Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The European Council took place in Brussels on 15 and 16 June. In advance of the meeting, I informed Chancellor Schüssel of Austria, the President in office of the European Council, that I would be unable to attend as the State funeral of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, coincided with the European Council.

Before the European Council, I spoke with the Chancellor, and also with Commission President Barroso, and conveyed Ireland's views on some of the key issues on the European Council's agenda.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State for European affairs, Deputy Noel Treacy, represented Ireland at the European Council. The conclusions have been laid before the House.

The June European Council took place just over a year after the French and Dutch referendums on the European constitution. At the June 2005 European Council, the Heads of State or Government agreed to have a period of reflection and debate in all of the member states. The Council also agreed to come back to the matter in 2006 to have an overall assessment of the national debates and decide how best to proceed.

During the period of reflection, we have done much in Ireland to encourage debate and engagement with the European Union. The Government, the National Forum on Europe, Europe Day in the Dáil, activities undertaken by the European Movement and others have all encouraged people to focus on the challenges facing the European Union. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has issued a short report on the period of reflection in Ireland which is available on his Department's website.

The European Council agreed to extend the period of reflection. More time and further work are needed before firm decisions on the future of the constitutional treaty can be taken. This reflects the reality that there are different views on what to do. Ireland remains firmly committed to the constitution. We want it to enter into force as soon as circumstances permit.

The Council's conclusions noted that 15 member states have now ratified the constitution and expressed the hope that the ratification process will be completed in line with the conclusions of the June 2005 European Council. This belies the notion that the constitution has been abandoned. It remains at the centre of the ongoing debate about the future of Europe.

The European Council approved a two-track approach during the period ahead: the delivery of concrete results for the public and, at the same time, extensive consultations on the constitution, which will result in a report to next June's European Council on the way forward. We will support both the Finnish and German Presidencies in this work.

The conclusions mention 2008 as a date by which necessary steps will have been taken to allow the process advance. This represents a shared commitment to take the necessary decisions by that time. This reinforces the widely held view that while the way forward is very far from clear, it will begin to become clearer next year. In the meantime, the EU will work hard on its challenging agenda. The message we have taken over the past year is that the public is interested in the Union delivering results. I have been emphasising this point in my interventions at the Council and it is generally accepted.

The European Union will push ahead to fight crime and terrorism, deal with the challenges of energy and climate change, promote economic growth and job creation under the revitalised Lisbon Agenda and pursue initiatives on roaming charges and other issues that strike a chord with the citizen. It is important to keep in mind that Europe continues to work and nowhere is this more the case than the continuing success of the euro. The European Council agreed that Slovenia would adopt the single currency in January 2007. The entry of one of the new member states to the eurozone marks a watershed in the process of European integration.

The Council also commended Lithuania for its progress towards meeting the criteria for the single currency. While Lithuania was disappointed that its entry to the eurozone was not proposed by the European Commission on this occasion, I am confident that Lithuania and the other new member states will be admitted in the near future.

The European Council also supported useful work underway to ensure that EU citizens can avail of the consular services of all the member states around the world. Every year EU citizens take over 180 million trips outside of the EU. It makes sense that the member states should co-operate more closely in providing a first class consular service to our citizens. This will also be of benefit to our people who are travelling ever more extensively around the world.

In Ireland, the National Forum on Europe and the Oireachtas will continue to play the central roles in stimulating debate and raising awareness of key European issues which affect our country and its people. In addition to this delivery agenda, the European Council took some steps to bring EU decision-making closer to the citizen. It adopted an overall policy on transparency which provides that all Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure shall now be public. Ireland has strongly supported efforts to make the Council of Ministers more open, especially when it is legislating. This represents important progress.

The European Council also welcomed the recent commitment by the Commission to make all new proposals and consultation papers directly available to national parliaments, inviting them to react so as to improve the process of policy formulation. The European Council asked the Commission to consider comments by national parliaments, in particular with regard to the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.

The European Council also discussed the future enlargement of the Union. On the one hand, there is widespread recognition that the accession of the ten new member states has been a great success. It has given tangible proof that Europe can be reunited after more than half a century of imposed division. The prospect of EU membership is a huge incentive for encouraging reform and stability in neighbouring countries of great significance to the EU. On the other hand, we know the EU must manage the process carefully. We cannot become over-extended or over-burdened. The European Commission will issue a report on future enlargement, including the EU's absorption capacity, in the autumn. This specific analysis will include the issue of the present and future perception of enlargement by citizens and will take into account the need to explain the enlargement process adequately to the public within the Union.

The December 2006 European Council will debate all aspects of future enlargement. The European Council reaffirmed our common objective of welcoming Bulgaria and Romania as full members of the EU in January 2007. It called on both countries to tackle without delay the remaining issues of concern mentioned in the Commission's May 2006 report. The European Council welcomed the start of substantive accession negotiations with Turkey. It recalled that the negotiating framework for accession negotiations with Turkey includes the fulfilment of Turkey's obligations under the association agreement and under its additional protocol. There will be a full evaluation in December of the implementation of these commitments. The European Council also welcomed the start of substantive accession negotiations with Croatia. It encouraged Croatia to continue its reform efforts and to achieve sustainable progress towards the fulfilment of EU standards.

