Dáil debates

Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Ceisteanna — Questions

European Council.

10:30 am

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with German Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16485/07]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake during the remainder of 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16806/07]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach when he will next meet the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16807/07]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with other European Union Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16811/07]

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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the October 2007 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16816/07]

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

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the June 2007 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16822/07]

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16863/07]

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach his proposed official visits abroad for the remainder of 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16865/07]

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach his plans for official trips abroad up to the end of 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16875/07]

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU summit in Brussels on 21 and 22 June 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16876/07]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.

I travelled to Berlin on 31 May for a meeting with Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden. This meeting was a part of a series of consultations by Chancellor Merkel with prime ministerial colleagues in advance of the Presidency report to the June European Council. Our discussions focused in particular on preparation for the European Council and the prospects for the constitutional treaty.

I attended the European Council on 21, 22 and 23 June in Brussels, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs. As I will make a statement to the House on the Council later this morning, at this stage I will merely give a summary account of its proceedings.

Discussions at the Council focused primarily on the Presidency's proposals on the treaty reform process and suggestions for the way forward. In its report to the Council, the Presidency put forward a proposal that a reform treaty be introduced which would amend the existing treaties. The reform treaty will retain the balance and substance of the draft EU constitutional treaty concluded during the Irish Presidency in 2004.

The Council agreed on a mandate for a short intergovernmental conference, IGC, which will commence during the Portuguese Presidency. The discussions included significant political questions, such as those on voting weights and the charter of fundamental rights; an agreed approach to these and other issues was adopted in the Council's conclusions. The IGC will be tasked with elaborating the reform treaty based on the mandate agreed by the European Council.

On other matters, the European Council congratulated Malta and Cyprus on their accession to the euro area and we adopted a number of important conclusions concerning the Union's ongoing and external relations business. We adopted an EU strategy for a new partnership with central Asia. This strategy will serve as an overall framework for EU relations with central Asia. A first progress report on the strategy will be submitted to the European Council by the middle of 2008.

Within the realm of justice and home affairs, the Council welcomed the progress already made in implementing the priority actions as part of the global approach to migration, and called for work on these priority actions to be taken forward and intensified. We agreed to review the state of implementation of the comprehensive migration policy at the December European Council meeting.

The protracted debate on the reform treaty meant that time available for other topics was limited. Nonetheless, the conclusions recorded that the European Council welcomed the recent engagement between the President of the Commission and the new Northern Ireland executive and underlined the European Union's longstanding and continuing support for the peace process.

The President of the European Commission attended the European Council as normal and was a full party to the discussions. There are no plans for any further bilateral meetings.

I will make a detailed statement to the House shortly regarding the European Council. I have not yet received an agenda for the October European Council. Regarding my travel plans for the remainder of 2007, I propose to attend the informal meeting of the European Council in Lisbon on 18-19 October and the European Council in Brussels on 13-14 December. A wider programme of official visits, taking account of Ireland's strategic international interests, is currently under consideration.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has confirmed that there will be a referendum on the revised EU treaty, the constitution we are told is not a constitution. Can he assure the Irish people that there will be only one referendum on this revised EU treaty, that the Government will abide by the verdict irrespective of the verdict delivered and that it will implement it accordingly? Can the Taoiseach guarantee that there will be no repeat of the travesty of democracy that ensued when the people spoke in the first Nice treaty referendum and he forced a second poll?

Will the Government pursue an opt-out on state aid provisions at the forthcoming EU governmental conference to overcome the legacy of partition and build a vibrant all-Ireland economy? Is the Taoiseach aware that the state aid provisions are overly restrictive and make it almost impossible for member states to make use of targeted state funding to full effect regarding reaching objectives on balanced regional development? I am referring particularly to infrastructural deficits in the Border region. The Taoiseach clearly has a considerable mandate to address these deficits and introduce relevant measures. Will the Taoiseach seek an opt-out on state aid provisions at the EU governmental conference given his stated intent, and the mandate he has secured for a third time, will be thwarted by the measures contained in that element?

Can the Taoiseach explain how the introduction of an EU Foreign Minister, a so-called high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, could be consistent with the neutral and independent status of this State? How will the Government relate to this new position in its dealings with the European Union and other member states? How will the new position square with our independent position on foreign policy and the role of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern?

