irish Presidency of the EU. [29272/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:22 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Latvia for discussions with political leaders in advance of the Irish Presidency of the EU. [29273/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:23 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 26 November 2003 with the President of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29274/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:24 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Latvia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29275/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:25 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29276/03]
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:26 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his recent visit to Cyprus. [30394/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 26, inclusive, together.
I have undertaken a number of visits in recent weeks as part of my ongoing series of meetings with European counterparts in advance of Ireland's Presidency. On 5-6 November, I travelled to Cyprus where I had a productive meeting with President Papadopoulos. Later on 6 November, I travelled to Slovakia for discussions with Prime Minister Dzurinda. I met Prime Minister Medgyessy of Hungary in Budapest on 13 November. My visit coincided with an Irish trade mission to Hungary and the Prime Minister and I addressed a gathering of Irish and Hungarian companies.
I travelled to Bulgaria and Romania on 19 and 20 November last. In Sofia, I met Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha and later that day I travelled to Bucharest for discussions with the Romanian Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase.
On 27 November, I travelled to Denmark and Latvia. In Copenhagen, I had talks with Prime Minister Rasmussen and in Riga, I had discussions with Prime Minister Repse. These discussions with my counterparts were both useful and timely and focused on a range of matters of mutual concern in the European context. In particular, the meetings presented a valuable opportunity to outline Ireland's Presidency priorities, to review matters arising in the Intergovernmental Conference and, in the case of the accession states, to discuss preparations by those countries for European Union membership.
I met Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, in Rome on 12 November. I took the opportunity to express, on behalf of the Government and the Irish people, my sincere condolences on the tragic loss of 19 Italian soldiers and civilians in Iraq earlier that day. Our discussions focused on the Intergovernmental Conference and Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the EU. On the Intergovernmental Conference, I made a number of points to the Prime Minister regarding the negotiations. As the House knows, Ireland is broadly happy with the Convention draft. However, we have concerns on tax, justice and home affairs, and defence which I outlined to the Prime Minister. I also emphasised our attachment to the principle of equality among member states in the Commission. I indicated our strong support for the Italian Presidency in ensuring that the Intergovernmental Conference is successfully concluded this month.
I met President Museveni of Uganda on 10 November. Our discussions covered a broad range of issues, including regional security issues in central Africa, Cancun, and the opportunity for joint venture enterprises with Irish companies that could contribute to the economic development of Uganda. In the course of our discussions, we discussed the UN panel of experts' report to the Security Council. The report made serious charges regarding the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, against a number of countries, including Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the DRC itself. In the case of Uganda, it referred to a number of individuals, described as an elite network, which included the army chief of staff and a half brother of the President.
In recent weeks, a further report has appeared. It noted that the panel had significant contact with the Ugandan authorities on this issue, that the independent Porter commission has been established by the Ugandan Government to investigate the allegations and that the army chief of staff has been removed from office. President Museveni assured me that he will act fully on the recommendations of the Porter commission, which has recommended formal investigations and prosecution of a number of senior figures in the Ugandan army and administration. The President expressed his appreciation of Irish support for development projects in Uganda.
On 19 November, I met the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Ruud Lubbers, during his first official visit to Ireland. We discussed in outline certain ongoing UN considerations and initiatives on asylum and refugee issues, including the funding and operational experience of refugee programmes. We discussed a number of crises that have included high flows of refugees and-or internationally displaced people, including Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iraq and Liberia. Our discussions also included Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the EU, with specific reference to the desirability of common standards and procedures in member states.
I met the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox MEP, on 26 November. It was the first official visit to Ireland by Mr. Cox in this capacity. We discussed a range of issues, including the priorities for Ireland's Presidency, the Intergovernmental Conference and other issues on the EU agenda. Mr. Cox has indicated his intention to attend the "Day of Welcomes" ceremony in Dublin on 1 May.
I wrote to my European Council colleagues, including the ten observer member states, on 14 November and set out the approach Ireland intends to take in its EU Presidency towards the spring European Council in March 2004. The text of both my letter and the pre-Presidency priorities paper, Europeans Working Together for Growth and Dynamism in the Enlarged Europe, have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and are available on my Department's website. My letter contains a clear message to Heads of State or Government about the urgency of progressing the goal agreed at Lisbon in 2000, namely, the Lisbon agenda. The paper addresses the twin priorities of growth and employment. The specific areas that it proposes for attention are promoting growth-oriented economic policies, fostering competitiveness, delivering more and better employment, and ensuring sustainable growth.
