We have a quorum. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is working under a time constraint and must leave the meeting in 45 minutes. With members' agreement, I propose to suspend the agenda to allow him address us on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment. I look forward to working with him and with all members, particularly those who have been newly elected to the Oireachtas. I am pleased that my officials at the representation in Brussels were able to assist the Chairman in arranging this meeting. This is an important committee, as is the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. I am strongly of the view that the mandate given to these committees to debate and scrutinise EU initiatives, from climate change to regional development and so on, will allow us to assist each other in a mutual way, ensure we all have a better understanding of the issues and make what is happening at EU level more relevant to the general public.
I will attend the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council next Friday. Before that, on Thursday, I will travel to Lisbon with the Taoiseach to sign the reform treaty, which represents another important milestone for the Union. The treaty is designed to make the Union more effective, strengthen its democratic legitimacy, give greater emphasis to citizens' rights and give Europe a clearer voice in international affairs so that we can advance our shared democratic and humanitarian values.
It is important that this treaty be ratified by all 27 member states. Each member state will benefit from a Union that can function more efficiently and can be more effective in promoting our shared interests. The reform treaty will facilitate this outcome. We were delighted to have been so central to the agreement of the former draft constitution in 2004. After the signing ceremony, I will go to Brussels with the Taoiseach for Friday's meeting of the European Council.
The general affairs segment of the Council will begin with the preparation of next week's European Council meeting. For the most part, the draft conclusions for the European Council reflect already agreed political statements and endorse decisions by the Council of Ministers in various formations. The areas for discussion will include a global approach to migration, jobs and growth, and energy and climate change. Several external relations items will also be discussed by the European Council.
One of the key issues to be addressed at the Council is energy. The European Council's conclusions will look forward to the important discussions at next year's spring European Council, where there are key decisions to be taken on the timing and content of the EU's measures to cut emissions and achieve renewable energy targets. Ireland, like many other member states, is anticipating challenging negotiations following the publication of Commission proposals on emissions and renewable energies in January next. The Government has already adopted ambitious national targets in the White Paper on sustainable energy. This represents a substantial advance on our present position. We are fully committed to achieving those targets. I noted yesterday that Germany has also committed to ambitious targets.
The European Council will discuss several issues in the area of justice, security and freedom. It will welcome the abolition of border controls for new member states and the enlargement of the Schengen area. The Council will also discuss the development of a comprehensive migration policy and the application of the global approach to migration in regard to Africa and the Mediterranean. The Council will also examine the need for a further strengthening of police and judicial co-operation and will review progress in the fight against terrorism.
On 6 November last, the Commission published its annual package of reports on enlargement. It is expected that the General Affairs and External Relations Council will adopt conclusions welcoming these reports. It may also take the opportunity to recall the enlargement strategy agreed at the 2006 December European Council meeting. That strategy is based on the consolidation of commitments, rigorous conditionality and communication. The EU's capacity to absorb new members is also given due attention.
The Commission has reported that accession negotiations with Croatia are advancing well. Areas where further progress is still needed include judicial and administrative reform, minority rights and refugee return. Where Turkey is concerned, the Commission has noted that following the constitutional crisis in spring of this year, early parliamentary elections were held in full respect of democratic standards and the rule of law.
Against this background, only limited progress was achieved on political reforms during 2007. Significant further reforms are needed in a number of areas including, in particular, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The Commission also reports that Turkey still has not fulfilled its obligations under the Ankara Protocol by opening its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft from Cyprus.
With regard to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Commission reports on some progress in the reform process and considers that the pace of reform needs to be accelerated in new areas. In addition, the Commission has assessed progress in other countries in the western Balkans towards the realisation of their European perspective. While noting progress in some areas, the Commission considers that the region as a whole needs to move forward in building modern democracies and in developing a political culture of dialogue and tolerance.
As for the external relations aspect of the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting, it will begin with a short presentation on the European neighbourhood policy. This will be followed by the item on the economic partnership agreements. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, briefed members on the economic partnership agreements just before the most recent Council of Ministers meeting in November. They will recall that the Minister of State has a number of concerns regarding the position of developing countries after 1 January 2008, which he intended to put to the Commission.
I can report that the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, made a strong presentation at the meeting. He insisted that the development aspects must take priority and called for flexibility and understanding to be shown. He reported members' concerns to the GAERC and called for arrangements that would not disadvantage developing countries. As a result, the Council conclusions called on the Commission to report to the December GAERC on progress. That report should also make recommendations to Ministers regarding the position of countries that do not sign an agreement by the end of the year. I will consider the report and recommendations very carefully. It is vitally important that whatever arrangements are put in place do not disadvantage the developing countries. Ireland will continue to argue for maximum flexibility to be shown by the Commission. This will be the basis of my approach to the GAERC.