On the external relations side, the European Council adopted declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Ieste. On the Middle East peace process, it endorsed the proposed temporary international mechanism, which has been drawn up by the European Commission, to channel assistance directly to the Palestinian people. The mechanism will focus on essential supplies and running costs for social services and health, the supply of utilities, including fuel, and social allowances. The European Community stands ready to contribute a substantial amount to the international mechanism. The European Council urged Iran to give an early positive response to the far-reaching initiative proposed by the EU High Representative, the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, the UK, China, the Russian Federation and the United States.

Overall, the recent European Council was an opportunity to take stock of where Europe now stands both in terms of work designed to meet the expectations of our people and also on the future of the European constitution. The general focus now is on showing the people of Europe that, by working effectively together, we can deliver real benefits on their behalf. There is a broad acceptance, however, that in order to ensure the European Union can face up to intensifying external competition, and also deal with its internal economic and social challenges, we will have to return to the European constitution. We all want to ensure that this future discussion is properly prepared and takes place in the right context. The recent European Council, therefore, took important decisions to achieve this objective. In showing that Europe continues to progress and develop, it gave a clear signal that Europe is determined to overcome the current difficulties as regards the ratification of the European Constitution.

I extend my congratulations to Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel and his team for conducting an excellent Presidency at a difficult time for the European Union. We have enjoyed excellent co-operation with the Austrian Presidency which was conducted in an effective and efficient way.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Taoiseach that Chancellor Schüssel did an excellent job in the performance of his duties as President.

At last week's EU Summit, once again it was perfectly clear that as a community we have rather a long way to go towards meeting the ambitious objectives set out in the Lisbon Agenda — to make the most comprehensive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010. That is practically unachievable from my perspective of what is happening. Certainly, there has been some progress. As we saw again last week, however, even with the relaunch of the Lisbon Agenda by the Commission last year, focusing on growth and jobs, it is perfectly obvious that the reform necessary to see our Union reach these targets is simply not fast enough. Consequently the innovation gap between Europe and the US continues to grow and the fact that China, for instance, builds more airports, roads and bridges in five years than the EU and the US combined build in 20, should spur us on to try to reach the Lisbon objectives and secure the future of the Union in the longer term.

The March EU Summit took place under something of a cloud. Last week's Summit coincided with the popular preoccupation with the World Cup. The business of the Summit certainly was not earth shattering. The year 2008 was set as the target for making changes to the rule book, allowing further expansion. Decisions were made to televise ministerial meetings, to honour commitments made to those countries that want to join the EU. A plan was backed for donors to release emergency aid to the Palestinians, bypassing the Hamas-led government. Energy, security and diversification moved up the EU agenda.

There were a few happy faces, the Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson being one of them. He abandoned the usually cool Scandinavian tradition to let out a few guttural screams when Sweden beat Paraguay one nil. The Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa also looked happy, not because of football, but because of his economy. Booming Slovenia has been quick to meet the Maastricht criteria and will be the first of the ten new members to join the eurozone. Chancellor Merkel, my fellow EPP member, looked happy at the prospect of taking over the EU Presidency in 2007. An ardent supporter of the EU constitution, she intends to do everything she can to accelerate movement on this somewhat fatigued issue.

The period of reflection on the EU constitution is to be extended. We certainly need more time, but the constitution could be stranded unless we move with some alacrity to sell it to our citizens as a powerful, democratic, transparent entity capable of effecting real results and making real change. Here at home, we must re-ignite the public debate with a view to reactivating the ratification process. It is time to evangelise, answer, explain, persuade and communicate by every means possible the why of Europe to the peoples it serves.

The people of Europe feel they do not own their Union and it is no wonder. They see it as a bureaucracy-laden, inefficient policy club. Our challenge and duty is to present the EU to the public as a genuinely reforming, effective working group. We must make the workings of the EU more democratic and transparent. We must start talking to people about the bread and butter European issues so that they can at last start to feel like the Union is their own and that they are the ones in charge.

That said, it was domestic politics, not EU politics, that saw the constitution fail in France and the Netherlands. President Chirac, in particular, was stymied on Europe owing to mass protests at unpopular employment legislation designed to tackle rigidities in the market. There is also what has been called "economic nationalism" overshadowing the Union's stated ambition under the Lisbon Agenda to be more competitive in the globalised world. At the March summit, President Chirac and Chancellor Merkel disagreed publicly about our economic future, with the latter criticising French attempts to limit foreign investment.

The tradition of individual rights is one of the great realisations of European civilisation, but there is a danger for Europe and the EU when we start to ring-fence the rights and demands of the individual state without thinking about how they connect with the needs and good of the community. We have seen this economic introspection in recent months and it should not be allowed to continue. We cannot be open for business with the rest of the world and be closed to each other.

I am glad that energy security and diversity moved up the EU agenda. Energy has become increasingly scarce and increasingly geopolitical. The conclusions of the summit called for an energy policy for Europe that reviews oil and gas stocks and develops internal electricity and gas markets. At the time, I suggested that Ireland join a single EU energy market. The new year spat between Russia and Ukraine, had it continued, would undoubtedly have affected Ireland with rising costs and competitiveness issues.

A common approach to energy is both desirable and necessary. Europe's energy imports are 50% of the total and rising. Energy is also becoming more expensive. Despite moves to efficiency, the price is increasing by 1% or 2% per annum. At a time when 80% of our energy use is based on oil, coal or gas, hydrocarbon reserves are decreasing. At the current rate of growth, greenhouse gases could be 5% higher in 2012 than they are today. That is alarming when we consider that our Kyoto target is an 8% reduction in these gases.

