I wish to thank the House for inviting me to open this debate on the outcome of the European Council which was held in Nice last December. I congratulate you, a Chathaoirligh, for arranging the debate. It is vital that there should be the fullest possible discussion of the Treaty of Nice which is very important for the future development of the European Union. I intend to outline in some detail the main aspects of the treaty, to place it in context and to say a little about the Government's approach to the next items on the European agenda.
It is now a little over eight weeks since the Nice Council ended. We spent four long days and nights negotiating the new treaty, setting a record which I hope and expect will not be challenged during my time as Taoiseach. Having reflected over the past eight weeks, I remain satisfied that the agreement reached was a good deal for Ireland and Europe, despite the claims I have seen that the summit was badly handled and that the outcome of the negotiations lacked coherence and ambition. These criticisms are unrealistic and miss the point. At Nice, we had a very difficult task. Some of the issues on the table were so difficult that the previous Intergovernmental Conference, at Amsterdam in 1997, had failed to take a decision. Against this background, reaching agreement was a very substantial achievement.
The details of the treaty may seem dry and technical but we should not forget its broad political context. The objective of the negotiations was to prepare the Union's institutions for enlargement. That objective has now been achieved. It was essential that we came away from Nice sig nalling to the accession candidates that the way ahead was now clear. I will return to the enlargement at the conclusion of this statement, but first I want to set out the main elements of the treaty.
The agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference at the outset comprised the Amsterdam "leftovers"– the size and composition of the Commission and the reweighting of the votes in the Council, and the extension of qualified majority voting as well as some related institutional issues. Flexibility, or enhanced co-operation as it is also not known, was added to the agenda during the process.
The Government approached the negotiations in a positive light. We wanted to make a genuine contribution to the development of a Union capable of meeting the challenges of enlargement. However, in doing so, we also sought to ensure that the essential characteristics of the Union were maintained. Ireland has, over the years, benefited from the ways in which the Community's institutional balance and unique decision-making processes protect the interests of small states.
Ireland sees the Commission as central to that institutional balance. As I made clear in advance, a key negotiating objective at the Intergovernmental Conference was to ensure that the Commission would remain both effective and representative. As is well known, a number of the larger member states were concerned about the ability of the Commission to undertake its task effectively with 27 or more members and argued strongly for agreements now on a sharp reduction in its size. Smaller states, including Ireland, felt that at this stage it would be damaging and premature to make such a drastic change. I argued that we could not anticipate the nature of developments in the Union over the next decade and so should not now make a definitive decision.
What emerged was a very satisfactory compromise. Some movement was required on all sides but I believe we have protected our basic interests. As we wanted, the powers of the Commission President over the management and organisation of the Commission were increased. Furthermore, it was agreed that all member states will for now continue to be entitled to nominate a Commissioner, as will new members when they join. Only when the Union reaches 27 members will there be a review of its composition. The review will set a lower ceiling but the arrangements to be agreed must be based on the total equality of member states. There is, therefore, no question of smaller member states being relegated to a secondary position. Whatever is agreed, Ireland will have the same exact rights as any other member state.
It was a major achievement to nail down acceptance of the principle of equal rotation. Ensuring parity on the Commission between all member states, however large or small, could not have been guaranteed on a future occasion. That was something of which all the small and medium-sized countries were certain. If we had waited seven or eight years and had come back to it, we would not have got equal rotation. I have not met anybody or even read anything by anyone who has argued that we could have. I think that was unanimous in all the parliamentary debates in January which I have seen.
On the second related Amsterdam "left-over", the reweighting of votes in the Council, we adopted a relatively flexible approach. I wanted to ensure that a qualified majority would require the support of a majority of states and a majority of the Union's population.
As I anticipated, this turned out to be one of the most protracted and difficult parts of the negotiations. The compromise which was eventually agreed, while complex, will not make it harder in practice to reach agreement on specific proposals, as some have said. The reality is that positions within the Council on any given issue rarely if ever divide on a large-small basis. From an Irish point of view, the drop in our share of the total vote, already inevitable in an enlarged Union, will be minor.
