I have proposed, and the Convention working group on national parliaments has recommended, that a European week should be organised each year to create a common window for EU-wide debates on European issues in every member state. For example, the Commission has indicated willingness to bring its annual legislative programme to each national parliament for an open debate. Both the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the National Forum on Europe are considering the implications of this proposal.

Another important consideration is the future composition of the European Commission. There is widespread support in the Convention for the election of the President of the Commission to overcome its perceived lack of democratic legitimacy. There is a lively debate on the appropriate method of election. There is a strong case for this democratic exercise to take place in the European Parliament, which represents the citizens and political families of the member states. However, there are other arguments. For example, the Irish Government believes it would be better to have an electoral college, which would consist of European parliamentarians and national parliamentarians. A third method, favoured by Deputy John Bruton, who is a member of the Praesidium of the Convention, is to have a Europe-wide popular vote by each citizen, which has other implications. Underlying all three proposals is the need for greater legitimacy on the part of the Commission.

The strengthening of the role and democratic status of the Commission is a matter of real interest to this country. Over the years, the Commission and the European Parliament have provided the impetus for the Union's most progressive policies. It is the Commission, operating within the framework of the traditional community method, which can ensure that policies such as those for social inclusion and support of the developing world are tabled, promoted and implemented. It would be entirely contrary to the interests of this country if there were to be a move towards more intergovernmental decision-making in an enlarged Union. This would give undue influence to the larger member states and their interests. A balanced EU system in which the Council works with a more open and legitimate Commission, with more influential and involved national parliaments and with the democratically elected European Parliament is our best hope of creating a Union that will serve the real interests of its citizens and of the wider world.

I will now outline the background to the idea for a Convention. The people in this country probably know 99% more than anyone else in Europe about the contents and implications of the Nice treaty. Although it did not get much attention during our debate, the treaty contains a proposal to give consideration to where Europe was going. This reflected a debate that was going on within member states' governments, the Commission and the Parliament.

The Nice declaration indicated that the purpose of the debate was to bring the EU closer to its citizens. In addition, the prospect of an enlarging Europe raised questions about how the institutions needed to be redesigned to allow it operate, efficiently and democratically with a greatly increased membership of 27 or more states. Based on the Nice declaration, there was a further declaration in Laeken under the Belgian Presidency in December 2001. At Laeken, the European Union set up the structure and laid down the agenda for the Convention to consider the key issues arising for the future of the Union and to identify possible responses. The Convention was set four tasks: the division of powers between member states and the Union; the simplification of the legal and other instruments used by the Union; increased democracy, transparency and efficiency in the Union; and working towards a constitution for the Union and its citizens.

The Convention began its work in March 2002 and is scheduled to complete its tasks by June 2003. The Convention has 105 members, each of whom has an alternate. There are three members from Ireland, with three alternates. Along with me, our members are Deputy John Bruton and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche. The three alternates are Deputy John Gormley, Deputy Pat Carey and Mr. Bobby McDonagh from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The 13 candidate countries have both government and parliamentary representatives.

The Praesidium, established by the Laeken declaration, also has a representative of the governments and parliaments of the accession countries. The European Parliament has representation there, as does the Commission. In addition, there are observers representing the committee of the regions, the social partners – trades unions and employers – and, as I am sure all the Senators are aware, the chairman is the former French President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and the vice chairmen are Giuliano Amato – former Prime Minister of Italy – and Jean Luc Dehaene – former Prime Minister of Belgium. Along with Deputy John Bruton, Ms Gisela Stuart is a member representing national parliamentarians. John Cushnahan, MEP, is an alternate member of the European Parliament delegation.

The Convention has established contact groups involving a wide range of NGOs in areas such as human rights, third world development, the environment and various social concerns. A plenary session in June 2002 was devoted to hearings on these themes. A Youth Convention, structured in the same way as the main body, took place in July 2002 and its findings were communicated to a plenary session of the Convention. Six Irish representatives were selected by the National Youth Council following a process of application and selection. At some stage the Seanad might wish to contact the young people who participated in that Convention. I am sure they would have some interesting views to put forward on how they see Europe evolving in the future.

The Convention established 11 working groups to deal with the key issues of subsidiarity; the charter of fundamental rights; the legal personality of the European Union; the role of national parliaments, of which I was a member; complementary competences, that is, the areas in which the European Union and member states share competences; economic governance; external action; defence, of which I was also a member; the simplification of legislative procedures and instruments; the European area of freedom; security and justice, and social Europe.

We had to fight hard to get agreement on establishing the working group on social Europe. The weight of opinion in favour of establishing such a group eventually ensured it was conceded at the last minute. As it was established late, its findings were not incorporated in the first 16 draft articles produced in recent weeks. However, the process of incorporating in the draft treaty the views expressed in its findings is now under way.