11:00 am

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

I do not want to go back over old ground but the second Nice treaty referendum contained a civil declaration that constituted a significant change from the first agreement. This change was widely supported by those interest groups that had difficulties with the first referendum and this should not be forgotten. The referenda were not the same as the change was negotiated and sanctioned by the European Council and attached to the Nice treaty to meet the requirements of this country with the agreement of our political system.

State aids are part of the Internal Market and, from time to time, negotiations on such issues take place — there is no question of us opting out of state aid rules as to do so would not be in our interests. Sometimes we have arguments with the Commission on advantages specific to us but the Internal Market brings us many benefits. It is not feasible to opt out of one particular aspect of the Internal Market.

Regarding foreign affairs issues, there have been movements away from the concept of a European constitution and it is now a reform treaty. Many of the trappings of the constitution treaty, Article No. 8 and others, have been deleted as has the concept of a Foreign Ministry for the entire EU, as originally envisaged. The treaty now strengthens the European Union's ability to act on the world stage in support of our shared values and objectives and it does so by enhancing the coherence and effectiveness of the EU's external relations. Notably it seeks to appoint an EU high representative on foreign affairs and security policy, a position not too different from that currently held by Javier Solana. It will enable the Union to develop capabilities for conflict prevention and crisis management while ensuring, in our case, that any arrangements are fully consistent with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality and, in the case of other countries, that they have control over their own arrangements, consistent with their constitutional and legal position. The concept of the Foreign Affairs Minister, as it was, is now amended.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that serious consequences arise from the state aid provisions that will significantly restrict the Government's indicated intent to correct the imbalance in regional development across the State? As a Border Deputy I am very concerned and I am sure people from the west and midlands will join Border voices in the House in asking how the Taoiseach intends to overcome the difficulties that will present. We are keen to see a correction of the failure to direct critical capital investment into our areas.

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

The state aid rules do not prevent us from enhancing regional development. We are entitled to give higher state aid to locations outside the greater Dublin area and have been doing so for some time. It is correct that state aids create conflict on projects from time to time and it is for us to negotiate those issues and argue our case on them. We had a very high level case about two years ago where we had differences of opinion with the Commission. The problem the Deputy has is that there are areas to which we need to attract investment and where we need to try to win supports for winning foreign direct investment or, for that matter, indigenous investment. Much of the time these matters are within our own capabilities to negotiate and resolve. Perhaps there is an argument on some of those issues and I take the Deputy's point that we have to try to help areas that are disadvantaged or have high unemployment levels. However, opting out of internal market provisions would not be the way to achieve his goal.

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

To return to the Nice treaty, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Éamon Ó Cuív, admitted he voted against the first Nice treaty. I understand the Green Party Ministers must put the terms of the proposed referendum to the party's membership and it will probably require another convention in the Mansion House to decide whether they, as members of the Government, give support to the revised treaty. Has the Taoiseach discussed the matter with his Cabinet? May we assume the revised treaty will be fully supported by all members of the Cabinet and the Government will make a real effort to ensure resources are made available and proper provision is made for debating the issues arising from the revised treaty, which are very important for the future of the country and Europe? Will the Government give priority to this issue and provide resources to the National Forum on Europe and so on to ensure proper political interaction takes place on the issues involved? I do not know whether the Taoiseach has spoken to the Green Party members of Government.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is of central importance to the treaty, has been removed from the text but its legal status is unaltered. Will the Taoiseach explain whether the British decision to seek an opt-out in respect of the charter of fundamental rights is the reason we have adopted a somewhat cautious position on this matter? Why are we afraid to say we support the Charter of Fundamental Rights and want it included in the text because it is an important selling point for the treaty? The Taoiseach has made the point that he would have preferred the wording in the original text. Will he explain why this is so, given that for national and other reasons this was turned down in the Netherlands and in France? Also, as the Taoiseach will be aware, the difficulties arising from the Polish delegation and a number of other new-member eastern countries are quite contentious. Obviously, compromise will have to be achieved by the leaders before this will pass.

