We are here to consider the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting to be held on 24 and 25 February. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, and I thank the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs who have provided extensive briefing for the issues under discussion. The format will be as usual and we will divide the questions into two sections, general affairs and external relations. The Minister of State will cover both issues initially.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I want to thank the committee members. We have a lengthy agenda and a variety of related issues to discuss, particularly the statements being made in the Dáil by the Taoiseach.
I wish to inform members who may not be aware of it that the Taoiseach is making statements in the Dáil later today in regard to the extraordinary informal European summit yesterday. I presume that may constrain what the Minister of State has to say in that regard.
Yes. I will not anticipate what the Taoiseach is saying but I will cover as many questions as I can.
Members of the committee will be aware that the European Council held an emergency meeting in Brussels yesterday, Monday, 17 February, to discuss the current crisis regarding Iraq. This meeting was preceded by an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers. The Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs represented Ireland at these meetings. In accordance with the usual practice, the Taoiseach will make a full statement to the Dáil later this afternoon on the European Council and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will then take questions. This is normal practice following a meeting of the European Council. This being the case I propose to focus upon the other agenda items due for discussion at the Council next week.
I do not propose to comment on each agenda item, but will address the more salient issues likely to be discussed. These include the orientation debate on the effectiveness of the Union's external actions, discussions on a wider Europe and the new neighbours initiative, the western Balkans, the Middle East peace process, European security and defence policy, EU-Russia relations, EU-OSCE co-operation, progress in the Convention on the Future of Europe and preparations for the spring European Council. I am, of course, happy to take questions from members of the committee on any of the agenda items.
I turn first to the orientation debate on the effectiveness of the Union's external actions. In keeping with a mandate from the Helsinki European Council, the Council will hold its third orientation debate on the effectiveness of the Union's external action. The aim of this annual discussion is to review the Union's external relations, and to ensure that optimum use is made of the various means at the Union's disposal for more effective and comprehensive external action. It is expected that the Presidency and the Commission will focus on finance issues in this year's orientation debate. A joint stocktaking paper is being prepared by the High Representative, Mr. Solana, and the External Relations Commissioner, Mr. Patten, and the Presidency may also bring forward proposals. These documents, which have yet to be finalised - I think we know in the current circumstances why that is the case - are due to be discussed by COREPER tomorrow in preparation for the discussion by Ministers on 24 February. We have not yet seen those papers.
In regard to the preliminary discussion on the issue of a wider Europe, if the new neighbours initiative is confirmed as an agenda item, Ministers will have a preliminary discussion and the matter will come up again for further consideration at the Council in April when papers will have been prepared by Mr. Solana and by the Commission. The initiative relates to the enlarged EU's relations with the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. At its meeting on 18-19 November last, the Council acknowledged the need to formulate an ambitious, long-term and integrated policy approach towards these countries with the aim of promoting democratic and economic reforms, sustainable development and trade. Ministers may also reflect on those elements of the initiative which could be relevant to relations with partners in other bordering regions. We very much support this initiative, which represents an important policy framework for the EU's development of relations with these three countries and its influence on the reform processes there. Policy would be based on a differentiated approach to each of the three countries involved as there are different issues arising in each case. It would depend on the implementation by them of further reforms and on their willingness to respect international commitments and common values, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. EU membership does not arise at this stage. None of the three countries has yet applied to join the EU, though all three have stressed their European vocation.
The main development in the Western Balkans since our last meeting was the proclamation of the new federation of Serbia and Montenegro, which replaced the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Council will hear a report next week from the High Representative, Mr. Solana, on his visits to Belgrade and Podgorica following the proclamation of the new state.
With regard to the Middle East, the European Council reaffirmed at the special summit meeting yesterday the need to reinvigorate the peace process and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supported early implementation of the quartet road map which was mentioned before at this committee. It stated that terror and violence must end, as also must settlement activity. The Council welcomed President Arafat's decision to appoint a Prime Minister as a step in the right direction. Ireland has strongly supported the work of the quartet, both within the European Union and during our term as a member of the Security Council. The quartet is meeting today in London and will be examining how the road map can be verified, which is a very important element in going forward. While we would have preferred to see the road map formally adopted at the meeting on 20 December, we are pleased to see that preparation is now in train for implementation of the text agreed at that meeting. We do not consider that the adoption of the road map should be further delayed pending the formation of a new Israeli Government. Members of the committee will be aware that there have been efforts to further delay that process because of the formation of a new government in Israel. We are concerned that work for a resolution of this long lasting conflict is being sidelined by the question of Iraq.
Under the agenda item in regard to a European security and defence policy, discussion will take place on the forthcoming EU military monitoring operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM. Planning for the EU operation has progressed rapidly in recent weeks. A draft joint action providing for its launch may be submitted for approval, with the operation itself scheduled to commence in March. The operation is taking place in the context of broader ongoing efforts to support the peace and stabilisation process in FYROM and implementation of the 2001 framework agreement for that country. In addition, a possible EU take-over of the SFOR operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina will arise for discussion, with High Representative Solana due to give his first report to the Council on consultations to date with the Bosnian authorities.
The broad issue of EU-NATO relations is also likely to be addressed. Considerable progress in this regard has been achieved since Copenhagen, however, a number of issues require specific follow-up. An EU-NATO agreement on the secure exchange of information will be presented to the Council for approval as an A point. The finalisation of this agreement represents an important step in the implementation of permanent arrangements between the two organisations. What is under discussion is a technical co-operation agreement. NATO will provide certain information to the EU which does not have, and is not envisaged to have, the capacity to generate defence information. It is a practical issue. If EU troops or police are to become involved in peacekeeping operations they should have the best possible intelligence available to them. If NATO is to pass on such intelligence it will need certain undertakings regarding its protection.
