Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 19 May 2004
1 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way in which he views the interests of small member states of the European Union being protected in the context of proposals to reduce the size of the European Commission and to introduce greater intergovernmentalism into the institution via the appointment of a permanent President of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14850/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI do not view the proposed creation under the constitutional treaty of the position of permanent President of the European Council in the context of either the institutional balance between large and small member states or of a movement towards intergovernmentalism. The provisions on the President of the European Council as they developed in the Convention debate essentially reproduce the functions of the current rotating President. The role of the European Council President will be to chair the European Council and drive forward its work, to prepare the work of the European Council in co-operation with the President of the Commission and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council, to facilitate consensus and cohesion within the European Council and to present a report to the European Parliament. He or she shall also ensure the external representation at his or her level of the Union in the common foreign and security policy without prejudice to the role of the EU Foreign Minister.
A broad consensus was reached on the proposals at the Convention. Among the original supporters of the idea were Sweden and Denmark, two smaller member states that had recently held the Presidency. While the Government was not among those advocating this proposal, it recognised from an early point that as the Union continued to enlarge and develop, some change was both necessary and desirable. In the Government's opinion the new provisions as finally drafted do not cut across the role of the Commission nor undermine the position of smaller member states and they are acceptable on that basis. No participant in the Intergovernmental Conference opposes them.
The Deputy will be aware that the Presidency tabled for discussion this week a paper on the future composition of the Commission. It builds on its report to the March European Council and the Taoiseach's subsequent speech to the European Parliament. The Presidency's strong view is that any proposals on the Commission must meet the twin needs of efficiency and legitimacy. The discussion paper suggests these twin needs might best be met by maintaining one Commissioner per member state until 2014, whereupon a move would be made to a smaller Commission of a pre-determined size, composed on the basis of equal rotation among the member states.
The Government's suggested approach, which received broad support at the meeting of Foreign Ministers this week, would fully protect the rights of all member states, irrespective of size. This approach is fully in line with the provisions of the Treaty of Nice which states that once the Union comprises 27 member states, a decision must be taken to reduce the size of the Commission on the basis of absolute equality.
At the IGC meeting this week, significant progress was made on a wide range of issues of both an institutional and non-institutional nature. The discussions were positive and constructive and, if member states continue to take this focused approach, agreement can be found on a constitutional treaty to which all member states, large and small, can subscribe.
What is the Minister's response to criticism by the Finnish Foreign Minister that Ireland is treating the issue of the voting weights as a bilateral issue between Germany and France on one side and Poland and Spain on the other, rather than involving other member states? What is the Minister's response to the view that small member states are being asked to accept more majority voting and the loss of a seat in the Commission while larger member states seek to insulate themselves from the effects of these changes by lifting the weighted majority threshold as high as 65% and increasing intergovernmentalism generally through the creation of the office of a permanent President of the Council?
It was seen in the Nice treaty that the desire to achieve a result rather than to solve problems can lead to an imperfect solution. Will the Minister agree that no result at the June summit would be better than a fudge? There are difficulties in respect of some countries and also the possibility of the rejection of a referendum. Following what I heard at the COSAC meeting, I have the case of Denmark in mind where the referendum could be rejected if each member state does not have a Commissioner.
On the question of the weighted voting system to be adopted by the Council, the Government is continuing its bilateral discussions with everyone regarding the problem. This is one of the more difficult issues which must be resolved. It is not a question of dealing solely with a few member states. Therefore the Government is dealing with all member states. Next Monday, 24 May, an opportunity will arise within the IGC format at a meeting which I have convened on that day to deal with these wider institutional questions. This will allow for a collective discussion on these matters.
The Presidency is making available on the world-wide web all its documentation pertaining to those issues where a broad consensus has existed and pertaining to proposals for the orientation-type debates that are taking place. The aim is to inform the Presidency and inform everyone of the range of views that exist. This means when the Presidency puts forward a proposal, people will have a clear understanding of why the Presidency is proceeding in a certain way in an effort to achieve full consensus. In reply to the first part of the Deputy's question, those issues will be discussed in plenary session of the IGC next Monday.
The last thing Ireland or any small country wishes is the notion of gridlock in decision-making. We need decisions at European level. The integration of the Irish economy into the wider European economy has been the greatest economic development in this country since independence. It has brought us the standard of living we all now enjoy in the main but not exclusively. The extension of qualified majority voting, QMV, is a facet of every treaty that has been signed since Amsterdam and Maastricht. Increasing numbers of QMV decisions have been taken in a wider range of areas. It amounted to 30 in the case of the Nice treaty. We were prepared to move on 47 out of 49 in Nice. The collective decision ultimately was just 30. In the proposed draft constitutional treaty it has been suggested by a colleague of mine that up to 42 new areas will move to QMV. That is to be welcomed because it will create more effective decision-making.
Moving to QMV from unanimity does not in itself guarantee more effective decision-making. Another part of achieving that is the type of voting system that will be agreed at the Council. This has yet to be fully discussed and decided upon.
There is no question of a fudge, as the Deputy suggests. It is a question of achieving a balance. It is not the role of the Presidency to be an advocate for one particular country which on one side of the argument might be very much in favour of further integration and further QMV and in another situation might not be as advanced as other countries. People have different positions on a wide range of issues. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The ambition of the Presidency is not dimmed. The Government's approach is realistic but will also ensure that advances are made on the present treaty provisions as agreed at Nice and before.