In an enlarged Union of 27 members, a substantial decrease in the number of areas where unanimity will continue to apply is a prerequisite for the efficient functioning of the Union. In recognition of this and taking account of our other negotiating priorities, we adopted a strongly supportive position on the extension of QMV and, in advance of Nice, we made a determined and successful effort to reduce our list of exceptions to a minimum. In the end, the Union was able to agree to 30 articles moving to QMV.
Our positive approach was demonstrated by a proposal we made to provide a clear legal base for the Union's social protection committee. We made this proposal to give further momentum to the work begun at the Lisbon European Council on Social Protection and felt that it complemented the steps taken in relation to social exclusion in Amsterdam. I was pleased this was agreed in Nice.
Contrary to what some people suggest, moving away from unanimity, or the so-called national veto, as it is referred to in some countries, does not in most cases threaten a country's basic interests or national sovereignty. When it comes to votes on a QMV basis, in the majority of cases, Ireland has been on the "yes" side and use of QMV has made it easier for us and like-minded partners to get a decision we want. More importantly, QMV has enabled Europe to build a single market and common policies which have been in the long-term interests of all the member states of the Union. Ireland has, of course, benefited greatly from these developments.
There are, however, instances where it is appropriate to insist on unanimity. This is the course we took in relation to taxation. I am pleased we held our line on this, despite constant and heavy pressure from the Presidency to accept QMV. It is not that we oppose common action on some aspects of tax, such as anti-fraud measures, it is just that we believe that there needs to be a guarantee that such action needs to respect the fundamental requirements of all members. Moreover, on the basis of our experience, we are convinced that there needs to be an openness within the Union to a number of alternative socio-economic models and taxation philosophies, taking account of the traditions and situations of the member states.
The Treaty of Nice also includes provisions which make it easier for sub-groups of member states to co-operate more closely on a given matter if they so wish. These provisions will be subject to a range of safeguards which will protect the rights of all states to opt into or stay out of such arrangements and will ensure that key policies of the Union, for example, in relation to the Single Market, will not be damaged. I would like to make it clear that Ireland is not opposed in principle to closer co-operation. Ireland would not be adverse to participation in such co-operation where we felt that it would be in the national and European interest.
While closer co-operation may apply to aspects of the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we and other like-minded states ensured that military and defence matters are specifically excluded. While I am on this issue, I want to make it clear that only changes in the Nice treaty relating to foreign, security or defence issues are of a minor and purely technical kind. They in no way alter the scope or basis of the EU's capacity and competence in this area. All over Europe, even parties which have been sceptical about the EU recognise that the Nice treaty is directed towards enlargement and will accept it for this reason. The biggest potential losers from any scare-mongering about Nice would be precisely those peoples and countries which suffered most from the Cold War. This would be unforgivable.
In the context of enlargement, it was clear from the outset that every existing member state, except for Germany which has been under-represented relative to its population, would have to accept a reduction in its representation at the European Parliament so as to accommodate the accession states. In the event, I am satisfied with the outcome that will leave us with 12 MEPs in an enlarged Union. While it was important that all member states had to play their part in accommodating new member states, it was imperative that the burden be shared on an equitable basis among member states. The proposal from the European Parliament would have involved a drop to nine MEPs for Ireland.
Nice also agreed changes to the working methods and composition of the Courts of Justice and of First Instance, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Affairs Committee which will prepare them for an increase in the size of the Union. We were happy to support these changes.
With regard to ratification of the treaty, I have said from the outset that our approach to the negotiations was to see the best deal for Ireland and the Union and thereafter to consider the procedures necessary for ratification. The question of whether a referendum will be required is under urgent consideration. The Government will take a final decision when the formal text of the Nice treaty has been finalised by EU legal experts and the advice of the Attorney General has been received. We will soon be in a position to take that decision. However, I have asked that officials ensure that the preparatory work necessary for a referendum is put in train to give the Government the full range of options as to timing. As I have indicated elsewhere, I continue to think it is most likely that a referendum will be held and that it would be best to move sooner rather than later. I am confident that the people, if called upon to vote, will make clear their solidarity with the enlargement candidates and their continuing support for the development of the EU.