In terms of EU-Russia relations the policy instrument known as the European Union's Common Strategy on Russia, which was agreed by the European Council in 1999, is due to expire on 4 June 2003. It is likely that the discussion on EU-Russia relations at the Council will evaluate how the common strategy has worked and will discuss options for how to develop EU-Russia relations following the end of the strategy in June. This is a timely point at which to be reviewing this important relationship.
It is no longer proposed to discuss North Korea at this meeting of the Council, but it may well be that issues relating to it could arise in the course of the lunch where the exchanges are less formal.
On EU-OSCE co-operation, it is expected that the Council will take a decision to impose a visa ban on leading members of the regime of the breakaway region of Transdniestria. The Council may also discuss general measures to maximise the effectiveness of the EU and its member states in promoting EU policies in the OSCE area.
I will turn now to the session on general affairs and specifically the Convention on the Future of Europe. I appreciate the considerable interest the committee has taken in the work of the convention and as the national representative to the convention I have greatly valued and enjoyed the sessions we have had in discussing various aspects of its work. This committee has spent more time on this issue than any of its counterparts in other EU parliaments.
It is intended that the Council will receive a short briefing on the convention from Vice-President Amato to tee-up a lengthier discussion at the March meeting of the European Council. It is not expected that a substantive discussion will take place on this occasion.
As members of the committee will be aware, now that the work of the 11 working groups has been finalised, the convention has entered into a new, more detailed, phase in its work. Last Friday was the deadline for the submission of amendments to the first 16 articles published by the Presidium. They were published earlier this month. I understand that hundreds of proposals, if not thousands of individual comments, have been received and that the secretariat is sifting through these for discussion by the Presidium. That discussion commences today in advance of the plenary session which takes place next week.
For our part, we submitted approximately 30 proposals touching on nearly all 16 articles. Members of the committee should have received copies of these. As I hope will be obvious, we aim to be constructive and positive. We offer suggestions for improving the drafting to bring greater clarity and simplicity to the Presidium's proposals. The core issue before the convention is to produce a treaty which is coherent, clear, easily understood and brings together all of the previous treaties. However, we have also noted the difficulty in offering firm and definitive views because, as I have already mentioned to the committee, it is not possible to be final in our views until we have Part 2 of the draft treaty. Part 2 fleshes out the detail to accompany the articles which have already been circulated.
Our submission is intended to be a working document. It sets out our preliminary thinking and will, inevitably, be the subject of refinement and development as the debate proceeds. As an indication of how rapid the development is, I have just received notice of a meeting later this week of the national representatives to the convention to try to think forward the lines we will be taking next week.
The articles, in the original form, will be debated at next week's plenary meeting when it is expected that the next batch of drafts covering legal instruments will be brought forward. There will then be a process of toing and froing as the Presidium amends its text to reflect the views of the wider convention and continues to bring forward draft articles on the various titles it has yet to tackle.
In many ways, we are now beginning to see the true breadth and complexity of the task the convention has been asked to undertake. The Presidium has yet to finalise its plans as to how work in particularly sensitive areas, for example, the drafting of the articles relating to institutional questions, is to be handled. There is some concern within the national representatives' groups as to the process that will be adopted going forward. At an informal meeting two weeks ago I compared it to a black box in which a huge amount of material was going in at one side, a condensed version was coming out the other side and the process of condensing was not at all clear. There is a concern in this regard.
I have stressed my firm view that the strong merit of the convention approach has been its transparency and its openness. In that regard it is important that transparency and openness should inform the modus operandi going forward.
The Council will consider preparations for the spring European Council, which is devoted to the Lisbon process. As members of the committee are aware, the Lisbon process commits the EU to the objective of becoming, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. That is quite a set of objectives. The European Council on 21 March will review progress to date in working towards the implementation of that objective. Foreign Ministers will continue their preparation for the European Council at the March meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The priority at this stage is to maintain the momentum in the Lisbon process notwithstanding the challenges of enlargement and the global slowdown in economic growth. In fact, the global slowdown in economic growth is a reason to be even more focused on the Lisbon process.
We believe it is vital that the Union should remain focused on its commitment, as set out at Lisbon, to the implementation of those measures which have already been agreed. We have communicated to the European Commission and the Presidency our interest in discussing issues such as employment, education, regulatory reform and Knowledge Europe at the European Council.
I will be happy to take questions from members on the agenda.
We will deal with external relations first. There are nine items on the agenda for discussion. We do not yet have the list of A items. That will be available after the meeting. Therefore, I propose to take Nos. 3 to 9 first and then move on to the general affairs section. Are there any questions?
I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to come here today. I find the section on relations between the EU and Russia interesting. Despite the fact that a common strategy was adopted on 4 June 1999, little progress appears to have been made under this heading. I note that this strategy comes to an end on 4 June of this year. Has there been progress towards a new strategy or position paper on this topic? Is this something into which this committee or the Government could have an input?
When I was Lord Mayor of Dublin President Gorbachev visited Dublin. I believe the Minister of State also met President Gorbachev and I subsequently met Mayor Luzhkov in Moscow. We could have closer trade, cultural relations and scientific exchanges with Russia. Could this strategy be the basis for enhanced co-operation between EU member states and Russia?
I am aware of Deputy Mulcahy's personal interest in cultural, economic and political relations with Russia. It is an interest I share. In the late 1970s I was the first person to take a group of Irish third level students to the Soviet Union for study. It seems likely that the Council would focus on the future of the common strategy rather than have a wide ranging discussion on relations between the EU and Russia.