The next item on the agenda will be Burma, on which Ministers will have a short discussion on recent developments in advance of a possible further discussion at the European Council meeting next Thursday or Friday and the adoption of brief conclusions. The EU remains active on this issue and is in support of the Gambari mission with key countries in the region such as India and China, as well as ASEAN. Dr. Gambari visited Burma early last month and, while there were some positive aspects to his visit, I remain very concerned by the continuing refusal of the Burmese regime to engage constructively with the opposition. As the ongoing problems in the country recede from the international headlines, it is vital to maintain the maximum pressure from all channels for positive change in that country.
Ministers then will turn to the issues in Sudan and Chad, which will be a timely discussion for various reasons. Ongoing difficulties have been identified in persuading the Government of Sudan to facilitate an early, full and unobstructed deployment of the UN-AU hybrid UNAMID mission. These difficulties have been well described by the UN Under-Secretary General for peacekeeping operations, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, when addressing the UN Security Council last week. Pressure must also be maintained on the Sudanese Government regarding its refusal to countenance deployment of non-African elements with UNAMID. The Council will adopt conclusions reiterating its readiness to consider further measures, notably in the UN framework, against any party impeding progress in Darfur, including those not facilitating vital humanitarian aid or the deployment of UNAMID.
The Council also will discuss the situation in eastern Chad, which has seen renewed fighting between Government and rebel forces and a breakdown of the October peace deal. This renewed conflict underlines the importance of internal political dialogue within Chad and of renewed efforts by all Chadian parties to revive the various political agreements concluded over the past 12 months. There is also an onus on Chad's neighbours, particularly Sudan, to do all they can to assist, and not impede, internal political dialogue.
The Council will also again discuss deployment of, and the assets required for, EUFOR Tchad-RCA, the European Union's military mission to eastern Chad and the Central African Republic in support of the United Nations MINURCAT operation. The Dáil last week approved the deployment of up to 450 members of the Defence Forces for service with EUFOR Tchad-RCA. While other countries have also pledged very considerable numbers of troops to this mission, along with commitments of other resources, it also is the case that many of the critical enablers, such as helicopters, air transport and medical facilities and support, still have not been provided for this mission.
Without such logistical elements, deployment will not be possible. The operation commander, Lieutenant General Pat Nash of the Defence Forces, with Javier Solana and his staff, is leading efforts to overcome these shortfalls. At the last Council meeting, the Minister for Defence and I, as well as colleagues from a number of other countries involved, urged other partners to make the necessary contributions. Intensive discussion has continued since, but while there have been some possibly encouraging signals, the gaps largely remain. Nonetheless, there continues to be confidence that the mission will launch and will fulfil the tasks given to it by the United Nations.
I stress that the delays have nothing to do with the reports of increased threats from rebel groups in the area. The mission will be there to facilitate humanitarian relief and will be a completely impartial force. It will, of course, also have the capacity to defend itself against any threats. While no environment is risk-free, the safety of our troops will remain a vital consideration for the Government and of course for the leadership of the Defence Forces. The overall progress of the mission, and how to respond to any new challenges or difficulties which may arise, will remain on the agenda of the Council and will be followed on a day-to-day basis at official level in Brussels and here.
I turn to the western Balkans. Discussions on Kosovo will focus on the conclusion of the four-month long Troika-facilitated talks between Belgrade and Pristina. Regrettably, the final session of direct talks between the Serbian and Kosovar leadership ended on 28 November without agreement. The Troika is visiting the region this week to discuss its draft report with the parties and will report to the UN Secretary General before 10 December. The issue will be discussed by the UN Security Council on 19 December. At the GAERC, Ministers will hear and consider a report from the EU's Troika envoy, Ambassador Ischinger of Germany. An initial exchange of views is likely on the possible next steps and the position to be adopted by the Union, as well as potential implications for the proposed European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, mission and the security and civilian aspects of the international presence envisaged under the Ahtisaari proposal. It is expected that the Council will urge all sides to refrain from taking pre-emptive or destabilising action during the period ahead, and to co-operate closely with the international community.
I will emphasise the need for EU unity, for the Council to send a clear message expressing the Union's wish to play an active role on the ground in Kosovo and to safeguard stability in Kosovo and the region during the potentially difficult period ahead. I regret the failure of the Troika-led talks and acknowledge this will pose difficult choices that deal with the reality on the ground and preserve the stability that is essential to the future of Kosovo and the Balkans region as a whole. While we will face a more complex and uncertain political and legal environment in the event of an absence of agreement on final status, we hope greatly to be in a position to maintain our presence in KFOR, which comprises approximately 270 troops, to consider contributing members of the Garda Síochána to an ESDP mission in future and to support the future economic development of Kosovo.
The Council then will review the recent positive developments in the Middle East peace process. I wish to pay warm tribute today to the efforts of the US Administration and the commitment of Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, which resulted in the important and potentially historic agreement reached at Annapolis last week.
