National Forum on Europe
DEPUTY GORMLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank the Minister for his statement here this morning. I would also like to pay tribute to my fellow representatives on the Convention and, of course, to the civil servants who provided such marvellous back up and I could see the Trojan work they do and it was certainly exemplified at the Convention. I think it has been a most interesting experience and from a personal point of view I was delighted to meet people who were working towards more democracy within Europe. There is a group there called Direct Democracy and I drafted up a proposal for a referendum, a Europe wide referendum which unfortunately did not get through, but I am very glad to say our proposal for a citizens initiative did get through and there is a million signatures can now be put to the Commission consisting of eight countries and that proposal will be accepted. And I hope the Minister agress with me that that is a step in the right direction. I also believe that the Convention method has worked, although I believe that the definition of consensus at times needs to be clarified, because certainly I worked hard on the Defence Working Group and there were certain points, and the Minister has referred to them, where there was no consensus. But, you know, that is perhaps for another day.
The text is certainly more readable, the layout is more comprehensible and that is to be welcomed. The Charter for Fundamental Rights is something I would welcome. There are areas of procedure which have now been clarified, including the whole question of the dual majority. I think, from a citizen’s point of view, that is something that I welcome, although it does perhaps give a slight advantage to the larger States, which is why I think the Spanish are not too keen on it, but, you know, having said that, it is a trade off between clarity and, you know, giving that slight advantage to the bigger States. The Minister said yes, that the people don’t know about it. I accept that, unfortunately that is the case and we have a job of work to do to make it, to bring Europe closer to the people as Laeken actually demanded. I want to get on the institutional changes. The Minister is quite right, and I supported the Irish Government in this, I supported them, in fact, on all of their objectives at the Convention. The President of the Council, I believe, is not in the interests of smaller States. I don’t believe it is in the interests of the Union. Although having observed the performance of Mr. Berlusconi recently, it is possibly the best argument for getting rid of the rotating presidencies, and I do hope, Minister, that you are going to take a strong line on that because I think his comments are very regrettable and they should be withdrawn and I think and I hope that this Forum will agree with me, that we do need to take a strong line with that sort of comment, it is just not acceptable within the context of the European Union.
In relation to the Commission, the Minister says that this is an advance on Nice. I don’t see that, Minister, and particularly when you read the Government’s own White Paper on this, on the Treaty of Nice, what it states there is that when you went into negotiations you were trying to avoid two things: the reduction in the number of Commissioners and the introduction of a two-tiered Commission. That is what we have now. The way it was presented after the publication of the draft was that each country now had a Commissioner. That is not the case. We have a A list and B list Commissioners and we have those with a vote and those who don’t vote. Frankly, those who don’t have a vote are the equivalent of a junior minister, with respect to junior ministers in this country. So I don’t think it is an advance on Nice. We were told at the time that Nice wasn’t a great deal in terms of the Commission but that it would be sorted out in the Convention. It hasn’t been sorted out, I don’t think, in the Convention. You mentioned the articles in relation to defence. I am not happy. I share your unhappiness with these, as you know. I think Articles 40.3, 40.6, 40.7 are not acceptable.
If Article 40.3 goes through, it states very clearly: “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities”. There can be no doubt about this. I know Minister Roche has tried to present this in a different way and say well it doesn’t mean that we have to spend more money on armaments. It certainly does mean that, it does mean that. As far as I am concerned and as far as the Green Party is concerned, we would much prefer to be spending money on health, education, the environment and not on sustaining the armaments industry within the European Union. Articles 40.6 and 40.7 on structured cooperation, it means that we can enter or any country can enter into this closer cooperation which involves a mutual defence. In our case that would mean, of course, that it wouldn’t involve a decision of the European Council, so therefore we wouldn’t be required to have a referendum on it and that is something that is unacceptable to the Green Party. Minister, you mentioned the whole question of sustainability and how we need to come together to fight the environmental crisis that we are facing, including global warming, and I agree with that.