Is it the Taoiseach's view that the new British Prime Minister, and perhaps the French President, will seek to have the revised treaty passed by parliamentary majority as opposed to having to hold a referendum which might, for any reason, be contentious again the next time?

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

The Deputy asked a number of questions and I will try to answer them all. The title "reform treaty" is good because it is a reforming treaty. It is necessary because the Union is far bigger than when the current rules were designed. Some 90% or more of the treaty is the same as the constitutional treaty, and I understand the two reasons the other 10% or less was removed. On one side, this was done to deal with the issue of constitutional symbolism and, on the other side, it was done to satisfy the French and Dutch positions, as their voters said "no".

Frankly, I do not have much time for the argument about symbolism. The idea that the people of Europe will stop having respect for the anthem, stop carrying the European logo on their cars or stop having European flags because certain parts are in or out of the treaty is nonsense. The Deputy will know from his group that I have made this point in the discussions. However, that is not the real reason — we should be straight about that, as I am being, because we are better off being honest on these issues. The real reason they wanted that part removed was because doing so made it easier for them to be able to say to their parliaments that they do not have to hold a referendum. With the symbolism removed, they can justify the point that it is not a constitutional treaty and, therefore, can be ratified by parliament. There is no doubt that is what they will do. It is not for any other reason.

I have no problem whatever with helping our colleagues in France and the Netherlands on the issues that created difficulty for them. To do otherwise would be unfair. When I was in a similar position, I got the Seville declaration, which I had to get from my colleagues. Therefore, I have no problem making those compromises and amendments. I just divide the two reasons that apply to this issue.

On the charter, it is not just the UK position that is at issue. Everybody is in favour of the charter, although the UK has a different position to the others. However, they were all in favour of the charter being removed from the treaty while being linked to it in a legal way. I do not believe that makes a damn of a difference. In fact, it was to be left out of the convention in the first case. I was in favour of leaving it out at that time because it was making the constitutional treaty enormously bulky. It was not necessary to include it and easier to leave it as a number of annexes to the treaty.

However, let us be clear that we have been supportive of the charter throughout the negotiations since it was introduced in 2000 and following its amendment in 2004. We were satisfied with the manner in which the charter was incorporated into the draft constitutional treaty in 2004, although that was not my preference at that time. We would have been happy to have it retained in the reformed treaty but, unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain consensus on it because of issues in a number of countries. Its legal standing will, however, be confirmed in the new treaty, which is the key point. It is confirmed in the new treaty, has the same legal value as the treaties and applies to all areas embraced by the European Union where the member states apply European law. That is the crucial point.

The British protocol was introduced at a late stage in the negotiations on Friday night. We have no difficulty with the scope and application of the charter. I have been through this over seven years and we have no problem with it. Nevertheless, we considered it necessary and prudent to look for an opportunity to study the implications of the protocol. That is all I did on Friday night. I said the British were bringing in a late protocol and I wanted to be able to study what it means. While we continue to examine the technical implications of the protocol, although I have asked legal experts to examine it because the legal draft was produced by the United Kingdom and put in late for negotiation, we are satisfied that the text of the charter and the wording to be included in the treaty appear to adequately define the scope and application of the charter. Unless there is some legal complication or reason, it does not create any difficulty for us, but we must study it.

Some other issues were raised by the French and they do not create any difficulty for us. We were happy with the provisions of the JHA agreement in 2004. The United Kingdom indicated it could no longer sign up to that deal and the Presidency subsequently proposed a procedure that has become known as the "emergency brake". That is included in the treaty and it enables any member state to block agreement if it believes the fundamental aspects of its legal system are being affected. We have a similar legal system to the UK and as a result we keep ourselves linked to the UK with regard to JHA issues. It would be unwise of us not to do so.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point is that the charter on fundamental rights is a cornerstone of the social protection architecture within the European Union and is a major factor in prospective support for the constitution as it stood among a large swathe of people here. Is the Taoiseach saying that publicly expressed reservations about the Government seeking to reserve its position on the opt-out are not well founded? We read — not from the Taoiseach's briefings admittedly because he did not refer to this after the summit — from briefings from EU officials, who confirmed last night that Ireland and Poland had both sought to reserve the right to follow Britain in opting out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Is that the case? If it is not, what is the sense of us reserving our position?

