Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I do not expect the Netherlands or France to accept the EU constitution exactly as it is. If they wish to, these states could have protocols written and attached as addenda to the constitution to cover the points they coherently argue created difficulties for them. They would get agreement for this. The European Parliament and Council would be open to supporting that position. Some said it should not be called a constitution but a revision of treaties. However, it was called a constitution because that was the wish of the former French President who chaired the convention. Therefore, it was a French position.

Having been involved in the process and the convention, one could simplify the document. If one was doing it again, one could take sections out that would not radically alter the document. There are several things one could do to simplify it. If there was a will in the Netherlands and France to do this, it would be possible. Support is available to deal with it.

When he was here, President Borrell told me — he said it previously also — that the countries which had not yet ratified the constitution, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and perhaps Portugal, should go ahead and have a referendum anyway, even though we know it will be changed in either a minor or substantive way. I do not think that will happen in any country, as there has to be certainty before all of the countries will be happy to go ahead and have a referendum.

It looks as if Angela Merkel will make a considerable effort. The top two items for her presidency are energy and the EU constitution. She will put life into it and work around the March declaration of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome to try to bring forward a policy position and get others to buy into it. The topic has been aired a great deal in the French presidential campaign and the French are leading the cherrypicking campaign. The trouble with cherrypicking is that everyone picks different cherries. It will not be possible to achieve agreement if they proceed on that basis.

Everything moves on over a period of a few years. I reminded the Parliament and Commission last week that once we had 27 member states, in a month's time, under the Nice treaty, about which they have all conveniently forgotten but will not be able to forget for much longer, there would no longer be one commissioner per member state. We are straight back into that argument and I suspect they will all wake up to it around February. They almost reckon it does not matter but they will realise it is a written treaty and the law. Once Bulgaria and Romania join, there will be a difficulty. That will bring some sense to the debate. It will also bring some interesting issues to it.

I agree with the view articulated by Deputy Rabbitte's colleague, Mr. De Rossa, MEP, that one could simplify the constitution and add some protocols to it that could be worked out, a little like what we did. That would be easy to do if one really wanted to do it. If one takes the French line, it will become a major problem. An election has been held in the Netherlands but I am told it will be several months before a government sees the light of day. That will not be great for the process either.

The position on the energy issue is far better than it is on the human rights issue with regard to the Putin meeting. The water was much clearer in that regard. He recognises that he has 500 million or 600 million consumers and that he is getting a good price for energy supplies. Energy companies — mainly Gazprom — have to renew many of their pipes. As significant capital investment is required, they would gladly do deals with European businessmen to update their infrastructure. To ensure security of supply, we must ease the situation and avoid conflicts such as the ones started this year but this may be unlikely. Whether it is right or wrong, our Polish colleagues have taken a tough line with the Russians. I will not make any comment, other than to say they have taken a tough line and delayed European discussions on the ACP agreement which is based on farm produce. If they were to take a similar line on energy matters, it would not be helpful but apart from this, it would work itself out quickly.

There are two camps on the enlargement issue. Turkey is now an applicant country, as is Croatia. There are commitments to other countries in the Balkans that cannot be withdrawn. Discussions will have to take place at some level. There are no great difficulties with Croatia's application but it will take a number of years to process. Major difficulties surround Turkey's application which will take a long time to process, it will extend certainly into the next round of the financial perspective, almost a decade away in 2014. The Balkan countries will not be ready but a cause must be given to them to continue the process. That brings me back to the point that one cannot have enlargement until the institutional arrangements are worked out in the constitution. They will have to decide how the issue is to be dealt with, if not in 2007, which I doubt, then certainly in 2008.

As I stated in reply to Deputy Kenny, the Commission's view — probably the Presidency's view and the majority view on the Council — on the Turkish position is that we should at least keep the discussions going on certain chapters, even if it is not at the same pace as perhaps envisaged a year ago, and see how they proceed. It will be a long process.

See this speech in context