Our energy infrastructure needs serious improvement. Up to €1 trillion is needed over the next 20 years to meet expected energy demand. The spectre of global warming is fast reaching the level where it will be not just a question of how we live our lives but the extent to which life can be lived. This is especially the case in those areas of the world most exposed to its effects. Ironically, it is those very same countries that have contributed least to the problem of climate change.

While I welcome the common approach to energy, we must be clear that different countries will have different needs. Our island status gives us energy needs and demands vastly different from other members states. Our individual requirements, such as access and so forth, must be taken into account. There is an economic and moral imperative for Ireland to develop a serious workable policy, not a token one, towards renewable energy.

The green agenda has gone mainstream and Fine Gael is convinced of the national need and duty to develop modern, exciting alternatives in renewable energy sources. It is appalling that, while we are the second richest country in the world, we belch out greenhouse gases that will have risen by 130% in 2012. That is six times the EU average. This phenomenal increase could have been minimised if the Government had looked to the future and pursued policies that promote the use of biofuels. With the collapse of the Irish sugar market, the Government has not pursued with the necessary vision and resolve an energy agenda based on biofuel use. That agenda should be pursued in a strong way, ensuring that we make the most of our biofuel opportunities at home and live up to our international responsibilities in the European Union and beyond. Businesses are aware that, over the next ten years, 90% of gas imported will come from one gas field in the Russian Arctic, which will also supply China and the US. There is an urgency in developing a second interconnector and getting involved with a European grid to ensure security of energy supply.

The European People's Party, of which Fine Gael is a member, met alongside the summit to discuss some emerging issues of human rights and development. Taking note of the decision adopted by the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers on 12 June, the EPP strongly condemned the constant violation of human rights in Cuba, deploring the fact that the number of political prisoners in that country is increasing since the change in EU policy towards Cuba in 2005. The EPP urged Cuba to release unconditionally all political prisoners and asked the communist regime to respect human rights and human dignity. It urged the Cuban authorities to give Internet access to dissidents prevented from having contact with the outside world. In particular, the EPP urged the Cuban Government to grant an official permit to Oswaldo Paya to allow him to visit the EU institutions, as has been repeatedly requested. The EPP believes that the Damas de Blanco, the Ladies in White, should be allowed to come to Europe to receive the Sakharov Prize which they were awarded in 2005.

I was especially supportive of conclusions reaffirming the need for the Union to improve its responsiveness to emergencies, crises, and disasters, both within and without. A report by the former French Foreign Minister and member of the European Commission, Michel Barnier, made especially engaging reading. Entitled For a European Civil Protection Force: Europe Aid, Monsieur Barnier's report contains 12 workable proposals to improve Europe's crisis response capability. He stresses that these are personal proposals with a four-year implementation timeframe. However, in terms of the possible natural disasters, complex humanitarian crises, pandemics or conflicts Monsieur Barnier's report covers, there is obvious merit and potential in what he has produced.

The accession of Turkey continues to be problematic. The Turkish negotiations are built on sand in the absence of a resolution on Cypriot question, as Deputy Allen and Deputy Durkan have said in the House repeatedly. Turkey, an aspirant member, persists in failing to recognise Cyprus which is a full member state of the EU. The hardening of approaches was seen clearly in Prime Minister Erdogan's assertion that he would rather accept a standstill in negotiations than make concessions to Cyprus. He stated that, so long as the Turkish Cypriots remain isolated, they will not open their ports and airports. He also stated that, if the EU negotiations halt, so be it. President Chirac took an equally tough tone in response. With Austrian Chancellor Schüssel suggesting that "another option apart from full membership should be considered for Turkey", obviously Prime Minister Erdogan's uncompromising views must be seen in the context of the elections facing him in 18 months' time and the rising Islamist element within his country.

With just a year to go to a general election in this country, I urge the Taoiseach to make every effort possible to address the deeper European issues of communication, persuasion, belonging and public engagement. Unless we tackle the deficiencies in the functioning of the Union, we risk institutional paralysis, but unless we tackle the public perception of Europe as remote and distant, we risk further alienation from the people our Union is supposed to serve. Only by tackling those issues will we be able to create a Europe of real opportunity where all our people can realise and share the huge potential of our Continent.

I wish to raise a matter I raised with the Taoiseach previously. All other European leaders have given representation to the various parties in respect of the EU Committee of the Regions. The purpose of the institution is to bring together elected representatives of local and regional authorities from all 25 member states. Following the previous local elections in this country, there was a commitment to maintain political and geographical equilibrium in the selection of members, but unfortunately the Taoiseach appointed — although fortunately for him — five Fianna Fáil full members and a further five Fianna Fáil alternative members to that committee, which amounts to a denial of the democratic results of the 2004 elections. I have written to the Taoiseach on this matter and he might revert to what every other leader is doing and ensure there is equilibrium of representation in respect of the EU Committee of the Regions in so far as the people gave their verdict in the local elections.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy. The Taoiseach's contribution to this debate confirms reports we have heard that this was as lacklustre a summit as has taken place in recent times. The European Union summit was strong on problems but weak on solutions. The period of reflection over the past 12 months has become an extended period and a new two-year period of analysis. The Heads of State decided essentially to tread water and there seemed to be little sign of direction or leadership. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was reported in the newspapers as saying he would have preferred to have been somewhere else entirely. Perhaps that comment sums it up best.

Twelve months ago the Heads of State in the European Union at the previous summit called for a period of reflection during which a broad debate would take place in all member states involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments, political parties and the European Union institutions. Recently, the European Commission published A Citizen's Agenda for Europe, which was a welcome contribution to the debate.