Do I take it from what the Taoiseach said that we will have to have a referendum and when is it proposed to hold that referendum? Is it not the case that if there is doubt on the issue, a significant share of the population will be put off by that? What is the point of us reserving our position?

Has the Taoiseach had confirmation from his partners in Government that they will support what has emerged? Has he had discussions with his Progressive Democrats colleague and the "Green" Ministers, an unfortunate term if we continue to use it through the lifetime of the Dáil? However, they will sharpen up as it goes on, I imagine. Has the Taoiseach asked the Green Ministers if they will support what has now emerged in respect of what was known as the constitution? Does he know how many other countries must hold a referendum? Will he clarify that the Government does not seek any other opt-outs?

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

I hope that not only all the Government parties but all the parties in the House will support the reform treaty. I will work towards achieving this in my preliminary discussions.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach know?

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

I am confident that we will achieve that position.

I will deal with the point about the charter first. I fully support the charter and have done for the past seven years. I fully supported its being part of the full agreement but we were not going to reach consensus on that issue. Several countries wanted it to be separate. It will, however, have the same legal status as the treaties and applies to all areas embraced by the Union and where member states apply EU law. That position is clear and from a legal point of view we are happy with the charter.

Late in the day the United Kingdom introduced a complex legal document setting down its opt-out on the charter. Late on Friday night I asked for legal advice on this document. The preliminary advice I received, which I appreciate was given late at night, was that this would not create a difficulty for us but that we would need to examine it closely. This applied not only to what the British sought but to how the European Court of Justice might ultimately interpret the British position. We did not get a formal opt-out but there is a note in the treaty where I state that I want to have this issue examined. The Polish issue is separate.

My legal advice since Friday has been exactly the same as it was then. This position must be carefully examined. The British have some reason for submitting it late. It was not drafted late. They had prepared the document and wanted to introduce it. I am assured that the new treaty will not remove anything from the charter as it concerns us. I am used to the British coming in with these late protocols and I would like to see how it might affect us and other countries in any judgment of the European Court of Justice. We will see what the outcome will be but I understand that it will not create a difficulty for us as of now.

I imagine that few countries will hold a referendum. Having removed the constitutional trappings from the treaty our colleagues will try to avoid holding a referendum. The French President made it clear in his election campaign that he would not put it to the people. The Dutch worked hard to arrive at that position but have not agreed on it yet. The Danes have not agreed a position. Most of the other countries, 20 or more, have no intention of having more than parliamentary ratification, as they have in most such issues.

Of the 19 countries that signed up only four held a referendum, while the other 15 had already secured parliamentary ratification of the constitution. Of the four who held a constitutional referendum, I do not think Luxembourg, France or Spain will hold another one. Very few countries will hold such a referendum.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whatever about the British confusing the Taoiseach, he has certainly confused me.

Photo of Bernard AllenBernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there a derogation?

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

No.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will take some time to tease out that matter and people outside the House who are concerned about it The European Court of Justice will determine the outcome, one way or another. I am not sure why we seek to be associated with the Polish in reserving our position on the opt-out.

Deputy Gormley, as he then was, opposed the constitution. Has the Taoiseach spoken to him or the Green Party about whether they are likely to support the referendum, whenever it takes place?

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

I will return to the key issue as the last thing I want to do on is confuse the Deputy. I have briefed the Cabinet and all my other colleagues. Parties may have to go through their process of ratification but I am confident everybody will support it.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will there need to be a Green Party convention?

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

I am not aware of that party's rules in that regard.

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

There will need to be a convention. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Brennan, should be put on stand-by just in case.

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

I will clarify the position for Deputy Allen, who asked whether there is a formal opt-out or a derogation. There is not. When the British inserted a protocol I sought, as I would always do in these issues, legal advice. That advice is that it is unlikely there are circumstances where that protocol would affect Ireland. That is clear, but the position is not as clear whereby the European Court of Justice subsequently examines the charter whose remit has the same legal effect as the treaties and applies to all areas embraced by the European Union and where member states apply European Union law. That is the key issue. If the European Court of Justice subsequently examines the charter, which it inevitably will do, it is not clear whether it would decide that the British protocol applies to countries other than Britain. It is not a question of it applying to us, but to all countries.

