I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the Seanad on the work of the reflection group which is assisting in the preparation of next year's Intergovernmental Conference and on which I am Ireland's representative. The group has been meeting since 3 June. This was the fortieth anniversary of the meeting of a similar group which resulted in the Treaty of Rome. The reflection group consists of a representative of the Foreign Minister of each EU member state, a European Commissioner and two Members of the European Parliament representing the Christian Democrat and Socialist traditions.
We have met two days a week during three weeks of each month, except during August. Last Sunday we met in Madrid for ten hours to draft the final stages of our report. It is expected that the group will complete its report at a final drafting meeting in Brussels next Tuesday and it will be presented to the European Council for consideration the following week.
The whole Intergovernmental Conference process, including this preparatory phase, must be transparent. It is important that national parliaments and public opinion more generally are kept fully appraised of developments so that an informed debate can take place throughout the EU.
The paper I am having distributed to Senators sets out in a concise way the background to the reflection group and summarises its work. I do not intend to go over all the details set out in that paper but to highlight some of the main elements.
The scope and purpose of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, as originally conceived, was to examine a number of provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including those relating to the common foreign and security policy and to the decision making powers of the European Parliament.
It is now clear that the Intergovernmental Conference will have to address a wider range of issues including the context of the further enlargement of the EU. An intergovernmental conference is a meeting of the governments of the member states at different levels, such as civil service, ministerial and head of government or state levels.
It is expected that the Intergovernmental Conference will commence at the end of March next year during the Italian Presidency and will continue through our Presidency in the latter half of 1996. The duration of the Intergovernmental Conference depends on a large number of factors and many expect it to continue into 1997. In any event, the Intergovernmental Conference will be a major priority for our Presidency and we will aim to progress its work as expeditiously as possible.
The European Council meeting at Corfu on 24 and 25 June 1994 agreed to establish a reflection group to help prepare for the Intergovernmental Conference. This group is not a negotiating forum. Rather it has been set up to identify and clarify the issues to be addressed and, where possible, to set out options for consideration at the Intergovernmental Conference itself.
The main areas we have addressed in general terms are first, the challenges, principles and objectives of the Intergovernmental Conference; second, the institutions of the Union; third, the citizen and the Union, including justice and home affairs, the so-called third pillar issues; fourth, the common foreign and security policy and, fifth, the instruments and policies at the Union's disposal.
My broad approach to the discussions has been that the Intergovernmental Conference should make practical and substantial improvements where these can be made and, at the same time, should preserve the broad balance between the institutions and between the member states which have served the Union well and are essential for its future success.
While I do not want to under-estimate the difficult array of issues with which the Intergovernmental Conference will have to deal, a broad degree of agreement seems to be emerging on a number of points. I cannot pre-empt the final report of the Reflection Group nor speak on behalf of its members. It is now agreed that one priority for the Intergovernmental Conference will be to help to bring the Union closer to its citizens. It is recognised, for example, that the Union must operate with greater transparency. In this context, it is also important that progress be seen to be made in areas which have the most direct bearing on the lives of citizens. Such progress is not entirely dependent on the Intergovernmental Conference. Much can be done and is being done on the basis of the present Treaty. However, there is now a wide degree of acceptance that the Intergovernmental Conference must play its role in trying to make some further progress in addressing the most pressing problems of our society, such as unemployment, drug trafficking and organised crime.
The need to streamline the institutional functioning of the Union has been acknowledged by most members of the Reflection Group. Legislative procedures, for example, should be simplified and reduced in number. Many members of the group have supported some extension of qualified majority voting for normal Community business under the so-called first pillar. Many also recognise that the mechanisms of the so-called third pillar, which provides the basis for actions in the justice and home affairs area, need to be strengthened significantly.
The need to preserve the broad balance between the institutions of the Union has been recognised. This is not to say that there are no changes to be made to the institutions. For example, many envisage some extension of the co-decision procedure with a view to enhancing the role of the European Parliament. We must, however, strive to ensure an institutional framework adapted to a larger Union which retains and, if possible, enhances the Union's ability to address effectively the concerns of all the member states and which retains the loyalty of their citizens. There is broad acknowledgement that further expansion of the Union should be accompanied by a continuation of the integration process.
The paper which I distributed to Members sets out in more detail the points which have arisen in the Reflection Group and the line I have adopted. I would, however, like to highlight the following considerations. It is vital on the one hand that the Intergovernmental Conference is open to and imaginative about change where this would bring real advancement for the Union. On the other hand, it is essential that it preserves those elements which have served the Union well and are essential for its future success, such as the overall balance between the institutions. I have placed particular emphasis on the Intergovernmental Conference exploring constructively and imaginatively the possibilities for strengthening Treaty provisions in areas of most concern to citizens, including employment and the fight against drugs.