Ireland had begun its own reflection process when the initial rejection of the Nice treaty in 2002 sent shockwaves through the political establishment, and a positive initiative was established in terms of the National Forum on Europe, which is still very effective. That the entire political establishment, the church, the three major political parties, the farming community, the trade union movement and the business community had all supported the referendum demonstrated that the establishment was out of sync with the electorate on the issues of European Union enlargement and European Union institutions. The subsequent defeat of referenda on the constitutional treaty in France and in the Netherlands caused alarm bells to ring throughout the EU and clearly demonstrated that significant deficits in democracy, citizen confidence and information had to be addressed before some citizens of member states would give their stamp of approval to new developments and treaties.

The European Council meeting on 15 and 16 June reflected the experience of those member states who urged caution and the festina lente maxim, especially among the older and larger member states. On the other side of the equation and at the same time, the new ten accession countries were impatient at the failure of all member states to open their borders and their job markets to the newcomers. The refusal to allow Lithuania to join the eurozone because it failed to make the grade under the strict Commission criteria for joining the eurozone caused a mini-rebellion among five of the new member states. Eight of the ten accession countries are eastern European and perceive some of the old European Union states as treating them like second class states.

Therein lies the conundrum. Countries surrounding the European Union, especially the crescent to the east, see the European Union as a form of salvation with hope, democracy and employment opportunities for their burgeoning populations as well as an escape from the ravages and inhumanity experienced of dictatorship. Those states which fashioned the European Union as a vehicle to bind the former warring western European nations into a peaceful society and a prosperous market following the Second World War and the destruction it caused now perceive in many cases the eastern European countries as a potential threat to that settled, collective sense of security in western and central European society that they have forged and particularly to their jobs market. That is the conundrum and what caused the malaise at the summit.

The European Union is unable to move forward definitely either on enlargement or on the constitution because of its failure to prepare the ground and inform its citizens. The danger in such a scenario is that the European project could stagnate and shrivel. A long period of reflection and analysis is envisaged and, while there is nothing wrong with that, it is envisaged it will last for a period of three years from June 2005 until at least June 2008. This may cause difficulty in kick-starting the institutional reform process and the enlargement process in future. The danger is that malaise and stagnation could set in and the difficulty in moving forward in future could become much greater. Reflection and analysis as concepts in their own right are all well and good, but if they are not combined with action, a serious problem will emerge.

The accession of the two new member states, Romania and Bulgaria, will inevitably take place in 2007 or 2008. However, there are serious concerns whether they will be allowed access to the job markets of old member states such as France and Germany which still maintain restrictions on the ten countries which joined in 2004, more than two years ago. The courage of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden in going against the tide on that occasion and opening up their job markets and economies has been rewarded, ironically, by their economies being strengthened much more than the economies of those which imposed restrictions, and those three member states are now being further rewarded by other states following their lead.

However, it is difficult to see how a small country with a population of 4 million such as Ireland, which has amazingly succeeded in absorbing large numbers of Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and other nationalities, can absorb a further influx of Romanians and Bulgarians unless the major countries of the European Union absorb their share by lifting their restrictions. There is an onus on us, because we are proactive in these matters, to raise this issue with other Heads of States.

I would have liked this issue to have been raised at the summit. However, in any of the reports of the summit I read, the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not appear to raise the issue of disparity in this regard whereby there is a free market in services and goods but not a free market in labour among certain member states and that the brunt of the burden has come to bear in many cases on small countries such as Ireland. There are benefits in this respect but there are downsides and, if Europe is to operate effectively, efficiently and within the ambit of its principles, everybody should be involved in this respect and should bear the burden.

It is critical that the periods of reflection and analysis are properly structured and used by the member states and European Union Commission. Likewise, it is essential the process of enlargement proceeds in the six fledgling states that have been created from the break up of the old Yugoslavia. Of these, only Slovenia is part of the EU and it is making marvellous progress. It will join the eurozone in 2007 and host the EU Presidency in 2008. The remaining former Yugoslav and western Balkan countries — Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania — complete the cohort of former cold war countries. The process of enlargement to admit these countries should not be delayed during the period of reflection and analysis. This matter was barely touched on at the summit although it could have been addressed by it.

It is also critical that we use the next couple of years of reflection and analysis to go far beyond these concepts. The benefits of the European Union must be strongly presented and plainly visible to all citizens. The negative aspects have been allowed to grow and fester unchallenged and unchecked in many cases. For example, the democratic deficit, the loss of sovereignty, the race to the bottom in terms of wages and employment, heavy-handed bureaucracy and the lack of information have all eroded public confidence in the Union and its institutions. These negatives must be addressed in individual member states and within the Union by a leavening process within the EU institutions and structures. Citizens must instinctively feel the European Union is on their side, which is not the case. The existing and potential benefits of EU membership must be explained and unlocked.

The full implementation of the Lisbon Agenda must be a priority so the social, environmental and economic strategies are brought to fruition. Fresh job opportunities, sustainable development, energy and communications policies can, on an EU-wide basis, bring enormous and tangible benefits to people's quality of life and their cost of living.