In my discussions with Heads of State or Government during my round of pre-Presidency meetings, their response to my proposed approach has been generally positive. The European Commission has also indicated its broad agreement with our priorities. On 26 November last, the Commission President, Romano Prodi, wrote to the Heads of State or Government outlining the areas he believes need priority action at next year's spring European Council, and noted that the approach and views expressed by the Irish Presidency are in line with his own. Official reactions from member states have likewise been supportive of the Irish approach. I will develop these priority areas further in the light of developments over the coming months, including the European Commission's Synthesis report to the spring European Council. This is the recently published report of the task force on employment and developments regarding the initiative for growth.
I will attend the European Council in Brussels later this week. While the agenda is still being finalised, it is expected that the meeting will focus on economic growth, freedom, security and justice issues, enlargement, and external relations. We will also attempt to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference successfully. Clearly, a successful outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference that protects Ireland's interests in the key areas where we have concerns will be of the highest priority.
I have no plans at this time for bilateral meetings with my counterparts in advance of or on the margins of the European Council.
I wish the Taoiseach and his colleagues well at the forthcoming EU summit. Where does the Government stand on structured co-operation and closer co-operation, as referred to in Articles 40.6 and 40.7 of the draft constitution? I have noticed that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, often refers to structured co-operation and says the Government does not want to become involved in it. However, he is less vocal on the question of closer co-operation.
Does the Taoiseach intend, even at this late stage, to try to seek an amendment to the two articles? I have read that the Finnish Government is seeking such an amendment. Will the Taoiseach support it? What amendments to the Constitution will the Taoiseach recommend to ensure we do not become involved in either structured or closer co-operation without first putting it to the people by way of a referendum?
I thank Deputy Gormley for his best wishes. He knows the matters to which he referred are being discussed today and were discussed yesterday as well. The Convention text establishes the possibility of an inner group of member states establishing a structured co-operation arrangement within the European Union. The Presidency proposals on structured co-operation circulated at the end of the Intergovernmental Conference on 29 November differ significantly from the Convention text. The focus is now primarily on capacity building for Petersberg missions at short notice. Therefore, the proposals have changed quite significantly since they were first made in the summer.
Membership of the structured co-operation group would be set out at a later stage whereas the criteria for participation would be contained in a protocol to the treaty, which would be agreed by all. The decision to establish structured co-operation would be taken by qualified majority voting. Throughout the discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference on security and defence issues, the Government, together with some other member states, held the position that any new arrangements or arrangements that would alter the existing ones should be based on openness, inclusivity and accountability. We have argued this position since the mini-summit that took place on 29 April at which the Germans, French, Spanish and Belgians came together. The draft article and protocol on structured co-operation is moving in the direction of fulfilling the criteria we have set out, namely, being open, inclusive and accountable.
The focus on the development of capabilities in the context of Petersberg Tasks operations, as well as on EU support for the United Nations in crisis management, is welcome and in line with what we have argued throughout. Together with other parties we are working to ensure the proposal is sufficiently open, inclusive and accountable, as we believe it is. Further progress was achieved regarding the issues discussed yesterday. Ireland has a good record in peacekeeping and crisis management, most recently demonstrated by our participation in the UN mission to Liberia. It should be possible to agree within the EU on arrangements to facilitate the contribution of all parties that can bring this about. It is on this basis, and only on this basis, that the discussions are taking place.
I call on Deputy Sargent.
Will the Taoiseach—
Sorry, I have called on the Deputy's colleague.
I am following on from Deputy Gormley.
Is Deputy Sargent giving way to Deputy Gormley?
I am.
I thank my colleague for giving way. The Taoiseach is doing what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has done in recent weeks. He refers to Article 40.6 but avoids Article 40.7 on closer co-operation.
Has the Deputy a question?
Yes. Will the Taoiseach comment specifically on Article 40.7 and state if an amendment is being proposed thereto? If it is not, will the Government amend the Constitution to facilitate a referendum so that the people can vote on closer co-operation?