I agree with the Deputy that the need to reform and refine the strategy is now clear. It would be best if that work were undertaken sooner rather than later. There is an anxiety on our side to make sure that the momentum is continued and that we continue the contact. Recent events make it clear that Russia is an important part of the overall European scene. The Community must broaden and deepen those relationships.
It would be damaging to the Union's relations to allow the common strategy to lapse. That would be our very strong view. We are strongly in favour of the Union's common strategy on Russia. We want it to be rolled over but we also want it to be strengthened over the next few years, particularly over the year ahead. This would allow for a more focused plan for EU-Russian relations to be prepared. There should be a timeframe for a common strategy in this regard.
I share the concern of Deputy Mulcahy, and I am sure of other members of the committee, that we should do everything possible to widen, deepen and progress those relationships. The best way would be through refining the common strategy document. We should roll it over for the year ahead but ensure that work starts now to make certain that the relationship is enhanced and built on.
I thank the Russian embassy for the extensive documentation it sent us in anticipation of this question.
In the section on the Middle East the Minister of State stated that Ireland strongly supports the work of the quartet. Mr. Sharon has already made it clear that he sees the quartet as irrelevant. There is increasing scepticism among the Arab states about the intentions of the US and there is already considerable delay in adopting the road map. Is there a logjam here and is this situation complicated by the situation in Iraq? Whether that is the case or not, what timeframe does the Minister of State see for the adoption of the road map?
Deputy Harkin anticipates my own views on this issue. It is very important that the road map be consolidated and that progress be made on it. At a recent meeting in Washington we were pleased that President Bush met with the quartet and discussed the issue of the road map. We are concerned that US commitment to the work of the quartet seems to be waning. That is a reason to be concerned.
Prime Minister Sharon is still in the process of attempting to form his new Government. One of the current issues is the concern that he should be allowed to form his Government before further work is done here. That is not necessarily a view I share.
We are concerned at reports that Prime Minister Sharon has said that he sees the quartet as irrelevant and that the only option that counts in Israel is that of Washington. It is, of course, the position that the caretaker nature of the current Government in Israel will obviously have an impact on the timetable but, nonetheless, that should not be allowed to determine the pace at which the work of the quartet goes forward. It is important that the road map be clarified. It is important as I said in my comments - which are not in my script - that the process for verification of the issues relating to the road map be laid out, because that is the way to peace in that section of the Middle East.
On the other question I asked, is there any sense that the situation in Iraq is complicating an already difficult situation?
The problem with the situation in Iraq is clearly complicating an already difficult situation but we are of the strong view that it should not be allowed to impede upon it. The reality is that there are many issues in that particular region that will have to be solved if we are to have the kind of peace and progress we all want.
In the context of the mission to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I am sure we are all pleased to see that at last the EU appears to be getting its act together in providing some kind of policing on its own doorstep. I detect a certain feeling that many of the proposals are tentative. The joint action programme to which the Minister referred may be submitted for approval. Is the Minister confident if it is submitted that the operation could commence in March, or is this more in hope than in confidence, or is it just another case of the EU indulging in long-winded preparation for something that might never happen? I seem to recall that we were advised the SFOR operation to Bosnia-Herzegovina was well on the way to implementation at a previous briefing - I may be wrong in that. At what stage is that operation and is the Minister concerned at its speed of development?
A point struck me which I will come back to. Deputy Harkin asked the question twice and I did not quite finalise the point. We would be very anxious that the adoption of the road map should not become a hostage to internal Israeli considerations or political issues.
Turning to the firearm operation, the mission will be engaged in monitoring and stabilisation measures in support of the 2001 peace agreement. UN support was expressed at the Security Council in Resolution 1371 in September 2001 for this operation. I share Deputy Carey's anxiety that this should not simply become another rhetorical flourish without our accepting the responsibilities in that area. As I understand it, the preparatory work is moving ahead. Certainly after the Barcelona Council the possibility of the EU takeover of that operation has been discussed on and off. I would hope the progress which has been achieved, limited though it is, will continue. I do not think there is any danger that it will just become rhetoric. There is an anxiety to move in there.
The Deputy mentioned also the SFOR operation. At Copenhagen the possibility of the EU being in a position to take over the current NATO-led UN-authorised SFOR operations was discussed. The SFOR mandate is to implement the military aspects of the general framework agreement; this is a so-called Dayton agreement. The role of SFOR is to contribute to the creation of a secure environment necessary for consolidation and stabilisation of the peace process. Against this background, there are certain complications in the area of any assumption of responsibility by the EU. It has to be approached carefully by member states. The first report of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on the possible takeover of SFOR is scheduled to be made by Mr. Solana later this month. Proposals are also anticipated from a number of member states, most likely from Britain and France. Any decisions relating to the finalisation of the transfer arrangements on SFOR will have to wait until all of that takes place. I mentioned also that the anticipated changeover would be next year.
I wish to raise two points. What were the A points at the last meeting? Point three refers to the orientation debate on the effectiveness of the Union's external action and mentions that joint stocktaking papers are being prepared by a high representative. When will those proposals be brought forward and will they be available to the committee in time?
When we have those proposals they will obviously be available. This is the Solana review and we do not have a date for it, but it is imminent. Other more recent events will obviously impact on that work. On the issue of the A points, there has been a discussion in this joint committee on several occasions about the problem we have had with the A points because the A points come later in the week. It might be helpful if we circulated the A points ex post facto because this question has arisen before. Certainly let Deputy Ó Snodaigh have the A points which he has asked for from the last meeting. As soon as the A points are resolved at this meeting I will circulate them to the secretary and, perhaps, we will operate on that basis into the future. It is unsatisfactory because there may be issues on the A points that committee members would wish to discuss but, unfortunately, the timing arrangements do not allow for that. I will circulate them as soon as they are available from this meeting. I shall let the Deputy have the last set of A points and if there are any issues arising, Deputies and Senators can either contact me directly or raise them at a joint committee meeting; if they would indicate through the secretariat I would be prepared to deal with any queries.