Much lip service has been paid to the war on crime and to tackling trafficking in drugs and human beings. However, little progress has been made by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, which meets regularly and discusses these issues ad nauseam, by the raft of legislation and regulations introduced in the area, or by the activities of Europol and Interpol. These have just not worked. A crackdown on such damaging cross-border crimes would be enormously beneficial to the citizens of member states. Effective crime fighting and policing measures are a priority in the expanded European Union. However, there is no tangible sign the authorities are coming to grips with these issues. On the Order of Business today a question was raised regarding legislation on trafficking of human beings, which we have not yet put in place to bring Ireland into line with its European counterparts. That should be a priority for the Minister, but the Taoiseach did not appear to have any date for the heads of the Bill.

At the European Union Council of 15 and 16 June it was clear there was no sense of leadership or direction among the Heads of State. As they could not decide what to do next, they decided to do nothing other than officially extend the period of reflection into a period of analysis. The one-year period of reflection announced at the previous summit in 2005 was extended to a two-year period of analysis until June 2008. The meeting was something of a damp squib. The draft summit communiqué urging Germany, which holds the Presidency in the first half of 2007, to present a report to the European Council in June 2007 detailing a way forward is not reassuring.

What mechanism is in place to monitor the input of member states or the EU institutions in the reflection and analysis process? What ongoing mechanism will ensure something meaningful happens? Most of the member states do not seem to know where they are going or what they are doing. What structures are in place to ensure all the member states put their shoulders to the wheel, or even know how to go about that? What leadership exists to plot a course of action for member states and lead them in making the European Union relevant to the lives of their citizens? None of these questions appear to have been addressed. All we got was much wishful thinking, a promise to look at the situation in December, have a report detailing the way forward the following June 2007 and the hope to make some progress and complete the analysis by 2008. What are we going to do at that point?

Perhaps there will be some progress made for the meeting in December 2006. Ireland has been a major beneficiary in most areas from its EU experience. We have taken a strong line in many areas and are pretty much a neutral and well respected country with EU borders. We have much to offer and I would like to have seen this offered at the European Council meeting last week. In the run-up to the next summit perhaps we should offer something positive and some ideas as to the way forward. We do not want to find ourselves treading water another time and ending up with another extended period of reflection and analysis that will result in stagnation in the key areas of enlargement, structural reform and making the European Union more relevant to the lives of our citizens and those of the other member states.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Gormley and Ó Snodaigh.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have only been five enlargements in the history of the European Union, the most recent in May 2004 with the accession of ten new member states. The dynamic that has driven the Union since the collapse of the Berlin Wall appears to be weakening. The decision taken on 16 May 2006 to delay final judgment on both Bulgaria's and Romania's readiness to join in 2007 is another sign that enthusiasm is waning for adding new member states to the existing 25.

There is nothing new in this. Everybody wanted in, but many were loath to take in new members. We observed this when Spain and Portugal requested admission and there was concern about what this would do to the Union. However, in fairness the EU Commission cannot be accused of inventing reasons to slow the momentum of Bulgaria's and Romania's accession. It is an open secret that both countries fall considerably short of the standards expected of EU member states in the areas of justice, policing and corruption, which are the central planks of democracy. These issues must be addressed.

The Commission is correct not to shut its eyes to serious problems with regard to the governance of both countries in order to facilitate their early accession. Lower standards in justice, human rights and the rule of law are inclined to be infectious and would not leave existing EU states untouched. We cannot turn a blind eye to this. The European Union has shown a rock solid commitment to the accession of both countries, so much so that the delay in their accession is not likely to exceed the 12 months maximum. Reform in the areas I mentioned will have to continue long after both countries join. It is an open secret that much of the corruption extends to the politicians. Many people believe considerable money is at stake and they would claim to have large political influence with some of the groups in these countries.

A more serious malaise is beginning to affect the entire EU enlargement project, which is enlargement fatigue. This enlargement fatigue is the product of many different problems, some real and others widely perceived but unfounded among the EU. Anxieties about immigration linked to the previous enlargement have soured the debate on the EU constitution, helping to defeat its ratification in the French and Dutch referenda in May and June 2005. Migration has been a positive development for the economies of most host countries. However, this migration has created problems in the countries of origin leading to skills shortages required to maintain the enlargement economic boom in those countries. I saw a television programme about people emigrating to get experience in the hope of subsequently returning. In many cases those people may wish to remain in the countries to which they have migrated. No doubt we will see the eventual accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and that of Croatia by approximately 2010. This will be followed by a transitional period of several years before they can play a full part in the EU labour market.

I welcome the re-launching of the Lisbon strategy, with its emphasis on knowledge and innovation, which we recently addressed. We have committed a considerable amount to research and development, which is where we must invest if our economy is to progress. It also addresses the issue of integrated EU energy supply, an issue the EU as a whole and Ireland must now tackle.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the summit was to try to deal with the impasse that continues in the European Union following the rejection by the Dutch and French of the European constitution. It seems that we will muddle along on the basis of this summit. I have not seen any concrete proposals emerging simply because countries have different points of view. The British believe the constitution is dead and do not want to know about it. They were never enthusiastic about it anyway. The French do not want to say too much because their people have rejected it and domestically it would not look good to suggest holding another referendum, as it would not be acceptable to the French people. The Dutch are in a similar situation which leaves the Germans under Angela Merkel, who want to resuscitate the constitution and who are its main drivers.

In the meantime we have all this talk about the European citizen. Not only is the European citizen being ignored, but those of us who have been elected are also being ignored. Many of the items contained in the European constitution such as the arms agency and the extension of the Petersberg Tasks are being introduced in any case without any debate in this Parliament or elsewhere in the European Union — so much for democracy and the citizen.