The Council will underline the EU's strong support for the negotiating process launched at Annapolis. It is of crucial importance that the Israeli Prime Minister and the President of the Palestinian Authority now are committed to reaching a final status agreement by the end of 2008 and that the US Administration is centrally involved in supporting the process. The aim of the process must remain the establishment of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state, which unites the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza and resolves the fundamental issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With political will on all sides, there is a genuine opportunity now for the realisation of a two-state solution and for movement towards a comprehensive regional settlement.
The Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, has been invited to join Ministers on Monday for a discussion of the reform programme he is developing for the Palestinian Authority and the priorities for the major international donors' conference on Palestine, which will be held in Paris on 17 December. The EU and its member states have consistently been the strongest supporters of the Palestinian people. Some incorrect information has been publicised on the EU's commitment in this regard. Already this year, the commitment to Palestine from the EU will amount to €800 million, which constitutes an increase from previous years. The Government has increased Ireland's bilateral assistance significantly in recent years from €4.5 million in 2005 to well over €7 million this year. We will continue this support to meet humanitarian needs and to support the building of the institutions of a new Palestinian state. We will make a significant multi-annual pledge of assistance to Palestine at the donors' conference on 17 December in line with our record of providing assistance and the strength of our commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
We will then proceed to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue. Inevitably, considerable attention will focus on the US national intelligence assessment published on Monday. I welcome its publication although, following the initial international reaction, its primary impact is likely to be on political debate on Iran within the United States. The report should reinforce the commitment to a resolution of the issue by exclusively peaceful and diplomatic means. I also hope it will add weight to calls for a reassessment within the United States of its overall approach to dialogue with Iran.
The report does not alter the broad international assessment of the Iranian nuclear issue or the consistent approach of the European Union. Our concerns and those of Iran's closest neighbours arise from a history of concealment of the nature of the nuclear programme and Iran's insistence on maintaining uranium enrichment and developing long-range ballistic missiles. We welcome the recent report from the director general of the IAEA, which noted some progress on the clarification of past activities but also stated clearly that Iran continued to refuse to comply with the repeated and unanimous demands of the UN Security Council that it suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
The European Union is working closely with the United States, Russia and China and remains absolutely committed to a negotiated solution. The comprehensive offer of improved relations in all fields, presented by the high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, to the Iranians in June 2006 remains firmly on the table. I expect that in our discussions next week the European Union will emphasise its full support for the work under way at the UN Security Council on a new resolution, which will include further measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. As agreed at the Council in October, the European Union has begun an examination of possible alternatives and additional measures it could take to support the UN framework and international consensus. I expect the Council will assess the possibilities in January in light of developments at the United Nations.
This gives members an overview of the GAERC agenda. I will be happy to respond to any questions posed.
I thank the Minister. There is a full agenda through which he galloped nicely. He gave members who will, no doubt, have comments to make, a good flavour of it. I call, first, Deputy Costello who will be followed by Deputy Creighton.
There are a host of issues and I do not intend to respond to or ask questions about all of them. My first question relates to justice and home affairs matters. There seems to be a greater move towards adopting a common European Union approach to migration, asylum seekers and police co-operation, issues on which Ireland has always taken a position in terms of opt-in and opt-out clauses. I see that we are also opting out of the directive on returning third country nationals who have stayed illegally. Perhaps the Minister might comment on this. How far down the road are we in respect of a common approach to asylum seekers? There still seems to be a huge divergence of opinion between some member states on the matter. I think we will have a more flexible approach but there are other member states which have adopted a much harsher and harder approach. I would like to get an idea of what approach the Minister intends to present to the Council.
On an issue close to our hearts, namely, cross-border crime and the perception--
Those are issues primarily for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting. They will be touched on at the GAERC meeting but the detail is primarily the responsibility of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
That is fine.
Let us consider some of the other issues to be raised such as the Middle East. There is a degree of trepidation about the manner in which the so-called Middle East peace deal is being considered. There seems to be a unilateral approach by the United States and Israel which are doing a deal with Mahmoud Abbas, leaving Hamas entirely out of the frame. The best the European Union seems to be able to do when it comes to conflict resolution is host a donors' conference because it is the major player in terms of contributions to the Palestinian Authority, but when it comes to a serious action to deal with the situation, it is the United States which invites two of the players to Annapolis and decides unilaterally on the approach to be adopted. In all the television shots the best I could see was of Tony Blair, supposedly the European Union's man on the job, standing in the third or fourth row watching on as events unfolded. On the one hand, the European Union is the major donor to the Palestinian Authority and, on the other, it is totally excluded when it comes to conflict resolution. I would have thought that it would be a far greater expert on the issue than the United States which seems to be concerned more with conflict creation. It seems unbalanced and one-sided, as reflected in the manner in which Gaza is now totally surrounded by Israel and has been turned into a no man's land and prison camp. We should be very strong in our statements on matters of this nature. I would like to hear the Minister's view on the issue.