We will agree that. If any member wishes to raise the A points from the previous meeting at the subsequent meeting that will be facilitated.
Please ensure they are sent to Deputy Ó Snodaigh straight way.
My question stretches from external relations right into the remit of General Affairs. Given that the Taoiseach will be speaking on Iraq in the Dáil we cannot go down that route in any great detail. In response to Deputy Harkin the Minister said he hoped and wished the Iraqi situation would not impact greatly on European Union policies towards the Middle East at present and our policy towards the peace process there. Looking closer to home, how will the present European Union debate on Iraq impact on the internal working of the EU and, in particular, on the broader remit of General Affairs? Apparently there was some degree of progress yesterday in that unanimity was reached in the sense of a statement. How happy were people about that unanimity? There was also the issue of President Chirac expressing a certain degree of displeasure towards some of the applicant countries and their views of Boston versus Berlin. How damaging is the lack of total unanimity on the EU front vis-à-vis Iraq in the short and medium term? How will it impact on the wider debate on the convention on European co-operation and a European constitution?
The Senator has put the $64 million question. The divisions, which became evident in recent weeks, will make it difficult in the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy. It was always the case that there would be difficulties in the convention in this particular area. In the recent past, we were criticised because we took a relatively modest view on what would be achieved in that area, but I think the wisdom of our standpoint is now being illustrated.
It is my strong view that in the Middle East, one cannot allow the issues to continue to fester. It is the sense that these issues have festered which has created a growing divide in the world. They simply cannot be tolerated.
I go back to the question Deputy Harkin asked. We are anxious that the road map should not be allowed to become hostage to internal Israeli considerations. It is in everybody's interests, not least those of the Israeli and Palestinian people, that the road map is worked on and agreed. Internal domestic political considerations in either of those states should not be allowed to impede progress.
I return to the general issue of the impact of yesterday. Reference was made to President Chirac's comments. Again, it is a personal view, because I have not seen anything other than press reports on his comments, but the point must be made that we have taken the view from the beginning that the new states coming in must be seen, perceived and treated as equals. They have the right, as has every other member state, to have their views and to differ with the views of the big, small and medium states. I was somewhat surprised at the comments.
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. I do not want to impinge on the convention aspects, because we have not got to them yet, but I commend him on the work he has done in relation to the amendments to the convention which we have before us.
My questions relate to North Korea and why it is no longer proposed to discuss it. It is an important issue and merits as much attention as Iraq.
In regard to the UN military operation in the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, the SFOR operation has UN sanction. Would an EU military operation seek a similar sanction and would it only go ahead in the event of that sanction being available to it? What would be the attitude to committing Irish forces to such a grouping, with or without UN sanction?
I refer to the situation in Cyprus where there has been a presidential election and where fears have been expressed about the capacity to move forward at the rate matters had been moving forward to find a settlement. If such an issue crops up at this stage, how open is it for the General Affairs Council to introduce it as a topic? Is it something which cannot be referred to, alluded to or discussed unless it is formally on the agenda? How can such an issue be dealt with if it crops up within a few days prior to the Council meeting?
There is a degree of inflexibility when an agenda is set whereby one focuses primarily on that agenda.
In regard to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea issue, that may well be a subject matter for some discussion at the lunch meeting, which is much more informal. Issues which are pressing and which come to the fore are dealt with in that setting. We strongly support the diplomatic initiatives being taken to find a solution. Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States are taking certain initiatives in that area which are positive and important. The Presidency has taken the issue off the agenda. It may well be that it has anticipated that the agenda is already too full. I suppose one deals with the current loudest crisis.
I refer to the operation in Macedonia. The nature of the mission is important. The mission is to become engaged in ongoing monitoring. The agreement reached on FYROM is being implemented but it is believed that there will be a need for continuing international community support in the area. The operation should also be considered in the context of overall EU assistance to FYROM. UN support was expressed at the Security Council in Resolution 1371 of September 2001 for the operation there. The issue of involvement by the EU has been on and off the agenda since Barcelona and the possibility of an EU take-over has been raised continuously.
At the January General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting, a joint action was agreed confirming the EU's decision, in principle, to act at the end of this month's GAERC. It is still difficult to say what the size or shape of those operations will be.
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister of State but what is his reaction to the suggestion that NATO did all the dirty work while the EU stood back and now when the dirty work has been done, the EU is prepared to take some credit?
That may be a point of view. The Senator would not expect me to necessarily agree with it.
How would the Minister of State react to it?
It is a point of view. As with most points of view, it is not necessarily invalid.
Deputy Carey raised this point in his contribution in that we face certain crises in the territories immediately adjacent to the territory of the European Union. A debate is taking place in that regard and we will not resolve it today. That point of view has been expressed and it is not unusual.
The Government of Macedonia has invited the European Union to become involved. That is from where the current debate is coming. Senator Dardis is entitled to his view even if it does not necessarily accord with my own.
I did not necessarily say it was my point of view. It is a point of view.
Senator Dardis asked about Cyprus.
If something of that nature crops up, which has an immediate effect, is the system flexible enough to allow it to be discussed?
It is hard to anticipate the change in political direction in Cyprus, if there is a change. One of the extraordinary and positive things in Cyprus in recent times was the fact that people were expressing a view. The people on the other side of the divide were taking the view that their future was better assured within the European Union. There has been much discussion in Europe about the dynamic which has begun to operate there. For example, people from the Turkish Cypriot side of the island have sought passports outside Cyprus, so that they will be considered part of the European Union. There is a dynamic there which has been determined by the people on the street. There was an interesting comment in today's edition of The New York Times saying that two superpowers have emerged in the world - one is the United States and the other is the force of popular opinion. The force of popular opinion must be borne in mind, and it will happen there as it happens elsewhere.