The legal advice is that that needs to be examined in detail. I assume it is not just an issue for us, but in the convention, and I will raise it there. Otherwise the position could arise where we would all sign up to the charter, but when it is challenged in a few years time on some issue the European Court of Justice would say that it looks at everything in the round rather than just at the reform treaty. It considers protocols, such as the one allowing for the British opt-out. The question is whether that takes effect. It is a legal point but is an important point.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the British protocol affect other member states?

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

Precisely.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why, then, did other member states not join with the Taoiseach in reserving their positions?

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

It was not a matter of reserving my position, I made it known that I wanted to examine the British protocol, in accordance with my legal advice on the night, to see whether that has ramifications in other areas. I said I wanted to return to that at the convention and I will do that. Having much experience of these matters, I am always deeply suspicious of the British legal team, which is a very large team, coming into the meeting in the early hours of the morning, presenting a pre-drafted legal protocol and saying that it is only for Britain and it affects nobody else.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a very healthy position for the Taoiseach to take. We have taught him very well.

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

I have learned. It is on that basis I said I would examine it. The procedure is that if I left it go, I would not be able to raise that issue in the IGC in the formal way I wanted to do so. It is no more than that. My experience of these issues is that one has to make things absolutely clear. The legal position is that it does not create any difficulty for Ireland, but I am not satisfied yet about the other question which the Deputy picked up correctly.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is no wonder the Green Party did not get much out of the Taoiseach.

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

Has the Taoiseach made up his mind on when the referendum will be held? Will it be held before next summer or after next summer? Will the Forum on Europe be properly resourced? There needs to be a real intent to have a political dialogue about this because it is fundamental to the future of Ireland and Europe.

The reason given for the non-inclusion of the charter in the treaty is that it will make the treaty too bulky. Was any other reason advanced? There are thousands of European documents that are very extensive, some of them containing 50,000 pages. Was the Taoiseach happy with the compromise with Poland on the voting issue? At the European People's Party meeting which I attended the day before the Heads of Government meeting, there was quite an amount of strident comment about the position adopted by Poland in its claim for extra voting facilities. The Poles felt they were being steamrolled by other countries. What was Ireland's view on that and is the Taoiseach happy with the resolution of the issue?

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

I assume we will have to have a referendum, but I will check with our legal advisers. The IGC should be finished by Christmas, although the Portuguese Presidency has said it will be finished by the end of October. I wish the Portuguese well on that, but they will start it in the second half of July, so maybe it will be achieved. It seems unduly optimistic. The idea is that this will take effect for the European elections in 2009, so we will need a referendum in 2008. I will consult with the political parties because we need everybody's support to get the reformed treaty passed before May 2009. The ratification period for the European Parliament will end some months before that, possibly in late 2008 or March 2009, so we must have the referendum before that.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was not meant to be in the treaty at the original IGC. I do not think it was omitted for any other reason than it would make the document more complex than it needed to be. The key point was that if the charter was not in the treaty, it would still have the same legal effect as the treaties, even though it was not in the document. It would still embrace all areas of European law where member states apply such law. That was the crucial legal line for ETUC and others who have taken a great interest in this for the last seven or eight years. I have always supported that and whether it is in the treaty makes no difference once that line applies.

The negotiations surrounding the Polish position were not a model for good negotiations. As the night drifted on, different colleagues were talking to the Polish President, who spoke with the Polish Government in Warsaw which was in session. It was a good way how not to do things. In the Nice treaty, Poland was very close to Germany in votes. After the Nice treaty, Germany had a far higher number of votes. Spain accepted that position three years ago and did not go back to it. The Poles went back to their old position. It is rare to see a vote in the European Councils on such issues. Therefore, it was not about votes but about history. It was about their relationship with others. It was about the fact that they thought they would be walked on, that their point of view was not taken into account. It was about all of those issues rather than procedural issues.

It was Jean-Claude Juncker who came up with what effectively is an arrangement which means that Nice for the Poles is extended, if they wish it to be so, and that they can go back to this square root position if they so wish. Personally, I think it is daft. If it helps good solutions on the night — I think it is a complex position — it has no great effect other than extending their right to hold on until the spring meeting of 2017 to a position, which otherwise would have been gone in 2010. I doubt they will want to use it between now and 2027.