I have expressed clear opposition to any attempt to undermine the role of the Commission. I have opposed, as have many members of the Reflection Group, any suggestion that smaller member states should forego their right to nominate a full member of the European Commission. I have taken the view that there is no a priori reason for changing the voting weights in Council. It is clear that this issue will be further discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference. I have also spoken in favour of some extension of qualified majority voting under the first pillar.
I have stressed that subsidiarity should not be interpreted as a one way street for devolving powers away from the centre. Subsidiarity means that decisions should be taken at the level most suited to the decision making process. I have argued that flexibility, by which is meant a multi-speed approach to different issues, should be approached cautiously. There have already been cases where member states have agreed to move towards common objectives at different speeds and there will presumably be such cases in the future. However, any premature drift towards a generalised, institutionalised approach to flexibility could be a defeatist approach in terms of our ambitions for the Intergovernmental Conference and could represent a step towards a la carte Europe. The starting point for the Intergovernmental Conference should be to examine how we can move forward together. Flexibility should be addressed on a case by case basis.
We will consider favourably a possible increase in the role of the European Parliament by, for instance, some extension of the co-decision procedure. I have laid particular stress on the need to address free movement of citizens as a clear and visible expression of citizenship. I have strongly recommended a strengthening of the justice and home affairs provisions of the Treaty. Some practical improvements in this regard can be made under the existing Treaty by, for example, simplifying the decision making structures. However, the Intergovernmental Conference should also consider, for example, setting out clear objectives in the Treaty, ending the restriction on the Commission's shared right of initiative and introducing qualified majority voting in certain areas, such as asylum and immigration. Tackling organised crime and drug trafficking must be a priority and I suggested that the incorporation of explicit provisions on combating drug trafficking might be considered.
Common foreign and security policy is an important area of the Reflection Group's work. The effectiveness of the CFSP must be strengthened so that the European Union can respond quickly to international situations and promote peace, prosperity and stability. Some member states have expressed the view that the CFSP has not been as effective as it might be and have argued that the need for consensus in decision making on CFSP issues is a source of weakness. I have taken the view, however, that the real key to more effective decision making lies in the preparatory phase and have favoured the establishment of a planning and analysis capacity located in the Council secretariat. Such a capacity would facilitate the identification of a common Union interest and the formulation of effective responses to international situations and events. It would also strengthen the ability of the Council secretariat to assist the Presidency in the implementation of CFSP decisions and to contribute to greater continuity between Presidencies. I am happy to report that there is now an emerging consensus within the group on the need for such a capacity.
I am not convinced by the argument that the present decision making procedures are the real source of the perceived problems in CFSP or that a modification of the consensus requirement, for example, to introduce majority voting would resolve difficulties. I also remain to be convinced that there is much greater scope for majority voting on sensitive foreign policy issues and do not believe that the need for unanimity has prevented the Council from taking decisions which were politically desirable or capable of implementation.
As regards the role of the Presidency, I have underlined the importance of the present system of rotating Presidencies, arguing that this system allows each member state in turn to make a central contribution to the development and implementation of Union foreign policy. This helps to foster a valuable sense of ownership and identification with these policies in member states.
As my report indicates, proposals have been put forward for longer Presidency terms of office. In view of the ever increasing responsibilities assumed by the Presidency in CFSP, a longer Presidency term would seriously tax the resources of smaller member states. It would also lead to a situation in which member states would assume the post infrequently. This might diminish the sense of active participation by each member state in Union foreign policy.
Another possible option that has been suggested is that of "team presidencies" or presidencies split or shared between member states. I have expressed caution about this proposal because of the distortions which might be introduced into the institutional balance of CFSP.
As my report indicates, I feel that the proposal to appoint a high ranking official — Mr. or Ms CFSP — to conduct the Union's foreign policy is an option for consideration. However, there is a risk that such a proposal might confuse rather than simplify our present arrangements and upset the existing institutional balance of CFSP. It might also diminish the role of the presidency in representing the Union externally.
With regard to the discussions on the security and defence aspects, I would refer Senators again to the paper that has been distributed. I have underlined that this is a very sensitive area for Ireland and that, as in other areas, the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference must be acceptable to the public in each member state.