The EU system is sufficiently flexible to take account of changes. There is no point speculating on the long-term impact. Kofi Annan will visit Cyprus later this week. If there was intransigence in terms of the settlement, it did not necessarily come from the Greek Cypriot side of the divide. I am optimistic because of the comments coming from the representatives of Cyprus and people from the other side of the divide. I am happy that people are moving in the right direction. It would be a marvellous achievement if Cyprus's entry to the EU were to re-unite the island. Perhaps other islands with divisions might take a lesson from it.
It is not on the agenda for this meeting.
No, but Senator Dardis raised the issue in the context that there has been a change recently.
I am impressed at the Minister of State's ability to handle all he has done today.
Reference was made to the fact that the EU-NATO agreement on the secure exchange of information will be presented to the Council for approval and the broad issue of EU-NATO relations is also likely to be addressed. Does the Minister of State believe that those members of the EU who are not members of NATO will be pulled into it or that they will be excluded? Is it possible to be a full active member of the EU and not be a member of NATO? I am thinking of this from the point of view of Slovenia. When we met a delegation from there last week, they were very clear that they wished to become members of NATO and a member of the alliance. They almost gave the impression that they thought it was a condition of becoming members.
It is an interesting point because that question was put to me at a press conference two weeks ago in Slovenia. I think geopolitics, tradition and history have determined the way people approach NATO. Some people take the view that it is a remnant of the Cold War and does not have a future. If one speaks to people in the new countries coming in one would not form that particular view. I understand why the Government and people of Slovenia have a particular view on NATO. Like ourselves, they have had difficulties in the recent past with larger neighbours than themselves. Prime Minister Drnovsek expressed it very well recently when he said there is no sense that NATO and the EU are two sides of the same coin but, as far as the Slovenian people are concerned, they are two sides of the same foreign policy. I can understand that view.
On the specific point of the agreement, as Irish, Austrians, Finnish personnel and so on, whether military personnel or police personnel, decide to operate in certain areas, it is very important that information on any threats is made available to them. It is practical common sense to ensure men and women from an EU state who decide to dedicate themselves to enhancing peace in a troubled region of Europe are protected. However, the EU simply does not have the same intelligence gathering capacity as NATO.
What is involved in the agreement is the passing on of information for use in the protection of personnel involved in any operations. It is certainly not a threat. On the suggestion that this is a sort of creeping involvement in NATO, that is not the case. The two organisations retain a very separate and distinct basis. This country has a constitutional position which means that if there is any discussion about NATO becoming more closely aligned, we could not move in that direction without the agreement of the Irish people.
The Minister of State might comment on how effective the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is. Does he agree with those who say it is merely a debating forum? It did not seem to be capable of making much of a contribution to a peaceful resolution of the Balkan crisis. What is its future in regard to the Petersberg Tasks and the EU Rapid Reaction Force?
Some people take a cynical view on the OSCE, even though I am not suggesting that the chairman takes that view. There was an expression when we were marching on the streets in this city and other cities in the 1960s that, "Jaw jaw was better than war war." The OSCE is still at an early stage. The development of co-operation between the OSCE and the EU, particularly in regard to civilian crisis management and conflict prevention, is an area where there will be developments in the future. The OSCE is a much looser type of organisation, with a much more recent history than NATO. It is unfair to suggest that it is somehow redundant and ineffectual. In geographical terms, the OSCE has a fairly extensive presence across the whole of Europe. It encompasses the Balkans, the Caucuses, central Asia, Moldova and Belarus. It is important to have such an organisation.
Many people in this country held negative views on the Western European Union. However, one of the bodies attached to the Western European Union, which was well served by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, was the Western European Union Assembly. It was regarded by many as nothing more than a talking shop and there was a great deal of cynical comment about it. However, it was the only place where people from central, eastern, south eastern, western Europe and the EU all came together, whether they were neutral, non-neutral, aligned or non-aligned. Russia recently joined. As long as we have modest enough ambitions for these bodies, they fulfil a fruitful purpose.
That completes questions on the external relations section. We will now move on to the general affairs session. As there are six items on the agenda, I propose to take all six together. Any questions on that section?
In regard to the convention, the Minister of State said that 30 proposals were submitted in regard to the articles. Will he elaborate further on the matter and clarify when Part 2 of the treaty is due to be printed? I would like to hear the Minister of State's definitive views in advance of its publication.
It appears that the Lisbon process will be a major issue during this country's Presidency of the EU next year. What action will be taken to ensure we have achieved the target set out by Lisbon over the next couple of years?
Deputy Roche: They are two significant questions. On the convention, this committee has done significant work in that area. I am in the process of preparing an up-to-date briefing memorandum on the convention. I will be pleased to extend the briefing not just to the members of this committee, but to all Members of the Oireachtas, because it is of crucial importance to have as much information as possible. On the specific questions raised, the Presidium will complete its work. Last Friday was the closing date for commentary on the first 16 articles. The work on that will be presented to the plenary session of the convention which will take place on the last two working days of this month. We anticipate that at the same time, the next set of articles will become available to us. This is the modus operandi that Giscard and the Presidium are adopting. They are giving us sets of ten to 15 articles at a time.