It is with disappointment that I see the manner in which matters have transpired in Chad. We discussed the issues involved in the Dáil and gave our approval to the Chad mission, in which Ireland will play a major role, and then discovered that, effectively, there was no mission, which cannot take place because of transport logistical problems. There are not enough planes and helicopters available. As a result, nobody knows when any part of the mission will proceed. The Army rangers were supposed to go before the end of the year but that has now been cancelled. At the same time, there are 500,000 refugees in the camps who are in dire need of protection. Awful acts are being perpetrated on men, women and children, including rape and fatalities. The European Union must get its act together if it is to be a major player in sending missions to theatres of conflict. I suggest that the Council of Ministers focus its attention strongly on ensuring a similar situation does not arise.
I thank the Minister for his overview. As I did when the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, appeared before the committee, I will start by referring to the reform treaty, to which the Minister referred. I have concerns not just about the approach of Ministers and that of our Commissioner but also about the tone emanating from other figureheads in the European Union. There is a condescending or lecturing tone to the effect that if the Irish know what is good for them they will vote for the treaty. I am a strong proponent of the treaty and believe it is in our interests and those of the European Union. From the point of view of diplomacy, it would be useful to explain the sensitivity of the treaty, the potential for its defeat in this country and how important it is that our EU partners do not adopt such a tone in the coming months. Perhaps there should be more understanding of some of the public's opinions on the EU, particularly those of farmers and people involved in the agricultural sector.
Will the Minister give the committee a timeline for the referendum? We did not get an answer when we raised this matter with the Minister of State or the Taoiseach. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on it.
Is the discussion on future enlargements, potential member states and so on moving towards an extension of the Copenhagen criteria or their stricter application? What is the Government's policy in this regard and what approach will we take to enlargement? Most people are concerned by Turkey's prospective membership. Will the Minister give the committee an outline?
To echo Deputy Costello's concerns on Chad, I am concerned about Europe's capabilities and the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. I have had misgivings about the proposed mission to Chad from the outset and I did not believe we would have the logistical capability to see the mission go ahead. It is unfortunate that such is the case, as has been seen recently. Last week, the Dáil debated this matter and we on the Opposition benches were told that we were wrong and did not understand. As it transpired, the Government was incorrect concerning the adequate protection of our troops and their participation in a secure, safe and well-planned mission. Are there any commitments to supply the necessary logistical backup and have there been bilateral discussions with countries that have not committed anything to the mission? Has the Minister spoken to his counterparts in the larger countries I mentioned, as they may be in a position to contribute to the mission? If they do not, it will not go ahead.
As Europe's capabilities are far behind where they should be, we should consider greater co-operation with NATO. It is not a popular position to take, but it is a pragmatic and logical conclusion to draw if logistical support from EU member states is unavailable. We must consider our north Atlantic partners.
The Minister briefly addressed the situation in Kosovo. If independence is unilaterally declared by Kosovo, what will be Ireland's position? We must be prepared for the eventuality. Will Irish troops be withdrawn, as there will not be a UN mandate at that point and the ridiculous triple lock will be called into question?
The Lisbon Agenda is the blueprint for the future of Europe, our economic success, our competitiveness and our dynamism within the global economy, but it is not emphasised and is rarely mentioned in Dáil Éireann. I have concerns about Ireland and the other 26 member states fulfilling their commitments under the agenda. Ireland is committed to a target of 3.3% of GDP for research and development, but we are nowhere near achieving it. Does the EU have a streamlined system to benchmark how well countries are fulfilling their Lisbon strategy commitments and where is Ireland in the pecking order? At a future meeting, we could have a more in-depth discussion and the Minister could share with us his discussions on this topic at the general affairs Council and on how well we compare with our EU colleagues.
What is the Minister's preference?
I would prefer to respond after two or three questions as I might miss some of the points raised.
The same questions may arise. We will pause after the next one.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and I wish him well in the discussions. I am confident his position on issues will reflect the opinions of the public.
Regarding Kosovo, the committee met a delegation from Serbia last week. Its members were concerned by any question of a unilateral declaration of independence. The Serbians were aggrieved by what is happening in Kosovo, but I explained that Ireland's position is pro-peace, not anti-Serb. We have a strong role to play in that regard. Due to our non-colonial background, we are in an influential position to be fair.
Regarding the Middle East peace process, the position of Hamas should be taken into account. Its members were democratically elected as the leaders of the Palestinians, but it has been confined to Gaza because the Americans or others did not accept its role or mandate. Had the international community decided that Fianna Fáil was not fit for government in 1932, the Minister would not be in Government today. Hamas is a revolutionary party as we were and is getting a raw deal. The Minister, being from a neutral country, is in a position to open dialogue with the leader of Hamas leaders and I urge him to do so. It is important that we support the Palestinian office in Ireland. Its representative is doing his utmost to communicate with people. Government policy is to support the office, which it needs if it is to maintain a presence. Most countries supply such support.