The Laeken declaration suggested bringing Europe closer to the people and we now have the new idea of a citizen's agenda for Europe. If we are serious about empowering the people, words are all very fine, but they need to be matched by some sort of action. I agree with the proposal of Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel to hold a pan-European referendum at the end of the process. I made such a proposal to the convention. However, before we can proceed with such a referendum, we need a new convention. I have made this suggestion and many NGOs throughout Europe have made a similar suggestion, which is constructive. I have not heard any better suggestion coming from the European leaders. We need a new European convention to sit for a defined period of perhaps three months, have real terms of reference and be required to come back with a result. The result would probably entail leaving out Part 3 of the constitution, which has caused considerable annoyance and is very difficult for many citizens to come to grips with.

However, this suggestion is not being taken up, particularly by the Government, which wants to proceed. However, how are we to proceed? Are we just to pretend that the Dutch and French have not rejected it? Are we to hand it back to them? Are we to try to get it through by parliamentary means and not have another referendum? That will not do, as it would show contempt for the democratic process. I suggest trying to enhance the democratic process. There are many ways in which such a referendum could work. It could be required to have dual majority and clearly the countries that might reject it in those circumstances would need to reconsider how they want to approach the European project. It is a sensible suggestion and I ask the Minister of State to respond to it today.

Clearly in some incidences, such as dealing with energy and climate change, we need greater integration within Europe. Yesterday, Dr. Eddie O'Connor addressed a European Parliament committee about the need for an integrated approach. However, the problem is that individual member states will claim they want to maintain their independence in the sector. This simply will not work particularly when we are trying to deal with the problem of climate change and global warming. We need more integrated action in this regard.

I have tried to get my hands on the Presidency report on the European security and defence policy, but have been unable to find it. Given that we will hold a debate next week on EU battle groups, I would like the Minister of State to comment on the fact that the UK's biggest helicopter and marine commando carrier, HMS Ocean, will be docked in Dublin Port later this month.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the Deputy's constituency.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It may be in my constituency or may be just across the way. Can the Minister of State confirm that the ship was deployed as part of the British task force that supported the US invasion of Iraq, carrying 300 royal marines and 400 aircrew during Operation Telic? The Minister of State has spoken about the citizen. I wonder how many Irish citizens know about the arrival of this British warship in our waters. While the Minister of State talks about empowering the citizen and giving information, the citizen is not part of the equation.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá an deis againn arís roinnt focal a rá maidir le cruinniú mullaigh na Comhairle Eorpaí. Is trua, áfach, go bhfuil muid ag déileáil leis i ndiaidh na comhairle, ag féachaint ar na torthaí seachas aon ionchur a bheith againn sa Teach seo maidir le clár oibre an chruinnithe sin. The period of reflection has come to an end or has it? The new "two-track" approach seems as cosmetic and useless in terms of identifying and responding to the wishes of ordinary people as the period of reflection was. The European elite did not learn much from that period. They still fail to accept that the EU constitution and its neo-liberal substance have been expressly rejected. There was much talk during the period of the importance of communicating to citizens what the EU was doing. However, there was little or no sign of the radical reforms needed to bring the EU in line with the views of citizens in that period.

Although the future of the constitution is unclear, I will reiterate Sinn Féin's position. We are opposed to any attempt to re-table the Constitution or its neo-liberal contents. We will also continue to highlight and oppose the introduction of elements of the failed constitution by stealth via the Hague programme, as has happened regularly in the House in the past year.

I also regret, although I am not surprised, that little progress has been made on transparency in the work of the Council. This is a testament to the democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union. Key decisions will still be made behind closed doors and without accountability.

I will address the Council conclusions on Israel. The European Council Presidency conclusions state "the European Union remains committed to working with the Quartet towards the goal of a just, viable and lasting solution". It has yet to demonstrate this commitment through action. Thus far, all the EU has demonstrated is a commitment to the continuation of Israeli policies of occupation, extra-judicial killings and collective punishment. It walks this walk while paying lip service to the just demands of the Palestinian people that their right to be free from illegal occupation and the endemic human rights abuse it involves be protected. Actions speak louder than words and the Council's condemnation of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians is not accompanied by the suspension of preferential trade with Israel on human rights grounds. The conclusion has no teeth.

More often than not, when I put important questions to the Minister on the Government's foreign policy he abdicates his responsibility for this State's international relations to Brussels. He argues that while he would support the Palestinians, such decisions are made by the whole Council and his hands are, therefore, tied. This position is not good enough. When the Government has been given the opportunity to demonstrate its support for the realisation of a Palestinian state in the Council, for example, when the decision was taken to withdraw aid to the Palestinian Authority at a previous Council meeting, its cowardice becomes clear to all. Irish people are behind the Palestinians. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Minister to represent their voices at the European foreign policy making table and he should vote accordingly.

On 9 June, Israeli forces launched an attack on a beach killing seven Palestinians, including three children. On 13 June, an Israeli missile strike on Gaza city killed nine Palestinians, including two children. Yesterday, an Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip killed a further three children aged 16, seven and five years, respectively. These attacks are unjustifiable and amount to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. They are war crimes. There is an urgent need for the Government to break with the prevailing positions in the European Union, revise its policy of relations with Israel, specifically by ending its policy of preferential trade with Israel, and begin persuading its European counterparts to do likewise.