The big issue is when we are to see two sets of articles, not just Part 2, which will be largely informed by the work of the 11 working committees. Many of us are waiting with bated breath for the issues relating to the institutional arrangements but it is not clear when that will happen. We have taken the initiative in that regard and I have circulated to members of the convention a set of principles I regard as significant and important and which underpin the institutional arrangements going forward of the EU. The committee will be aware that I have already circulated a formal proposition to the convention, which asks that we adopt an electoral college system for the selection of the President of the Commission. Our view, which is shared by all sides of the Dáil and Seanad, is that the institutional arrangements in place, which have existed since the foundation of the EU, have served Europe well and are particularly beneficial to small and medium-sized states. We are anxious to hold on to that balance. The Minister gave a very good speech to the IEA last month which has been circulated to the committee when he said we were not being dismissive of anyone's proposals and that we wished to be convinced of proposals; we have our own strong views and we are building up alliances and networks within the EU. We are currently part of the biggest network, that of the small and medium states and significant work has been done within the political families in Europe to make sure people are aware of our concerns. When we will get the second part I do not know but we will be getting blocks of articles very rapidly.
It puts significant pressure on the officials. We got the articles last week and ours was the first country to finish our definitive responses in the format the convention sought. Members have copies of the work that has gone forward and I pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The contributions are very moderate and improve the text. We did not react as hysterically as others to individual words within the context. Our approach has been progressive, balanced and positive and that is how we intend to go forward. We are helped by the work of the committee in that regard.
Regarding Lisbon, I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point. The Lisbon process is important, as it is important Europe has a view of where it is going forward. If one does not have a plan for where one is going one is likely to end up with chaos. It is vitally important that something like the Lisbon process is something other than just words. Our anxiety is to build on that and to quicken the pace. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is quite correct in that this will be an issue we will be interested in going forward with during our Presidency. Our Presidency will be a fruitful one and we have done a lot of work on it but the Deputy is right. There needs to be more discussion on the Lisbon process. The process is a template and is all good wishes. However, translating those good wishes into action requires specific plans. That is where there has been a lot of talk but not enough focused work and we hope the work focuses and moves forward.
I thank the Minister of State. I am delighted to have received these amendments. I have written "sovereignty" in my notes and that issue jumps out at one. Would it be worthwhile to have another meeting of the European affairs committee with the convention delegates and to go down through the articles and proposed amendments one by one, discussing them in some detail? We would see the reactions of other convention delegates to the proposed amendments. Allied to that, do other Irish delegates to the convention intend to submit their own amendments?
The work of this committee on the convention has been very helpful, as I have said on a number of occasions. The work of the Irish delegations and groups - myself, Deputy Carey, Bobby McDonagh, Deputy Gormley, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and Deputy John Bruton - has been done as a team. We have not operated as "Team Ireland" as someone said because people have different views. The process of the convention is to try to bring forward as many views as one possibly can in order to improve what is there. I have found the work of this committee very helpful; it is one of the few committees which has gone seriatim through each of the reports of the working group. That is immensely helpful and has helped me to formulate views.
There has also been a more mature reaction generally in Ireland to the first 16 articles. The hysteria that informed press and media commentary, for example, in our nearest neighbour was so over the top about the first article, and the use of the word "federal", as to impede any possible public understanding of the issues.
I would have no objection to the Deputy's proposal though I am in and out of the country a lot on the convention. I am trying to build up networks with other countries and I have five separate visits in the next seven or eight days but I would be delighted to come back to the committee. I speak not just for myself but for the officials. We are very willing to co-operate with any future work programme of the committee.
We appreciate the time the Minister of State takes to brief us on the issues. It is proposed that we return to the convention in another series of meetings beginning on 3 March and subsequently every two weeks after that. We plan to incorporate the work of the convention in our work programme as we did in January, in full consultation with the Minister of State regarding availability.
Even if the Minister of State cannot be here we should try to have a comprehensive debate on Articles 1 to 16 which come before the convention before the second series of articles is published. We will miss the timescale if we do not do it this way.
Ms Avril Doyle, MEP
Regarding a point made by Deputy Mulcahy, to what extent if any did the Minister of State discuss with other Irish convention members the amendments he tabled? I was at the second last meeting and the Minister of State defended valiantly the right of Ireland to have five or six different opinions in putting an Irish view to the convention. We all represent different political backgrounds and come at this from different ideologies, so that is fine. However, from a European perspective it allows one Irish opinion to be set against another and Irish opinions are disregarded in divide and conquer situations. I respect the views of the Minister of State, Deputy John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, but notwithstanding the Minister of State's strong views in this regard, there is merit in trying to get the best case for Ireland. There will not be a meeting of minds in every case, otherwise we would only have one political party in the country. However, as we talk of honing and amending draft articles, is there not room to pick up Deputy Mulcahy's point regarding some co-ordination of the Irish case if at all possible? I am not saying there will be agreement on everything but this would be in order to maximise the results for Ireland at the other end and to get as much as we can taken on board.
Regarding the explanations in this document, those run as justifications rather than explanations in European legislation. That is a technical point but if one puts down an amendment in Europe one must justify rather than explain it, though that probably amounts to exactly the same thing.
Regarding the second point, we were the only country which had all its amendments in on time and in the format asked for.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Well done.
Regarding the more substantive first point, the Irish group to the convention is the most cohesive one by any objective standard. We do not always sing from the same hymn sheet because people have different views. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and I, for example, would have different views. However, with particular reference to Deputy Carey, who was a member of one of the most significant groups - the Hench group which dealt with economic governance - the Irish group operated in a coherent way. We briefed each other and I have initiated an arrangement whereby the entire Irish group meets in advance of each meeting out there. We have a permanent representative and various officials there and a briefing is organised. If someone in Europe is saying the Irish group is not coherent they are clearly attending a drinking session in some hostelry down the road and they are definitely not in Europe.