When I was a Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, we had a good trading account with Iran. I hope the negotiations and discussions will not end in a trade boycott. From my experience, Iran was a progressive country and we had a good trading relationship with its Government. I hope that whatever action is taken by the Bush Administration does not damage our excellent relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I will be brief because a number of issues have been addressed. Following on from Deputy Costello's statement on Chad, should we consider our logistical situation in respect of our participation in future missions? Should we be in a position to provide our own equipment?
On the concerns surrounding the possible difficulties of a referendum on the reform treaty, the ongoing Commission discussion on a consolidated corporate tax base has been raised with me and other Members. What are the Minister's opinions in this regard and what action will the Government take to remove the matter from the agenda so that it does not become a complicating factor? While it is not addressed in the reform treaty, it may become an issue.
Does the Minister wish to reply to that tranche?
I hope I will be able to cover everything. Regarding Deputy Costello's point on migration, the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting will pull together the tranche of initiatives taken on this issue. There is a desire to have a comprehensive migration policy, where all member states have a common base and everyone knows what other member states are doing. That is important from the point of view of the EU.
Regarding the Middle East peace process, the Deputy suggested the US has too much concentration. The EU does not have responsibility for how this is portrayed in the media but it was a US-sponsored conference. Having experience of this issue for a number of years, without the engagement of the US this matter will not be brought to fruition. The US is an extremely important partner in convincing the Israelis to move. The US may not have been so focussed on this up to now but thankfully Ms Condoleezza Rice has concentrated on this and visited the area on many occasions. I note some reports that President Bush may visit the area in the new year.
Mr. Tony Blair is very active on this matter and, as always on these issues, the EU tends to be the paymaster, not just in Palestine but in many troubled parts of the world. The EU is the first to the table with resources and it is a source of concern that the EU does not get recognition. EU taxpayers must pay for this but that is the commitment we make when we help those less well off from a humanitarian view, particularly those in Gaza.
Regarding Chad, the EU, not Ireland, is leading the mission. It is not for us to seek helicopters, it is an issue for the EU Commission and the force commander, with EU support, to convince other nations. We are concerned that this is not happening as quickly as possible but one must realise that it was only in early October that the EU formally agreed to set this up. This is my 11th year of Council meetings and matters have moved quickly. In the initial phases I believed this may move quicker than was warranted but, having visited Chad recently, the sooner it is under way the better. That is one of the reasons I made a plea to my colleagues for logistical support. Some have suggested we should provide logistical support but our merit in this is to work as part of the EU. We would never have the resources to provide the logistical support required. It is always up to countries with more developed defence forces.
People question why this has not already happened. Some states, within and outside the EU, have pledged support. A number of member states are holding back because they believe they will be required to go into Sudan. This is as much an issue as any in preventing what is happening in Chad. It is not clear whether the UN force will go into Sudan but, if it is 26,000 mainly African troops, because of the insistence of the Sudanese Government, it will require significant logistical support which could only be supplied by non-African countries capable of that support. Many larger EU member states are waiting to see what will happen. The last thing we want is for them to put all their eggs in one basket and then find they cannot provide logistical support required for the Sudanese mission. Other member states, such as the UK, have their attention focussed on Iraq and Afghanistan, which is significant for the UN peacekeeping elements. One way or the other the force will be up and running in the new year if not before. All of the larger member states will provide what is required in this regard.
Deputy Creighton referred to the reform treaty. I do not want her to think that anyone is lecturing but, regarding ratification, it must be ratified by all 27 member states. If one country does not ratify it, it will not be implemented from a legal point of view. If one country, such as Ireland, does not ratify it that would result in pressure on that country not to hold up the ratification process. I do not lecture - that is the factual position. I am delighted with the virtually all-party support for the reform treaty in the Oireachtas. I had experience of Council meetings when there were 15 member states represented. It is now 27 and in the initial stages I thought it would be possible to manage. However, when one discusses issues with 27 people around the table it is difficult to get agreement. For that reason it is necessary to streamline the decision making process of the EU institutions in order that it functions more easily and our citizens are happy with the changes made.
Regarding further enlargement, there has been some progress with Turkey but not enough. Turkey is on a long road to joining the EU and it accepts that. The key issues are conditionality, proper communication of possible future enlargement and, particularly in the case of countries that border areas of potential enlargement, capacity to absorb.
Would the Minister consider that to be a shift in EU policy? Previously this was not being considered.
It is not so much a shift in policy as member states reacting to the mood of the public when France and the Netherlands rejected the constitutional treaty. It is clear that the various political systems in member states are responding to the general mood which is that the EU has increased too dramatically recently and that we should draw breath to a certain extent. We possibly will have an opportunity to draw breath and take stock as no country is on the horizon for early entry to the EU and only Croatia is on the horizon for entry, which will be dealt with. President Sarkozy has proposed a committee of the wise which some people suggest would examine the issue of enlargement and the future of Europe. I do not state it is a change in policy. The wider public in the European Union is reacting to the reality.