In terms of the Constitution, at the end we will look at the overall agreed treaty and see what happens. That would arise with any such question. I have outlined how we see structured co-operation within the European Union. As the Deputy knows, there has been an emphasis on enhancing military capabilities within the European Union and our position on this is very clear. If the Deputy has concerns about our position I can bring him through it. Our commitment to enhancing military capabilities is to ensure that the EU can effectively undertake humanitarian crisis management operations. That is the area of co-operation, if the Deputy is concerned about it.
What about Article 40.7?
If the draft treaty states that enhancement of member states' military capabilities is in the context of the Petersberg Tasks, that is very clear. If I give the Deputy a long answer he will say I am giving him a long answer, so I will give him the short answer.
Taoiseach—
Sorry, Deputy Gormley, you cannot monopolise Question Time. Seven Deputies have tabled questions.
Deputy Gormley wants me to say this is outside crisis management. It is not. The position is that this is within the Petersberg Tasks.
Does the Taoiseach agree with that?
Yes, I agree with this being within the Petersberg Tasks. I do not agree with it being outside the Petersberg Tasks.
I ask Deputy Gormley not to create disorder during questions.
I want to give Deputy Gormley a clear position on this because in fairness he has worked hard in the Convention. I am in favour of the Petersberg Tasks, I am in favour of this being within the Petersberg Tasks and I am not in favour of it being outside the Petersberg Tasks. Is that fair?
I am looking for answers.
That is the position and I will stick to it.
The Taoiseach is in favour of it.
He did not mention Article 40.7.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish the Taoiseach well in his efforts on behalf of all of us.
Does he consider that the Intergovernmental Conference will conclude its business this weekend? Does he think it will edge towards agreement after the fashion of Nice, which left us with a somewhat flawed treaty and its subsequent implications? In respect of the five or six outstanding matters, is it the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? In that event does the Taoiseach look forward to carrying the torch into the Irish Presidency?
The answer to that series of questions is that obviously I do not know if this will be completed or not. I will give the Deputy my feeling as to what will happen. There seems to be an overwhelming view across member states that we should face this weekend in an attempt to complete matters. Nobody has indicated to me that they would not like to see this concluded. Equally, as with all these issues, nobody has moved much on what have been termed red line issues. We have red line issues, as have others, so the cumulative number of red line issues is fairly substantial. There are some very difficult issues, with which I will deal in a moment, but there is a determination to attempt to deal with the work of the Convention and of the Intergovernmental Conference, which has been going on for almost two years. I would like to tell Members that it will not be a drawn-out affair but the agenda has been set with meetings on Thursday to deal with social dialogue and Wim Kok's report. We must attend that meeting as the incoming Presidency and it looks as if those meetings will take up all of Thursday, while on Friday we deal with the normal agenda. There are a substantial number of items and while it should not require substantial discussion, it is in the nature of things for these meetings to turn into substantial discussions.
It looks like the Intergovernmental Conference will not really commence until Friday evening. If that is the case and the Italian Presidency intends to finish it, we are in for a long weekend. I will be lucky to be back by this time next week.
There will be no canvassing next Saturday.
Definitely not. There will not be on Sunday either, nor will I have a day off. The Italian Presidency has worked hard since 4 October. There has not only been conclave but Foreign Affairs Ministers have had a number of meetings. There has been substantial engagement with most countries with which I have been in contact. If the Italians try to complete it, it will be a long weekend. That is the intention. Everybody is trying to resolve the matter.
There is a few difficult issues and there will be resolutions in many areas. There has been no movement on the issue of the weight of votes which pitches France and Germany against Poland and Spain. Their representatives are saying precisely the same as they were in the Convention and in the various discussions throughout 2003. It is difficult to believe discussion is not taking place in the background but I am not sure that there is. Everybody will be aware of the style of Jose Maria Aznar who does not move on issues easily. The Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Miller, was due in Dublin last Friday but he had an accident on Thursday night and I wish him a speedy recovery. He is in a difficult political position on this. It is a potentially difficult area and I do not see a resolution at this stage.
I am glad the Taoiseach said there will be no canvassing on Saturday. There probably would not be room for delegations on decentralisation.
The people of Boyle would love to hear from the Taoiseach.