I was recently at an IEA meeting in Brussels and I outlined our arrangements, saying that as soon as the meeting ended I was going to a meeting of the convention oversight group, which involves the most senior officials from the most sensitive Departments, to co-ordinate our view. Last Monday we had the interdepartmental co-ordinating group and in the course of the convention I will meet with national representatives. One of our newspapers was worried about my dietary requirements and we also have a breakfast group of seven states. We have a lunch group of national representatives and we have a dinner group, which is called the most open conspiracy in Brussels, of 14 different member states. We will have different views in the convention, which is a good thing. Nobody should claim we have an absolute monopoly on wisdom. Even though Fianna Fáil is usually to the fore in these matters we do not claim to have an absolute monopoly on wisdom.
Ms Doyle, MEP
The Minister of State should not tempt me.
I am teasing Ms Doyle, or tempting her. Members know my personal interest in this. I passionately believe the EU has given western Europe over 50 years of peace, tranquillity and progress. There is no threat to Ireland from what is happening in the convention. We should look at this as an opportunity for us to participate. There has been a positive response to our submission to the 16 articles because we have people in Ireland who are strongly wedded to the idea of a written constitution. They have a lot of experience of the inflexibilities and disciplines that that introduces. It is true of Deputies John Bruton, Gormley and Carey as well as of Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and me that our anxiety is to improve things and to produce a constitutional treaty that will be readable, understandable and will stand the test of time. There will be different views of how to do that but those are welcome.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Are amendments specifically discussed with the other articles?
No, those amendments are the amendments of the national representative of the Irish Government, which is me. As Ms Doyle knows, the MEPs' group has its own views going forward and the various political families have their own views. People often do not understand this. To take Deputy Bruton's role, he represents the Oireachtas and not the Government, as does Proinsias De Rossa and the two Deputy alternates. They all represent the Oireachtas's view. Deputy Bruton does not just represent the Oireachtas on the Presidium, he represents the views of the national parliamentary representatives to the convention. That is not always understood. There are subtleties which are important.
Ms Doyle, MEP
So he is the highest ranking Irish representative in the convention, ironically.
It is not ironic.
Ms Doyle, MEP
It is ironic in that the Minister of State is the Government representative but although Deputy Bruton is a member of the Opposition here, he is the lead member for Ireland at the convention because he is in the Presidium.
Again, we have behaved more sensibly. Members will be aware there have been changes in the convention's make-up in other countries. After government changes there have been shifts in the members of the convention, which has destabilised the convention in some ways. Recently there was a debate about Ministers for Foreign Affairs moving on to the convention. That has not added to the cohesion of the convention because people simply cannot be at the UN and the convention at the same time. We were wise to retain our membership on the convention.
Ms Doyle, MEP
There was no change in Government after the election in Ireland's case.
In other places there were changes after shifts following elections——
Ms Doyle, MEP
Not in Ireland's case.
No.
I am sure there is a simple explanation for this but I am impressed by the use of "loyal co-operation". Perhaps loyal is a word with other connotations in Ireland. This is one of the Minister's amendments and states that the Union shall act loyally towards the member states. Is there a sense of wishful thinking as to whether the Union can act loyally? The explanation states that the important principle of loyal co-operation shall be stated and is stated on a number of occasions. I am interested in the term as it is not one I would have thought of using.
No, and it is not the only term with an odd connotation. At the national representatives' group the week before last the team Presidency proposals were circulated and Ireland's was in the orange team. I suggested to those who brought it forward from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they might have shown a bit of sensitivity regarding the team jersey.
The term "loyal co-operation" arises from earlier treaties. Our response was quite a subtle one because we suggested loyalty is a two-way street and that the Community needs to be loyal to its members also. That is what this is intended to mean.
A significant amount of work has gone into making our proposals as succinct as we can and that will be reflected in the response to them at the convention.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Is loyalty not a judgment issue? How is it to be judged?
It is not new in terms of the constitution so we are trying to make sure it is fully understood that loyalty is not just a one-way street and the Community needs to be conscious of it.
The general philosophy we have adopted is that the Community has been very positive and the positive basis for the Community is the equality of member states and the balance between institutions. Ms Doyle will be aware that there is some pressure from certain sectors to change that balance but we believe that balance has worked so well it must be protected.
It is interesting that former Taoiseach, Sean Lemass, could never pronounce loyalty. He always said "loyality". Dubliners have plenty of loyality. The Minister of State said concerns have been expressed about the pace of the convention's work, a possible lack of transparency, the functioning of the Presidium and the ways in which ordinary convention members' views are conveyed. That seems quite serious and the Minister of State should expand on how that is being addressed by the Irish side.
First, the convention process has been attacked but it is remarkably open. It is quite extraordinary. All the plenary meetings are in public and all the documentation is available electronically on the web. That is the positive side of the convention. We are anxious to ensure that that positive side is not adulterated in any way going forward. People have misrepresented our views, saying we have tried to push the convention back to the point where the Intergovernmental Conference will finalise its agreement in the Irish Presidency and it will become the Treaty of Bray or the Treaty of Dublin. That would be very nice. It may even be the Treaty of Wexford but certainly not the Treaty of Limerick. This process should take as long as is needed to produce a good treaty. We understand more than any other member state the difficulties citizens have because we had the experience of taking a referendum which failed and having to go back to people and talk to them about it. I continue to say that has been a positive influence on the way we are approaching the convention. I would be anxious that there would be no basis for anybody criticising the new treaty that it was produced behind closed doors. I made that point clear to the point where I have sometimes irritated some Europhiles. They will just have to put up with it, as that is our view.