I do not envisage that Kosovo will declare unilateral independence. When I was there a couple of weeks ago, it was clearly indicated that a declaration of independence would be managed or co-ordinated with the international community. It will not be done on 10 December. However, they are hell bent on declaring independence in some shape or form and this causes a difficulty.
I accept what Senator Terry Leyden stated about the Serbians. I visited Serbia and spoke with them. There is no doubt that while the Troika talks have been excellent in attempting to get people to move, the fact is that diametrically opposed positions are held and the international community will have to deal with this at UN or EU level.
At national level, we must deal with it in the context of the 270 troops we have there. They have a mandate and we have asked the Attorney General for his views on our continued participation in the event of changes taking place. The strong advice from other member states is that it is more than possible to continue to operate in Kosovo under the existing mandate of the UN Security Council resolution. We will take our own distinct legal advice in this respect.
I can only speak for Ireland with regard to the Lisbon Agenda. We go through a benchmarking process in that we must make an annual report to the Commission. The Commission also does an annual report on how countries are functioning and complying with it. We are one of the best in the class in this respect given our economic upturn in recent years.
With regard to the Middle East peace process, Senator Leyden referred to the issue of dealing with Hamas. This is the age-old conundrum we had here for many years, namely, whether one engages with people who are hell bent on continuing with violence. Although Hamas was democratically elected the international community must be careful. Ultimately, President Abbas is the directly elected President of Palestine.
Palestine has a structure in which the international community operates. It is for the Palestinians to get their act together with regard to who represents them on the international stage. Part of the problem and part of the reason this has not progressed as well as we would like in recent years is because the Palestinians have been so divided. Recently, this has got worse and not better. We do provide direct support for the Palestinian office in this State.
Deputy Dooley referred to the referendum on the consolidated corporate tax base. This is one of our red lines. Some states are pushing this issue. However, a strong number of states have similar views to ours and I do not believe it will progress.
I will be brief because many of the issues have already been raised. The Minister may be aware that a delegation from this committee visited Brussels on Monday and Tuesday. We met with a number of commissioners and spoke about a wide variety of issues. The Lisbon Agenda was one of the principal matters we discussed. As the Minister stated, we have a red line on our corporate tax rate. Although some member states may share our view on this, the Commission does not seem to have received the message. It is still beavering away on the consolidated corporate tax base. We must be honest with the Irish people and state this issue remains a threat.
Will the Minister make it clear at this and subsequent meetings that this is a major issue for a number of countries and if the Commission wants to interfere in this issue and claim it affects the Lisbon Agenda the onus should be on the Commission to show a unified corporate tax base would be good for competition in Europe? I believe varying corporate tax rates are good for competition and it is a matter of national sovereignty. We met the Secretary General of the Commission, Ms Catherine Day, who is an impressive person. It was clear from her presentation that they are still beavering away on this topic and do not seem to have received the message. It must be reinforced time and again.
The second person we met was the Vice President of the Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Mr. Frattini. This was a good meeting in that he gave a clear message that our opt-in, opt-out of justice and home affairs would not affect in any way the fight against terrorism and drugs throughout Europe. This is a strong message that should go out to the people because at the time of the opt-out a suggestion was made that this would affect cross-border co-operation on drugs and terrorism. Mr. Frattini also made clear the importance of passing the reform treaty with regard to other areas in the fight against crime, in particular cyber crime and computer crime. He pointed out several benefits of passing the reform treaty.
I have spoken about Iran not only here but also at meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. In his contribution the Minister pointed out the recent US intelligence report and the recent report from Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA and this was fair. Ireland enjoys full diplomatic relations with Iran. No credible evidence exists that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Europe should be extremely restrained in its attitude to any further requests for sanctions against Iran. The result of this could help extremism in Iran to prosper. We should tread carefully. I have never been happy, and neither have other committee members, with the fact that the Troika dealing with this issue in the EU is made up of Germany, Britain and France. The Troika does not include any small country. The three states are large with their own strategic interests. I urge the Minister to align with small and medium countries in any debate on Iran. I would be interested in learning the Minister's attitude towards further sanctions against Iran, which I believe at this stage would only help to shore up the more extremist elements in the country.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. Further to the Minister's reply to Deputy Creighton on EU enlargement, I have concerns that the forthcoming referendum on the EU reform treaty could be dominated by the issue of immigration. Certain people will use the opportunity to stoke fears about the influx of non-Irish nationals from other EU states. It is important during the debate that we communicate to the public the implications of adopting the reform treaty in terms of further enlargement and immigration.