But I don’t believe, and nor do the main environmental groups throughout Europe that article 3.3 is strong enough in terms of sustainability and Margaret Volstrum has recommended that a protocol on sustainability be attached to the treaty and I agree with that. I also believe that if we are going deal with the whole question of globalisation that the power of assent ought to be given to the European Parliament when it comes to trade negotiations with the WTO. We have put down an amendment, the Green Group, and it will be debated, I hope, in the next two sessions of the Convention and I hope that the Irish government would support that. One issue that you didn’t mention was the Uratum Treaty and this is a cause of great concern to us because it is proposed to attach the Uratum Treaty as a protocol on to this Treaty, so that, in effect, when we are voting for this Treaty we are voting for the Uratum Treaty which sustains the nuclear industry in Europe. Regrettably, the only people that signed the Green Party amendment on this were the Austrian Government and Luxembourg Government. The German Government didn’t sign it because they didn’t want to annoy the French and I suspect that the Irish Government didn’t sign it because they didn’t want to annoy the British. So, I think it puts our –
MINISTER COWEN: Life isn’t that complex.
DEPUTY GORMLEY: Well I would like to hear how complex it was, you know, because certainly we put down many amendments. I was told afterwards there is no point in putting down an amendment if it is not going to be accepted. I have to say that the Irish government puts down many amendments which are not accepted, as you know, Minister, and it puts our so-called opposition to Sellafield in context. We need to go all out to shut down the nuclear industry within Europe and one way of doing it, Minister, is to get rid of the Uratum Treaty. Now if it is so complex, I hope that you go into the IGC and you make your feelings on this; that it is not acceptable to attach the Uratum Treaty on to this Constitution. I would like to hear what you have to say on it. You can tease out the complexities here, if you wish.
MINISTER COWEN: It wasn’t that that complex, John. But the Brit bashing reference, I said life isn’t that complex.
DEPUTY GORMLEY: I am not Brit bashing, I am just stating what happened at the Convention. Finally I want to say that it is very difficult to know at this stage when we are going to reopen negotiations again. We have a succession now of Treaties and I think a lot of people will be perplexed at this stage as to, you know, how it is that we can go on having treaty after treaty after treaty. We were told initially that this would be the final treaty for about 30 years or so. I don’t believe that. I think we will be back again within a decace and the problem as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a sort of, the Spinelli approach of constitutional gradualism, a little bit by bit by bit. I think at some stage in the future those who have proposed the single President for Europe are going to get their way. It won’t be the President of the Commission but it will be the President of the Council, but that is speculation. I hope that we can have further debates on this and I wish the Minister well in his IGC negotiations.
MR. GORMLEY: I want the Minister to comment on the Euratom Treaty and the sunset clause. Also, Minister, you know, I was not being conspiratorial. Article 40.7 is there in black and white. But I take you at your word, if you are going to cover that by way of amendment to the Constitution I look forward to seeing it.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Minister, despite how interesting many of the paths you were invited to go down, in the interests of time and relevance, if we could take to the report of the Convention, please.
MINISTER COWEN: Certainly. Thanks for that, Chairman. In relation to, as I have said in relation, to answer the last one first. We will ensure that the content of our policy in relation to no adoption of a common defence by Ireland without referendum by the people will be. That is the standard and that is what will be reflected in any future resolution before the people. Secondly in relation to the Uratum Treaty. As you know there was no apparent, like the other consensus, on substantial change which requires unanimity. It was clear that most Member States didn’t support major revision. As you know, it it is a treaty we adopted in the past. We don’t support the nuclear industry. It is a fact that it is part of other people’s energy networks. We want to see it properly regulated, as has been said. Anything we can do to assist in that — and this government has been more proactive in that area than any predecessor, I would suggest, in terms of legal cases we have taken — we will look at. But I mean we have to be mindful that at the end of the day we are here going to an IGC requiring a consensus on these questions. I certainly don’t think, in the absence of any change in that area, some suggestion that Ireland should oppose the adoption of a draft Constitution on that basis again falls into this rather, I find, extraordinary assessment that on the balance of convenience basically looking at the pros and cons of all this, Ireland should in some way be hesitant about going with this treaty, subject, of course, to a successful outcome to conclusions and not seeing something that is totally a different animal to what we are looking at now.