Our view is that the treaty process which we have undertaken is a good one. I believe it will be finalised during the Irish Presidency. I hope it will have the title, the Treaty of Dublin. I could not care less what the end of it is called so long as we get a good treaty. Our view has been that we are not going in with a closed mind on anything. We are not going in defensively or to try to be obstructive but we are going in to be as constructive as possible. There is a concern among the national representatives' group within the convention as to how much weight will be given. I do not wish to cause offence to anybody but there is a small group of MEPs within the European convention who are the most vociferous and the loudest. Certainly in one or two cases - I would not be so ungentlemanly as to mention the one or two members - they are strident as to their views and they are intolerant of other views.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Who?
I will whisper them in the Deputy's ear afterwards.
Let her have privilege.
Ms Doyle, MEP
The Minister of State has privilege. Are they some of my colleagues?
There is absolutely nobody from the Deputy's side.
Ms Doyle, MEP
I was just wondering.
No.
Ms Doyle, MEP
I do not mind, I just want to know about whom the Minister of State is talking. He should spell it out.
No, people have very strong views. There is a group of MEPs who attack views that come forward. For example, I was arguing for a wide definition of social partnership because it has served us well here. We have adopted what is in European terms a very progressive view of social partnership. The representative of the European trade union movement not only got upset but started to shout that he could not tolerate this. He wanted social partnership to be defined purely and simply as employers and workers representatives. We take a different view. There are different views and we have to respect each other's different views. The anxiety is to have as transparent a role as possible played within the Presidium and that there is as much openness as one can possibly have. Obviously, drafting will be done within the secretariat but we need to ensure there is some process in place for accurately reflecting the views put forward particularly by the State; that is not to say the views put forward by the national representative are automatically superior to the view put forward by some other representative. I am not prepared to accept as a representative of a national government that it is in any way inferior. We are anxious that that balance be retained. It is a widely held concern in the convention. To be fair, I think it will be addressed.
What is the Minister of State's best estimate as to the timescale for publication of the next set of articles?
I think it will be 27 or 28 of February.
Then we shall have two sets of articles to consider.
If one has the two sets of articles it would be good. I ask members to remember the process which is that the Presidium has drafted the first set. It responds to the skeleton which Gisgard d'Estaing circulated last autumn. The first set is just that, a draft set. We have been attacked for making this point and I cannot understand why. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The final decisions on this can only be made by the intergovernmental conference. There is no other legal procedure for making it. Some people have tried to create a quasi Intergovernmental Conference within the convention. Our view has been that is not a process which would assist the convention and that the convention should be as open as possible. There will be bottom line issues for every state. For example, we have the issue of tax harmonisation and most Members of the Dáil and Seanad would agree with us on that. There has to be give and take in the convention process. Looking at the timetable, certainly the convention will finish its work by June. We are looking for a period of months so that there can be national reflection, whereby citizens - civil society - can get their head around what is in this convention treaty. This will be followed by an Intergovernmental Conference and, frankly, I cannot see it concluding its work before the end of the current year.
The Minister of State will have to leave shortly.
Just to clarify, the deadline for comment on the first set of articles has expired. That has gone to the Presidium and the Presidium——
Sorry, Chairman, the deadline for those of us who are members of the convention to respond has expired.
Will the Presidium now reflect on all the proposed amendments and come back with a second series of drafts for Articles 1 to 16?
What is actually happening now is that the secretariat is taking all of the comments and observations, of which there are thousands, and is trying to boil them down. It intends to reflect on what it calls "parliamentary order". I am not certain what that means. It will deal with those which are closest to what was proposed and then with those which are more extreme - I think that is what is meant by that process. It will be challenging for them to reflect it particularly as many representatives have not responded in the manner in which they were asked to respond.
Ms Doyle, MEP
In relation to the division between exclusive, shared and supporting competencies, is the Minister of State happy that the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP should remain an exclusive competency? Having looked at this area recently I have some concerns that it is not a shared competency. Unless we get stakeholder involvement and get the member states to take ownership of the problem we will have, literally, warfare on the seas for years to come. Is there a case for moving that to "shared" from "exclusive" for that particular reason, because there is a lot of contention about some of the scientific work being done at present on an exclusive basis?
Why has the Minister of State suggested in his amendment to move public health out of a shared competency into a supporting competency? I am not sure why that should be moved. I was comfortable with public health as a shared competency. Will the Minister of State explain why he has moved it to a supporting competency?
I actually proposed that public health by put into the treaty. It was one of the proposals we made in the working group. It is there because it is more appropriate. It sits better in there because it is a more accurate description of the role and the relative importance of public health between the member state and the Union. We made that as a proposition which better reflects the arrangement. With regard to this exclusive, shared and complementary division - I have said this a couple of times in the convention - I have concerns about drawing up exhaustive lists.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Why?
If one draws up an exhaustive list, it becomes a hot bed for litigation and for all sorts of difficulties.
Ms Doyle, MEP
It is extremely dangerous.
That is my view.
Ms Doyle, MEP
I agree with the Minister of State.
It is a view I have expressed at two working groups. Deputy Carey made the same point. Unfortunately, our views did not prevail. It was not just us. All the Irish representatives were coming from a position where we have a strong tradition of judicial reviews. We have a written Constitution and so we have a lot of experience as to the dangers. This will become more obvious as we look at it.
The reference to the fisheries area is from an earlier treaty. One of the issues that is tasked to the convention is to take the previous treaties and write them down. There is nothing new there. The MEP has touched on a very important point. There is no new competency in the draft and there will be no new competency coming forward from the treaty.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Will there be no new exclusive competency?
There will be no new competency coming forward because the whole purpose is to take the existing treates and put them together. One issue we need to be careful of is precisely the point to which Ms Doyle has alluded, that in drafting that we do not, effectively, import a new competency or give rise to that happening. That is why, for example, in the public health area, we believe it is more appropriate in the complementary activity area.
We will allow the Minister of State to go. I thank him for taking the time to update us on the issues at the Council meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 February 2003.