I note the Minister's comments about the distance Turkey still has to travel before it accedes to the EU. Negotiations with Croatia are ongoing in that regard and Macedonia has also been mentioned. These will arise as issues during the treaty debate. I would not like to see the debate turn into a referendum on immigration because I fear we would thereby lose it. It is important that we communicate to the electorate the implications of adopting the treaty in terms of enlargement because people are asking about the limits to the EU's eastward expansion and the meaning of the treaty for enlargement.
I assure members that the Government has at every opportunity raised our substantial objections to the proposal by the Commission on the common consolidated tax base. Regardless of whether they continue to beaver away on the proposal, the current regime can only be changed on a unanimous basis and a sizeable number of countries are indicating strong objections. I concur with Deputy Mulcahy that it would be bad for business in Europe because an element of competition is beneficial. While we cannot stop officials in Brussels from trying to introduce changes, we have insisted at every level that reforms can only be made with our consent.
In regard to the opt-in clause, I did not realise the committee met the Vice President of the Commission, Mr. Frattini, but I welcome his remarks. It was our view when we made this decision that it would not circumscribe us in the fight against terrorism and illegal activity across European borders. It merely gave us more capacity to make decisions based on our unique criminal law jurisdiction rather than the systems prevalent in the rest of Europe. One has only to look at current high profile cases in Portugal and elsewhere to see that criminal systems differ across the EU.
I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that Iran is a substantial nation which has to be dealt with on the basis of respect and good diplomatic relations. However, the Deputy is wrong to claim there is no evidence it is enriching uranium or developing military nuclear capabilities. In 2003, the IAEA clearly indicated that Iran was enriching uranium and had an illicit programme of nuclear facilities, which can only lead to military use. We normally rely on the IAEA rather than reports from the US when making judgments on these matters but the US report indicates that Tehran's announcement to suspend its declared uranium enrichment programme and sign the additional protocol was primarily in response to increased international scrutiny and pressure subsequent to the exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear capabilities. I put more store in the advice of the IAEA. Dr. El Baradei stated that he was not getting the full transparency he needed and that Iran's co-operation was reactive and limited. He also noted that, while some questions had been answered, the agency's knowledge of Iran's current activities was diminishing and the country continued to defy UN Security Council resolutions.
This is probably one of the most difficult files we have to manage because of its cloak and dagger nature. The international community will have to maintain a watchful eye on Iran and we strongly believe the matter can only be resolved by means of diplomatic pressure from all the world's states through the UN and, if necessary, further targeted sanctions against the regime. There is no doubt that some of the sanctions, including in particular the financial constraints imposed on the country, are having an effect. It would be unfortunate if that effect trickled down to the people, although they are not at present facing any grave difficulties from a humanitarian perspective. These sanctions have caused Iran to respond to the entreaties of the international community, particularly the IAEA.
The reform treaty has no implications for enlargement other than making the process somewhat more rigorous. From the point of view of communicating the treaty to the public, we have to clearly state that no decisions are being made on enlarging the EU. The treaty deals with the fact that the EU has 27 member states and tries to streamline the system to make it more responsive to the needs of an ever-changing world.
I am sorry that I was not here to hear all the Minister's contribution. I recently met some people from Iceland, which I understand is confident that it may become a full member of the EU before Croatia or Turkey.
Will it give up its fishing rights?
It will. I learned that fishing rights are less important than heretofore. The country is now much more dependent on trade.
My official informs me that was not what the Icelandic Prime Minister said when he was in Ireland.
Apparently trade has become more important and my Icelandic informants believe that accession may be possible. My concern with the reform treaty is that when we joined the EU there was much confidence in Ireland that subsidiarity would apply in a great number of areas and that decisions could be made closer to where the citizens are, in our own country or cities, rather than in Brussels. There is concern that we are almost becoming a European state because too many decisions are being made in Brussels. I think of some of the disadvantages that might result from this. In Germany recently I was surprised to see large advertisements for tobacco and realised it is many years since we stopped advertising tobacco. That was one benefit of being able to do things ourselves. Such decisions are better made in each country because there is a better chance of achieving success in the battle against, for example, tobacco addiction. Alcohol control, advertising and legislation are better handled individually by each country because the attitude to alcohol is so different in, for example, Sweden and Italy. I would like to get a view on whether such matters are likely to be centralised.
One area that will benefit from the EU is the introduction of the single European payments area, SEPA, due to come into being on 1 January 2008. This will benefit those who trade around Europe. Until now one could not write a cheque or send a payment from one country to another without a long delay and heavy cost. Is there any reason why SEPA will not be introduced, as hoped, on 1 January? Are there any delays? I understand there is a delay due to a dispute on the interchange fee which banks charge for the use of credit cards and debit cards. This is different around Europe. Some countries have a much lower rate than others. That may be too technical to ask the Minister but I am interested to know whether we will have the benefit of SEPA coming into being on 1 January.