I wish the Taoiseach the best as he heads into an important Council meeting. Does he agree with the comment of the Irish EU Commissioner, David Byrne, that many countries, including Ireland, had been squeamish about acceptance of mutual defence obligations? Will he confirm Ireland is one of the four countries that have requested a change in the wording of article 147 in respect of the mutual defence clause? Does he agree with the Commissioner's comment that neutrality is not about sitting on one's hands? Has he spoken to the Commissioner since he made this comment? Has the Government changed its view on this? Does the Taoiseach accept that, at the commencement of a structure for mutual and common defence in Europe, Ireland should be involved in the discussions to shape it rather than having it imposed from outside?
Under the Nice treaty, a proposal from the Council of Ministers must satisfy three criteria. It must be passed and approved by member states, it must have a majority equal to at least 62% of the EU population and it must achieve at least 232 votes out of 321. The double majority proposal by the Germans is simpler, requiring that a proposal must be passed by a majority of states representing at least 60% of the EU population. The four largest countries have 29 votes each while Poland and Spain have 27, even though Germany has double Spain's population. What is the Government's view on the double majority proposal on the voting arrangements for the Council of Ministers?
Throughout the discussions, we have been prepared to accept a number of alternatives on the voting arrangements. I probably have a preference to maintain the Nice treaty provision because we have been through that process. The other system is simpler and more easily understood. On the basis of our voting position, I do not hold the view that any of the proposed changes is enormously important. There are about four different systems, but they do not make much difference. However, the 60-60 or 50-50 approach is more easily understood and transparent, and far easier to explain. That has been the view at a number of meetings I attended here. People see it as a logistically easier system. However, there would be a different view from the perspective of Spain and Poland, which are in a strong position post-Nice and that has enormous political repercussions.
On the common defence issue, I have not been speaking to Commissioner Byrne but I am aware of his views. The common defence language proposed by the Presidency would commit member states to come to the aid of a member state in the event of an armed attack, using all means in their power. We have indicated that we could not enter into an obligation of this nature and that we would wish to see the draft article revised to take account of our position. We have submitted amendments accordingly, having taken that position over the last week from the time the last wording emerged.
The position was stated clearly at the Intergovernmental Conference yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by his colleagues from Finland, Sweden and Austria. On Friday, Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria sent a joint letter to the Italian Presidency, proposing an amendment to the draft article which will respect the position of neutral and non-aligned member states. I played a full and active part in the preparation of that position last week in discussions with my colleagues and officials from those countries. We received support from a number of our partners and the Presidency undertook to redraft the article on mutual defence to take account of our concerns. We are now awaiting that and we will have a further opportunity to discuss this important issue at the weekend in the Intergovernmental Conference.
The Presidency proposal on mutual defence contained in Article 147, to which Deputy Kenny referred, states that if a member state is a victim of armed aggression in its territory, the other member states, "shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance". That restricts the issue very tightly for many people, apart from our difficulties on mutual defence. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN charter, the joint proposal as between Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria, suggests the following wording for Article 147:
If a member state is a victim of armed aggression, it may request that other member states give it aid and assistance by all means in their power, military or other, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN charter.
As I said, the Presidency's proposal on mutual defence, as currently drafted, is totally unacceptable to us and other neutral and non-aligned member states. I believe our position is clearly understood. This country has never been afraid to take a very active and appropriate role under a UN mandate. However, we are not disposed to move into a mutual defence situation on the basis which was proposed. I know the reason for the proposal, which has nothing to do with Ireland but is part of the ongoing arguments and difficulties on NATO issues and the transatlantic issues involving Germany and France versus the UK. It does not really take our view into account, as I believe was understood at yesterday's meeting, as reported to me.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention, during the Irish Presidency of the EU, to invite President Bush to Ireland? Has it been mooted that he would be invited to attend a summit, or some other meeting of EU leaders during the Presidency? Will that be discussed at the forthcoming summit?
That will not be discussed at the summit, but the issue will arise in the new year in the context of the location for the EU-US summit. As yet, there is no agreement as to where and when that will take place. It could be around the time of the G8 meeting, which is far earlier in the Irish Presidency. In that case, it would take place in the United States. Otherwise, it is likely to take place in June and it could possibly be held in Ireland.