Looking to the future, at Nice we also agreed a Declaration on the Future of the Union, establishing a process for taking forward issues such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Catalogue of Competences, the interrelationship between national parliaments and the Union and the restructuring of the treaties. There is to be a further intergovernmental conference in 2004. The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies are to initiate preliminary consideration of the agenda and the modalities by which it will be taken forward. At the conclusion of a fully inclusive consultation process there will be a further declaration at the EU Council in December 2001 under the Belgian Presidency which will provide a road map for the work to be carried out by way of preparation for the 2004 conference.
These issues raise very important questions about the future direction of the EU. Since Nice, a number of interesting and important contributions have been made. The Government believes it is vital that Ireland plays its part in this debate and to enable us to do so we will be considering how best to facilitate wide ranging national consideration of these issues in the run-up to 2004. It will be necessary in this process to ask ourselves quite searching questions about the kind of European Union we want to see.
At the same time, and here I agree with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden, we must not allow preparation for another Intergovernmental Conference in 2004, and a debate about constitutional and institutional issues, to distract from the major practical tasks facing the Union in the years ahead.
For example, next January will see the introduction of euro notes and coins. This will be both a huge logistical and practical exercise and a symbolic moment of great impact. If it goes well, as I believe it will, it will make the importance and success of the European project come alive to all our citizens in a very tangible way.
Even sooner, next month, the first annual spring employment summit takes place in Stockholm. This will seek to monitor and accelerate the progress we are making on the broad economic and social goals set for the Union at Lisbon last March, namely, to become the most dynamic knowledge based economy in the world by 2010 while also achieving greater social cohesion. This requires action across a wide range of issues, from research to economic liberalisation to responding to the ageing of Europe's population. The intention is that Heads of State and Government should take a strategic overview of what is happening both nationally and at EU level. Essentially we have to find ways in which Europe can become more competitive as a global economic player while protecting the values of solidarity and inclusion.
Another great project facing the Union is enlargement. As I said earlier, the whole point of Nice was to prepare the Union for this. The way is now clear for the enlargement negotiations to accelerate and intensify and I know that this is a priority for the Swedish Presidency. Given the hope that the first negotiations can be concluded in 2002, the time is approaching when some hard decisions will fall to be taken. I am determined that our vital interests must be protected in the negotiations but, at the same time, we need to be generous and understanding towards the applicants.
Of course, membership should only be granted to those states which are capable of meeting the challenges involved and which have objectively met the appropriate criteria. It would do nobody any favours to act otherwise. However, that said, I hope and believe that the first accessions will take place within a few years. As I have consistently stated, I believe that enlargement is in the interests of Europe as a whole and of Ireland.
Enlargement goes right to the heart of what the European project is about. We in western Europe have played our part in assisting and encouraging change across our shared continent. We are now called upon to extend our partnership within the European Union to embrace the prospective new members. The European Union has an historic duty to underpin freedom and democracy and to promote prosperity and partnership throughout Europe. It was itself founded for those very purposes.
However, enlargement should not be seen as just a moral and political imperative; it is also an economic opportunity. Already the levels of Irish trade with and investment in the applicant countries are rising sharply. The expansion of the Single Market by over 100 million new consumers will create many new customers for our goods and services.
I am well aware from my own visits to the applicant countries, most recently to Malta and Cyprus, that they have a particular interest in our experience within the Union. Ireland is seen as a small state with an historical experience not totally different from their own, which, having started from a long way back, has made the best possible use of the support and opportunities given to it to catch up with the European mainstream. When, on my visits abroad, I am able to tell our story, to compare the statistics of today with those of 30 years ago, or even ten years ago, I always make clear just how much we owe to the Union and just how unimaginable our current prosperity and self-confidence would be if we had not had the chance to grow within the EU framework.
From an Irish perspective, the EU balance sheet has been overwhelmingly positive. I am convinced that others deserve the same opportunities we got a generation ago. The Nice Treaty opens the way to enlargement and it is above all for that reason that I have no hesitation in recommending it to the House.