Before the Minister replies, some other points arose in the last few days. The points raised by members reflect the thinking as ascertained by the committee when we recently visited the institutions in Brussels. I was impressed with the frankness and honesty of the responses we got. I have been a member of the European affairs committee for a long time, notwithstanding a break, and I did not see that degree of frankness and honesty in the past. Some of the changes to which members have referred have already happened. Could the Minister refer to the outstanding difficulties between Cyprus and Turkey and the extent to which they are being addressed in the context of ongoing discussions?
The committee recently received a delegation from Serbia and, unfortunately, in a country such as Ireland we know about the downside of long, bitter campaigns and where they lead. The sad fact is that man's inhumanity to man has not changed, notwithstanding all the events of the past. That area has the propensity to revert to the state it was in, and it is important the Minister uses his influence at EU and UN level to ensure everybody is not held to ransom. We know there are sensitivities there, but it is worth remembering that once the gauntlet is thrown down by any group of people in the area, whether in the EU or on its fringes, it creates an impossible situation. The delegation suggested there will be serious consequences if Kosovo declares independence unilaterally. We could recognise that, but the response to it should not be the ultimate response; there must be negotiations.
We all made contributions to last week's debate on Chad. Without any briefing it occurred to me and to several others that we must ensure our troop deployment in such vast areas has the capacity to lift and shift troops and military hardware within their own command to a greater extent than before. That is because of the vastness of the terrain and the need to make some provision for it. The Minister will say it is very expensive, and so it is, but if we are to protect our troops in such deployments there will be a greater emphasis on that whether through the EU, UN or another source. We need some degree of independence in that area. When I was a child, which is quite a while ago, I was an avid student of military campaigns and the one issue that arose repeatedly, especially in multinational forces, was the degree to which there was understanding and to which supply and transport were readily available. Where multinational forces failed it was largely because one group depended on the other and this broke down for language or other reasons. I strongly suggest that there be greater independence in that area. It might be difficult but it would be much safer. I will not refer to the unfortunate consequences in Srebrenica a few years ago when a UN force was in that situation. Maybe they should have done something different, but the fact is they did not. There is a risk of vulnerability there unless we watch the situation. I apologise for going on.
The reform treaty enhances subsidiarity. It gives a greater role to European parliaments. There is a yellow card procedure whereby they can delay decision making processes, so there is a greater role for national parliaments.
That is for European parliaments, which is central as opposed to individual countries.
I meant there is a greater role for national parliaments in the decision making process and they have the ability to put up a yellow card on occasions. We are at a remove from SEPA as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment deals with it, but we are not aware of any potential difficulties. A direct question to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment might get the position.
I welcome Deputy Durkan's comments on openness. I am delighted the committee met so many people from the Commission and that they had full access. That is as it should be. Cyprus is a difficult issue for the EU in the context of any potential accession by Turkey. We sit beside the Cypriots at the European Council meetings and this is their key national priority. They sometimes feel overwhelmed by the pressure they are under. Turkey has not fulfilled its obligations under the Ankara protocol on opening its ports and airports as it agreed at the beginning of negotiations. In December 2006 the Council of Ministers agreed to eight specific negotiation chapters that the ports and airports could not be opened until the commission verified that Turkey had fulfilled its commitments under that protocol.
I am not an expert on military issues. However, when I visited Chad and I flew in the Government jet from N'Djamena to Abéché, which, although it is a town of many thousands of people, is just an airstrip and not a town in our sense of the word. This is where the recent trouble took place and it did this time last year too. We then flew for an hour and a half in a helicopter to the location of one of the displacement camps. I was not surprised when Lieutenant General Pat Nash indicated clearly on the following Monday to the Council of Ministers that he could not possibly authorise a force to go there until he had the logistical support of helicopters to move personnel from A to B and act as a deterrent to the rebels who would not be as well resourced in that respect. The key point is that the EU force must be mobile. I would not be despondent about this as it will come to fruition.
With regard to beefing up our own independent support, as a small nation with a small army, we do not have the capability to provide any more. The danger is we would struggle, if we were to adopt this attitude, to fit into other missions. We should operate on our current basis of filling a niche and being happy to do so, albeit by relying on overall co-ordinated responsibility, as it must be. I have full confidence in Lieutenant General Pat Nash in that respect. He made it clear that he would not put a boot on the ground until such time as he was happy that he had the full capability required in the circumstances.
The position in Serbia is extremely difficult but there is one positive aspect. I met the President and Prime Minister in both countries and they clearly indicated they abhorred any return to violence and that they would go through the process without it. That is not to say others in those troubled parts of the world will not differ. I visited Srebrenica, although it was difficult for me to do so because the visit was short. What happened 12 years ago is still one of the biggest crimes man has committed on fellow man. The enormity of what had happened brought to mind the fact that despite what we say about the sophistication of the modern world, when there are ethnic difficulties, as there are in this region, we cannot take anything for granted.
I thank the Minister and his senior officials for attending. We will, no doubt, have similar discussions in the future.
Sitting suspended at 12.53 p.m. and resumed at 12.55 p.m.