Does the Taoiseach consider it appropriate that President Bush should be awarded an opportunity to pose as an international statesman, to assist his re-election campaign? In light of the criminal invasion of Iraq which President Bush perpetrated on foot of a falsehood which the Taoiseach himself swallowed and repeated and for which he has not yet apologised to the people, and the ongoing catastrophic situation for the Iraqi people, does the Taoiseach agree that the Government should veto a proposal to invite President Bush to Ireland during the EU Presidency term?
The Deputy is asking me to refuse to have the EU-US summit in Ireland. That is not a position I will take.
Returning to the defence elements of the draft EU constitution, does the Taoiseach expect that these will be signed off at the forthcoming EU summit? Some of the sections have been quoted but what position will the Government take at the summit on Article 142 of the draft constitution which states that EU defence policies shall not prejudice NATO states and shall be compatible with NATO policy?
The special rights and responsibilities of militarily neutral states such as Ireland do not have the same explicit acknowledgement anywhere in the document. Should we not have due recognition of the position articulated by this country and other militarily neutral states which have presented a common position on other elements? Will the Government seek a specific article in the draft EU constitution explicitly recognising the rights and duties of neutral states within the Union and their right to require a UN mandate for military operations?
The rights of neutral countries and Ireland's special position are clearly provided for in the existing EU treaties. Article 17.1 states that "the policy of the Union in security and defence matters shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states". That article also recognises the specific security and defence policy of those member states that are members of NATO. It is a clear position of what we and NATO members want. The provision has been included in the draft treaty at the request of the Government and other member states. It has been properly dealt with.
Will the Government seek a specific article for the explicit recognition of the rights and duties of the militarily neutral members of the EU in the event of a military situation and their right to require a UN mandate before participation in a military operation?
It will be very clear from Article 17.1 and from what I said previously will be in the amendment we have put forward. Not only will our position be clear but also that of the four other neutral countries. The wording of article 17.1 will not be changed. I informed Deputy Gormley that, while other articles are different and new, this position will be stated in the article and Ireland's position will be covered by that.
That is what I asked.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House as to what we have in common with Austria, Finland and Sweden that requires us to take a common position such as this? Each of these three countries is armed to the teeth. The real question is who will defend Ireland if we are attacked? Will the Taoiseach agree that what he proposes with these other three countries is no more than the existing arrangement and is, therefore, untenable? Would it not be better for the neutral and non-aligned four states – it will be four out of 25 shortly – to seek an amendment which will permit them to take a part in common defence only after the prior approval of their national Parliaments?
If the other three non-aligned countries do not want that, we should say that in the case of Ireland this would only take place with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann. Would that not buy us some defence and give us an opportunity to participate in common defence in the European Union on the best of terms? Why are we keeping our heads down and offering unrealistic positions which the EU Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, quite rightly described as sitting on our hands?
I know the Deputy's view on this issue. I believe he understands this view is not shared by the people.
Some 52% say they support a common EU defence.
I admire the fact that the Deputy has put this forward and has done so forcefully over the years. The Deputy will recall the research that took place in regard to the Nice treaty. He will also recall why we had to amend the treaty and insert a constitutional provision. Perhaps in the future the people will change their position. However, that is not the position of the people now. The matter is in the Constitution and in our laws. It is not a question of the people believing that whenever we debate a UN-mandated posting, the House is not delayed too long. People accept, understand, are prepared for and honoured by the fact that our people participate, sometimes fight and do whatever they have to do under a UN charter. As of now the people are not prepared to be in that position under EU defence arrangements. That is the position at present. The Deputy knows the answer to the question. The other countries take a like-minded neutral position, which is non-NATO, non-aligned, and because they are in that position we work with them as we have traditionally done.
While the question I raised may be defence related, it seeks clarification from the Government on the EURATOM treaty. Does the Taoiseach agree that by attaching this treaty as a protocol to the EU constitution, nuclear power is in effect given special treatment by the EU in terms of energy generation? Is this not clearly at variance with what is happening with wind power here, which is being blocked from the grid due to lack of priority being given to that sector? Does the Government accept it has a mandate to block the EURATOM treaty based on article 3.4 of the EU constitution requiring the integration of a high level of environmental protection?
Does the Government wish to scrap the protocol? Will the Taoiseach clarify the position given that the many issues dealing with nuclear safety and regulation can be incorporated into the EU constitution with specific measures, framework laws etc.? As we go into the Irish Presidency, ironically the Government will be seen as giving special treatment to the nuclear industry unless we delete this protocol.