One of the key issues is the future institutional relationship between the EU and the Western European Union. A range of options, from full merger through to maintaining them as separate organisations but with deeper co-operation between them, has been put forward. My preference would be to avoid any premature attempts to narrow down options or pre-empt the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations themselves.
It is in this context that I and a number of my reflection group colleagues have suggested that some thought be given to creative ways of looking at the issues that could arise in relation to mutual defence commitments such as those contained in Article V of the Western European Union's modified Brussels Treaty. The aim would be to identify possible arrangements that would allow all partners to make their contribution in the key areas of conflict prevention and crisis management, and which would underpin and strengthen the CFSP, but that would not encompass a mutual defence commitment automatically.
By and large, my impression is that the members of the group accept that the different positions of partners, including neutral countries like Ireland, must be accommodated. It is in this context that the various options which are being explored may be of assistance when the Intergovernmental Conference itself begins the substantive negotiations.
The Reflection Group, as I said at the outset, is not a negotiating forum. Its task has been to help in identifying a broad range of options for discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. I am satisfied that it will have fulfilled its mandate and that its final report to the Madrid European Council will set out in a balanced and comprehensive way the views advanced at the reflection group over the past five months.
The Reflection Group report will not be a damp squib, nor will it be the most exciting bedside reading that Members of the Seanad have ever seen. It will, however, be somewhere in between and will set out substantially the issues and the alternatives — what I, as the Irish representative, have called an "annotated agenda". It will say: "Here is the issue. Here is the approach to the issue". If we were to get into negotiating now it would pre-empt the right of Governments to do so at a later stage.
It will not be good enough for an Intergovernmental Conference, which may go through 1996 and into 1997, simply to look at all the institutions — the Parliament, the Court, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Council of Ministers, and the Treaties — and not look at the real concerns of the citizen of Europe. The citizens of Europe will not tolerate a situation where governments meeting for that length of time do not address the issues. Whether we think we can do anything about it or not, employment is one of those issues which must be on the agenda along with crime and drugs. I know there are Members of the House who feel that we cannot do much about this, but if governments cannot do anything about it we might as well throw up our hands and concede to others the right to determine law and order. These issues — not just the institutions and the constitutions — must be on the agenda to be pursued and addressed by this Intergovernmental Conference.
The Intergovernmental Conference will take place against a possible backdrop of future enlargement, or enlargements, of the Union which could bring the EU from the west coast of Ireland to the Black Sea, perhaps extending from the existing 15 members to 27 members or more in our lifetime. That presents great challenges as well as great opportunities. The challenges are, of course, the common policies which will probably not be dealt with at the Intergovernmental Conference but in some parallel process. The Commission, for example, has already commenced an examination of the Common Agricultural Policy.
When we come to ratify whatever treaty changes there are, people will want answers to these questions. Enlargement, as it comes, will bring great challenges because most of those members who want to join do not share the same status of wealth as the existing 15. Most of them are fledging democracies, although Malta and Cyprus are in a different category.
We must favour enlargement for selfish as well as selfless reasons. The selfless reasons are that these emerging democracies must be shown they can sustain, the changes they have brought about and that, through some process of hope, they can join in the standards of living we have enjoyed in western Europe.
The selfish reasons include the fact that Europe cannot be prosperous if it is not at peace. We cannot expect to have the levels of prosperity we have had in the second half of this century if Europe is not stable and at peace. Instability and the absence of peace threatens that prosperity. For our own sake — and so that we can continue to enjoy the levels of prosperity we have enjoyed and build on them — we must ensure that enlargement goes ahead.
This enlargement may not happen in one big bang. It will not happen until the Intergovernmental Conference has completed its work and at that stage the decision will be taken on how many and whom. For the reasons I have stated, I believe we must support this enlargement, and the Intergovernmental Conference will be held against the background of that important objective.
For a little market economy of 3.5 million people like ourselves, the fact that 106 million people are waiting to join the European Union not only presents challenges but also great opportunities. On a recent visit to Budapest, I found that Avonmore Creameries produce and deliver the main segment of the milk market there. Such are the opportunities that present themselves to us.
The Reflection Group report will represent an important input to the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. I am also satisfied that the report will satisfactorily reflect Irish concerns and ambitions as it will those of other member states. Finally, I also very much hope and believe that the report will be seen to address the concerns, fears and ambitions of citizens throughout the Union. If the Intergovernmental Conference plays its role in addressing those concerns, in demonstrating the relevance of the Union to ordinary citizens, then it is an exercise from which there should be no losers and in which all stand to gain.