Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

There is an analysis in the Netherlands and France of what they perceive to be the main issues. They would rather present the results of that analysis. Obviously Turkey is one of the issues but there is a range of issues. The view of French people whom I trust in the debate is that a coalition of the far-right and far-left came together and in no category did it win. People right across the board voted against the constitution. Having spoken to both sides the number one issue put forward by them was unemployment. Unfortunately that was not in the constitution, as happens in referenda. Reasons numbers two, three, four and five in the analysis were not part of the constitution. In fact none of the six or seven issues identified in the analysis were dealt with in the constitution.

The Deputy makes a fair point on enlargement. Last night I met the President of Serbia and Montenegro and he is deeply concerned where the commitments lie for them. I was able to reassure him that, despite the difficulties in this European Council, the conclusions of the Thessaloníki European Council meeting of June 2003 were restated, namely, that these discussions would take place and that the stabilisation agreements would continue. Hopefully these issues will be finished in the autumn. There is good progress being made in those areas and they are not being abandoned. In spite of the difficulties of last week, work on all of these areas will continue.

The position on Turkey is now outlined, following events last December. Everyone knows this is going to be a protracted period but I do not see the discussions being deferred or delayed from the present programme. That will continue but it will take considerable time. I said it will be six or seven years before we see the end of those discussions. As the Deputy knows there is much pressure from the Ukraine concerning its position. All of these issues are there and they are of concern to people in many ways.

The position on the constitution is that it is not all right for people to say there will be no referendum. Sometime in the Austrian Presidency a call will be made on where to move next. At that point 19 or 20 countries might have ratified the constitution. A number of countries are very strong and do not want to stop at all. They will use the period for reflection but they want to move on. Ultimately people want to know what the Netherlands and France will do but that is not going to happen at this stage, if it happens at all. We will have to wait to see what happens. When British Government Ministers come under pressure, they say they will not agree to the rebate until they get a fundamental review of EU funding. That is nothing new — it has been their standard answer — and the more pressure that is put on them, the more they maintain that position. Prime Minister Blair repeated that to me last week also. They maintain that the British rebate applies to all expenditure, other than non-agricultural spending in member states. They say that the annual British rebate will average approximately €5.5 billion. While this would have increased the UK's net contribution, the UK would by no means be the largest net contributor in per capita terms. The British make that point all the time.

The difficulty is that there is an agreement, signed in 2002, and, despite what the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw continually says, there was no way out of that. He gave two different quotes about two references, with which nobody else agrees. He has his argument to fight for but none of the others agreed with it. In addition, Mr. Straw does not accept that the 2002 deal effectively meant that by 2013 the EU's CAP for 25 member states would be less than the EU budget for 15 member states. In itself, therefore, it is a major reform.

Deputy Quinn knows that, as I have said on the record of the House many times, I never expressed the view that the CAP, at 70%, could remain as it was and that we could all go on ignoring it. I had many a row with the IFA and ICMSA on this issue but the reforms were made, thus moving to an entirely different system. Because so much more was saved within the CAP budget of €295 billion, which I realise is a big figure even in today's terms, the Commission would have been able fully to accommodate Romania and Bulgaria. Changed production methods meant that less financial resources would be required and, therefore, there was plenty of capacity for a reduction.

I have no difficulty with the British position, which was that they felt money should be spent on other areas. I agree with the British on research and development, training and other areas, but they should not have been so tough about keeping the budget at 1%. Before the British saw the Commission's proposals, they were out fighting the campaign for the 1% club. The British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, said he would not go beyond 1%, but it is somewhat disingenuous to say, a year later, that they will not agree to an extension to 1.06%. The British wanted the whole issue restructured before they would agree to anything.

On where it goes from now, last weekend's European Council is over and it is not much good for anyone to go on about it. I certainly will not do so after today's report on it. A number of important projects must be taken up, including the financial perspective. While it does not have to be agreed right now, it is important that it is agreed over the next six to nine months. The financial perspective requires, particularly for the new member states, a position of setting in the subheads.

When the European Union was enlarged from 15 members to 25, nobody believed that when we came to deal with the next financial perspectives, the ten applicant countries would not be fighting for €1 in resources, but asking other member states to stop arguing and move forward. That was the saddest aspect of the summit. Nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought that would happen, including myself. In fairness to the new member states, they need decisions to be taken as quickly as possible on the EU financial perspectives so that they can make their own budgetary preparations, including new programmes, subheads and arrangements. The deadline for that is probably in about nine months' time, but it is putting pressure on the new member states. Whatever our differences, the last thing we should do is make life difficult for the new member states as they have already introduced significant reform and have enough further reform to implement. They need funding so they can move on. Otherwise it would be very unfair. Whatever else we do, we should assist them and show solidarity.

See this speech in context