There is a detailed note and position on this, which I have been using. I do not know whether I have it, but I will come back to it. Deputy Gormley, Deputy Quinn and others raised this with me when we had a meeting at the end of the Convention and I have pursued it since then. It was not negotiated in any detailed way either in the Presidium or in the Convention, as I understand it. The issue was whether it should be left as it is in its present position or whether it should be separately examined and updated to take account of all that has happened not least in nuclear energy. We have been saying that for now it could just be left unchanged, but there should be a separate in-depth examination of EURATOM. We should agree on the process when that takes place.
Will the Taoiseach insist on a sunset clause?
We would not only do that, but separately examine, update and reintroduce the EURATOM treaty. For the time being, it would remain as it is.
The Taoiseach should not to answer questions that come by way of interruptions.
Is it intended to reintroduce the treaty?
Yes, but in a reformed version and having accepted that the position is no longer the same. This process answers the questions raised in the discussion we have had.
We will see.
I have been referring to a detailed note to reply to Deputies and I will be happy to forward its contents to them.
I refer to a related matter which is relevant to the Council meeting which will take place this weekend and to the Irish Presidency. Just over two weeks ago, serious damage was done to the operation of the European Monetary System in general and to the Stability and Growth Pact in particular. Was the Taoiseach consulted by the Minister for Finance before deciding not to support the Commission on that fateful evening? Have concerns on this matter been expressed to the Taoiseach as incoming President? Does the Taoiseach anticipate that it will be on the agenda of the forthcoming Council meeting? As incoming President of the Council, does the Taoiseach propose to request ECOFIN Ministers to review the Stability and Growth Pact with a view to changing the rules rather than pursuing their abandonment, which is the current position?
As the Deputy knows, the procedure is that the decision is left to ECOFIN which has the Council's authority to make it. I will give the House my view on the matter. The position of the Stability and Growth Pact must be maintained and its important work must continue. While I have arguments on certain issues pertaining to EUROSTAT which require to be changed, I do not consider the matter significant. I am a strong supporter of the fundamental principles of the Stability and Growth Pact and these should not be breached. We must all take our medicine. We in this country had to take some a few years ago.
There may be a case for flexibility. I have informed the House previously that, when one has an infrastructural deficit and low public debt, there should be some consideration of the matter. That is all. I support the Stability and Growth Pact. The objective of sound and stable finances is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement for economic growth, business confidence and job creation.
Will it be discussed this weekend?
I imagine it will. It depends. I assume it will return to the agenda. As the Deputy is aware, ECOFIN has presented a report of its views. I intend at the first opportunity to make our position clear on the matter. If the pact is used to move things around for people who have difficulties, that will feed in the short-term into the stability of the currency.
Deputy Quinn will recall the debate about the Maastricht guidelines and criteria. These could be undermined. They have stood Europe in good stead and moved us away from the instability of ten years ago. The great benefit of a single currency and the locking of our exchange rates has been a low interest rate environment based on a strong currency. To move away from that would be short-sighted. I do not agree with what happened.
Will it be on the agenda at the weekend?
We are coming to the end of Question Time and I must call Deputy Kenny.
The matter will come back to allow us to state our positions. I will state what I have said today.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the recent comment of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, to the effect that member states which fail to ratify the proposed constitution may well have to leave the European Union?
EU Enterprise Ministers recently failed to reach agreement on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether the matter will be dealt with during the Irish Presidency? If so, will there be an opportunity to have full and thorough discussions in the House before the matter is put to the Council of Ministers?
I have a related question.
As Deputy Kenny knows, Mr. Prodi, President of the European Commission, made a number of statements recently on this matter, as Deputy Kenny is aware. It is clear from the draft of the new treaty that it must be ratified by all member states according to their constitutional requirements. Nobody at the Intergovernmental Conference seriously challenged this requirement. If one or more member states experienced difficulty in ratifying the treaty, we would have to get together to see what could be done. While the Commission attends the Intergovernmental Conference as an observer, it is the Governments of the member states which make the decision to sign the treaty, and that is how it should remain.
On the matter of stem cell research, there does not appear to be a basis for agreement. While that remains the case, the matter is not likely to return to the Council agenda.