Is trua nach ndearna an comhairle seo cinneadh nach bhfuil dhá ghrád ann, le rial amháin don dream amháin agus rial eile don dream eile, go háirithe maidir leis an mhargadh fostaíochta. Cá bhfuil an cinneadh gur cóir don Comhairle a ghlacadh, go mbeadh an margadh fostaíochta oscailte do gach saoránach agus do gach ball stát? Ba chóir go mbeadh an Rialtas ar lorg tacaíochta na dtíortha eile san Aontas Eorpach go mbeidh an margadh sin oscailte agus go mbeidh sé ar an chlár oibre don chéad chruinniú mullaigh eile go mbeidh an margadh fostaíochta oscailte go hiomlán do saoránaigh na mball stáit san Aontas, agus an Bhulgáir agus an Rúmáin nuair a thiocfaidh siad isteach.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That concludes statements on the European Council. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy, will now take questions.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister of State to clarify a number of issues raised by speakers. On the adoption of the European constitution, does he agree it would be beneficial if Ireland, which has been particularly supportive of the European project and the integration, enlargement and advancement of Europe, were to take a lead in determining how the European Union should proceed towards the adoption of the constitution, including whether the text should be revised, having particular regard to the fact that two countries have already rejected the proposed constitution? To re-establish confidence in the European project, would it not be a good idea to assuage the fears of those who rejected the document, regardless of their reasons for doing so?

On the question of enlargement of the European Union to the Balkan states, to what extent does the EU take seriously the need to address the various issues of conflict which have affected the Balkans region for a long time and determine the best possible route to proceed towards alleviating fears, abating prejudices and addressing problems?

On telecommunications and crime, an issue raised by other speakers, does the European Union believe co-operation between various police forces in Europe to tackle the problem of drugs and human trafficking is sufficient? Will the Minister of State comment on the fact that Ireland is the only EU member state in which the trafficking of human beings is not a crime? I am aware that legislation is proposed in this regard. Will the Minister of State indicate how we will proceed on this matter and if legislation will be expedited?

The issue of telecommunications was discussed at the Council in the context of roaming charges with Ministers reaffirming a proposal to abolish them. The Commission in particular has discussed the fundamental question of how to deal with the use of the Internet, text messages and other electronic means of communications for abusive, predatory, harassment and trafficking purposes and the need to address technical matters in parallel with policing issues. To what extent will it be possible to address technical issues, as distinct from policing issues, to deter those who have access to various means of electronic communications, such as the Internet, from intimidating others and carrying out illegal activities?

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland continues to take a lead role on the proposed constitution. We have taken the consistent position at every forum and meeting, including the General Affairs and other Council meetings and COREPER, that we are totally committed to the constitution as it stands, the manner in which it was negotiated, the conclusions arrived at and the procedures in place for its ratification. It is important to recognise that 15 member states have ratified the proposed constitution, with a 16th, Finland, on the verge of ratification. We must reach the magic figure of 20 as this would allow matters to proceed.

I note Deputy Gormley has rejoined proceedings. He was part of the convention process which agreed the mechanism under which ratification of the proposed constitution by four fifths of EU member states would prompt a process whereby the European Council would reflect on how final agreement on ratification would be reached.

Ireland will continue to work assiduously at domestic level and across Europe to ensure we can collectively establish the constitution as the new structure required to sustain the European Union and the European project. We regard it as the only efficient mechanism to achieve a consensual structure within which all member states are equal, opportunities are greatest and efficiency is maximised. I was privileged to attend last week's European Council meeting, at which it became clear that not one Government leader, Minister for Foreign Affairs or European Affairs or high level national representative opposes ratification of the constitution. Everybody took a positive attitude in achieving an ultimate conclusion. There is no sense in the best political brains in the European Union working together to reach an agreement on a constitution if we change track two thirds of the way through the process. Obviously, account must be taken of France and the Netherlands, but I am confident that when we reach the magic figure of four fifths, we will be able to find a way to ratify the document so that it becomes the basis for Europe's future.

The European Council issued a declaration on the western Balkans which reiterated the EU's pledge to continue its engagement with the countries of the region through the stabilisation and association process. Ireland supports the European aspirations of the countries of the region, including eventual EU membership, and is committed to the European neighbourhood policy and the stabilisation and association process. The EU plays a critical role in global affairs by contributing to democracy and economic sustainability, providing opportunities for adjoining countries and supporting human rights. The EU stands as a beacon to the world in terms of the democratic leadership and the monetary and human resources it has given to the countries along its borders to assist them in reaching high democratic and economic standards. We can be proud to have contributed to those efforts.

Taking into account the absorption capacity and leadership of the EU, I am confident that each member state can commit further resources to maintaining economic growth and can create opportunities for the EU to evolve and expand in the future. These are big decisions which must be made in a measured and careful manner but I am confident that the entire Balkans region will benefit from this process.

A specific action plan to deal with human trafficking was approved by the European Council in December 2005. The action plan covers a wide range of areas, including the co-ordination of EU action, prevention of trafficking and the investigation and prosecution of offences linked to trafficking. Implementation of the action plan has been actively pursued within the Justice and Home Affairs Council and a set of conclusions were adopted at its meeting of 27-28 April which will contribute to the development and strengthening of the plan. The Council confirmed that Europol, Eurojust and the police chiefs task force must become actively involved in the fight against human trafficking.