Photo of Bernard AllenBernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Taoiseach has clarified the position on the derogation because the media and one of the social partners, the trade union movement, understood he had got a derogation on the charter. As he clarified the position and stated that he must look at the legal implications of the charter proposals from the UK, could I ask him how long the legal examination will take and when he will give full and wholehearted support for the charter?

Second, we all knew that there was an imminent referendum, whether on the EU constitution or the draft treaty. I am surprised that during the two weeks of negotiations between his party and the Green Party, the Taoiseach did not get a commitment from his partners now in Government that they would support the referendum on either the EU constitution or the draft treaty, and I would ask the Taoiseach to clarify the position.

I did not hear the Taoiseach's full report on the European Council, but the Single Market seemed to have been ignored in the ongoing controversy regarding the treaty. What proposals are there for the further development of the Single Market?

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

I stated I am confident that everyone will support the reform treaty.

To prevent anyone reading this record thinking I did not raise the question, I reiterate that I am totally in support of the charter. I just want to ensure that the implications of the British protocol, which was tabled late and legally and carefully drafted, do not affect other countries, not only Ireland but all other countries because, normally, in the case of a ruling on any matter the European Court of Justice, ECJ, does not merely look at the treaty. Not alone does the ECJ look at the treaty, it looks at protocols, opt-outs and even footnotes. When it comes to form a judgment it is a little like what happens here, where when the courts look at what is written in an Act, they will look at what a Minister stated in his Second Stage speech and how he interpreted that section. The European Court of Justice does not operate differently. That is why I am very wary of these long protocols which the British have a long-standing habit of submitting stating that they are merely for Britain and affect nobody else. I have formed that view from experience of how it works.

On the Single Market, as Deputy Allen will be aware, there are robust and substantive provisions within the treaty which provide the legal basis for competition within the Union and there was quite a debate about the issue of competition. It is highly unlikely that any of these matters will have significant implications for the operation of the Single Market. The French President has a view on competition. Although he is not against it, his view is that issues of jobs and growth should take precedence and competition is the means rather than the end, according to his phrase in English. None of the discussion that took place will have significant implications for the operation of the Single Market.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is little time so I will move directly to the crucial question of the day. Given that the Blair to Brown transfer of power has been consummated and we see the creation of the Middle East peace envoy position that is likely to be taken up by Tony Blair, is there a prospect that the creation of a high representative role for the EU in respect of foreign policy and security might dovetail with the Taoiseach's transfer of power to the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and his vacating the position of Taoiseach in the House?

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

In Afghanistan.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that context, when will this appointment be made? We are all interested because the Taoiseach will occupy the space that Mr. Blair enjoyed in the local and international media in the coming days and months. Does the Taoiseach have an answer?

Photo of Mary HarneyMary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate.

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

Does Deputy Ó Caoláin seek the date for the post becoming effective?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, we can work from that.

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

Obviously, if Deputy Ó Caoláin puts in his full effort and his significant party resources behind the reform treaty——

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the Taoiseach was going to ask me to put in my CV.

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

With Deputy Ó Caoláin's support, the position will be effective in summer 2009.

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

In respect of the charter of fundamental rights, am I correct in interpreting the Taoiseach to mean that Ireland has a caveat, which has relevance for all member states, rather than an opt-out clause and he is seeking legal advice on this matter? The Taoiseach stated that this would be taken in the context of the European Court of Justice, ECJ, but we will not know how the ECJ will interpret the British position until a case comes before it. Will the Attorney General provide the legal advice or does the Taoiseach expect the legal advice to come from the intergovernmental conference in July? Will whatever referendum is proposed have clarity in respect of this issue?

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

I will hear the Attorney General's view but would also like to hear the view of the Council secretariat. It can draw on much practice and precedent to form a judgment on this issue. The preliminary view is that it poses no difficulty but I would like to see the matter taken into account. When examining a case, the ECJ does not just consider how it affects European law in the countries that have signed up for it, but also the implications of an opt-out clause. This should not cause any difficulty but I would like this to be crystal clear.