As regards Deputy Durkan's question on communications mechanisms, it is critically important in this era of instant communication that controls are put in place. There is an onus on all of us in this respect because there have been instances in which people have sent false messages by text to media organisations to distort reality or frighten people. Technology is advancing so rapidly and impacting so greatly that it presents us with significant challenges. However, I am confident that the EU will be able to set the parameters on this matter.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The conclusions of the EU Presidency and the report of the summit of 15-16 June suggest a lack of leadership and direction. A sense of confusion seems to exist, as well as an inability to make meaningful decisions. This decision-making failure was revealed by the two year extension to the period of reflection, now called a period of analysis.

No audit mechanism has been developed to require members to deliver on the commitments they gave to make the EU more meaningful to its citizens. The first 12 months of reflection was not audited to determine what each member state had done to make its citizens more aware of the benefits of Europe and whether the institutions had become less bureaucratic and more democratic and responsive. The only decision made was a tentative one to hold the next summit in public so that we could observe the deliberations of Heads of State. That does not represent much progress. Unless audit mechanisms are established and directions given, member states will continue to go around in circles while achieving nothing.

At least we established the Forum for Europe, at which some good proposals were brought with regard to informing Irish citizens through Europe Day, and gave citizens the opportunity to put questions to this House by means of the Internet. What are other member states doing? When the next meeting is held in 12 months' time, it will not be possible to learn what member states have done because nobody is responsible for requesting that information. We have allowed a dangerous state of affairs to develop by extending the period of reflection from one to three years without putting structures in place. How can we address that problem? Can the Government make any suggestions with regard to establishing an implementation policy before the next summit in December?

The Minister of State indicated that 15 member states have signed the constitution and that Ireland continues to lend its full support to the process. If the Government is so gung-ho in its support of the constitution, why was it roundly criticised by other Heads of State for failing to hold a referendum?

My final question pertains to cross-border crime, drug smuggling and human trafficking. The existing regulations and the operations of Europol and Interpol, and the meetings of the Council of Ministers are not working. We need a new initiative. As an island nation we are particularly susceptible to drugs, smuggling, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation from other countries. We should take the initiative on this.

The Palestinian question poses a further conundrum. The Heads of State decided to bypass a democratically elected Government led by Hamas. How can the unconditional support of the United States for Israel be squared with the EU decision that its aid of €100 million should bypass the democratically elected Government? Democracy must be at the heart of any national structure. What input did Ireland have on the decision?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given the Minister's enthusiasm to continue the ratification process, will there be a referendum on this question? The Minister of State can contribute to reaching the magic figure of 20 by doing so.

I raised the question of Britain docking one of its warships in Dublin. It is the biggest helicopter and marine commander carrier, called the HMS Ocean, and it will dock in Dublin later this month. It will promote British beer, of all things. Does the Minister of State agree that this alienates the Irish citizen from the European project?

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no doubt about the future of the leadership of the EU. The European Council decided on a two-track approach of reflection and action. The way forward is not yet clear but matters will become clear by the middle of next year. Last week the European Council gave a mandate for extensive consultation before a report to next June's summit. There is commitment to reach necessary decisions on the process by 2008. The focus will be on concrete issues and challenges. The Council identified key areas, including fighting crime and terrorism, facing challenges of energy and climate change and promoting economic growth and job creation. These are critically important for Ireland and the EU. Ireland remains committed to the ratification of the EU constitution. Following the decision of the European Council in June to initiate a period of reflection it was decided that no date for the referendum would be set until matters became clearer.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like Augustine, not just yet.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In a democracy a period of reflection is advantageous to parliamentarians, who can promote the constitution, and citizens, who can receive more information through the National Forum on Europe. It is important that we embrace this together. There is no point in holding a referendum if conditions are not right for a positive outcome. The past 12 months have not been spent on analysis. The financial perspectives were agreed last December, allocating resources for the next seven years. This provides sustainability, stability and clarity for the future. The EU continues to function effectively and is focused on delivery to its citizens. The controversial services directive has been agreed. It is a credit to Commissioner McCreevy that he could make the necessary changes.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He responded to Deputies.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The European Union is at one on the Middle East. Democracy is critical but the rejection of violence is also critical.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the US or Israel been asked about the use of violence?

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The EU wants the new Government led by Hamas to make a de facto statement that it condemned violence and would not use it for political means. The EU has decided that funding of €224 million is available to support the Palestinian people. Through High Representative Javier Solana, the Presidency, the Troika and senior officials of the Commission, including President Barroso, every effort has been made to channel cash to the people for education, welfare and health services. The EU has made every effort to ensure this happens. We want democracy to prevail.

I have not been invited to see this wonderful ship, the HMS Ocean, but I hope DeputyGormley will represent me and his constituents.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The pocket battleship.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland is an island nation and cannot operate in isolation. No man is an island.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sounds like John Donne.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have bilateral and multilateral arrangements where each nation's ships can visit the other nations' ports. In the modern world and in a country that believes in transparency, what is wrong with seeing these ships at first hand? What is there to hide?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a warship that was in Iraq.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What are we afraid of and why can we not examine them and make comparisons with our vessels to see if we are going in the right direction?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an endorsement.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not endorsing anything. We cannot put a sign on the side of the country that no tourists are welcome, no bilateral arrangements are welcome, and have——

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No warmongers.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——no opportunity to engage with the world. We must engage in every way possible to promote our country. We must have the same warmth of welcome as our people receive across the world. This is normal protocol across the world with all defence ships. I hope Deputy Gormley enjoys the visit. I wish I could be there but regret I cannot.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Plenty of beer on board.