The working groups have submitted their reports which have been discussed in plenary. Key issues addressed in the reports include establishing a greater role for national parliaments in respect of subsidiarity; organising a Europe week, proposed by a working group of which I was a member; the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights into the treaty or constitutional treaty as it is now known; a single legal personality for the European Union which implies abolishing the current three pillar structure – we can discuss this issue in greater detail during the question and answer session; the definition of the principles and objectives of the external policies of the Union; the expansion of Petersberg tasks to deal with current challenges with regard to peacekeeping, peacemaking and so forth; a solidarity clause to deal with terrorism in member states; simplification of legislative procedures and instruments; initiatives on key issues of justice and home affairs; treaty recognition of the balance between economic and social policies; inclusion of important social values and objectives in the treaty text; and recognition of the open method of co-ordination in areas of social concern.

If, like most people, Senators have no idea what the open method of co-ordination is, I will be happy to address the issue when we move to questions and answers. It is an important element of particular interest to Ireland in terms of how the Government views it.

Many matters of controversy have arisen from the deliberations of the working groups, including the future role of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy who is essentially a representative of the Council. The fact that there is also a Commissioner in charge of external relations who is responsible to the Commission means we have a two headed system. It is believed this needs to be rationalised.

Other issues raised, which may be of concern here, include the possibility of a mutual defence clause and, perhaps of lesser concern, the extension of qualified majority voting for decision making, EU competence in criminal law and the extension of competences in the social policy area.

The Convention has worked on the basis of trying to find a broad consensus on issues. To date, a kind of working consensus has been achieved on many issues, although on many this is not necessarily a broad consensus or even the majority view. This allows us to raise issues and keep them on the table pending further discussion. In the language of the negotiations in Northern Ireland, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This is an important principle in the Convention.

The momentum driving the Convention has increased significantly in recent months as it has reached the crucial issues of institutional structures, balance and functioning. The debate on institutions – essentially the location of power in the European Union – will dominate much of the remaining months of its work and probably determine whether the Convention is viewed as a success.

The political weight of the Convention has been changed significantly by the arrival as Government representatives of a number of Foreign Ministers and other senior Ministers from Germany, France, Greece, the United Kingdom, Slovenia and Latvia. This signals that the debates within the Convention are seen as fundamental to the interests of member states in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. The Convention is now recognised as the location of decisive debate on the future of Europe.

This is a timely moment to allude to the role of the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, the Government representative at the Convention. From the Government's point of view, he is doing an excellent job and there is no question that he has made a significant contribution to the work of the Convention. Not every member state, even some of the bigger ones, has sent senior Ministers or their Ministers for Foreign Affairs to represent them at the Convention. In saying this I am trying to head off a pointless argument that we should switch horses at this stage, which would not be a realistic option.

From its early meetings, which dealt with broad issues such as the missions and competences of the European Union, the division of powers between it and member states and its external action, the Convention has been transformed into a constitutional conference with the clear objective of presenting a detailed draft constitutional treaty to the European Council in Thessaloníki in June 2003.

The Laeken declaration envisaged that the Convention might propose the adoption of a new treaty in the form of a constitution for the European Union. This was seen as a means of replacing the current complex set of treaty texts, running to more than 1,200 pages, with a clear statement of the values and objectives of the Union, the rights and obligations of its citizens, the relationship between member states and the Union through the common institutions and the framework for policies and actions.

In October 2002 the Praesidium presented a preliminary draft constitutional treaty as the basis for the Convention's work. This was clearly based on the debates which had taken place up to that point in the plenaries of the Convention. The draft was broadly welcomed by the Convention in so far as it provided a clear and logical framework for drafting the necessary text.

It proposes a constitutional treaty in three parts. Part one would be the constitutional structure which would set out the values, objectives, citizenship, competences and institutions of the European Union and cover issues such as the implementation of Union action, the democratic life of the Union, finances, membership of the Union etc. Part two would be Union policies and implementation and address the internal market, EMU and other specific policy areas such as internal security, areas of supporting action, external action, defence, budgetary provisions etc. Part three would have general provisions on questions of legal continuity from previous treaties, protocols, revision procedures, adoption, ratification, duration and languages. Revision procedures will be an important aspect of the treaty given that the European Union will have 25 member states, each with its own constitutional provisions.

On the question how the treaty will be adopted, it is my view that there is no way to adopt it other than with existing procedures in the member states. Arguments have been made for future constitutional treaties to be adopted by way of a European-wide referendum, but in my view that does not arise on this occasion because we would have to hold a referendum before a referendum to change the current process—

I will not outline the content of the draft articles other than to say they are listed under the definition and objectives of the Union, the fundamental rights of the citizen and the Union's competences. A debate has already started on the articles, which have been drawn up in the light of the recommendations from the working groups.

The way the working groups operated was an attempt to find consensus in as many areas as possible. The idea was not to exclude any view, but to try to reflect the weight of those views. In the reports, some ideas are expressed as unanimous views of the working group, some have broad support while others have minority support. If a view was expressed strongly by, for example, a significant Government representative on a working group, that would also be reflected in the report. The idea was to reflect the debate and the weight of any of those ideas. It should be borne in mind that there was no way of guaranteeing that the weight of political viewpoints would be reflected equally in all of the working groups. That was the case in the social policy working group, for example, where there was a significant left of centre view. Nevertheless, we managed to ensure that there was a reflection of all views in the working group.

The central debate in the remaining months will concern the location of legislative and executive power in the Commission and the Council and the future development of the unique, triangular structure of the Union, namely, the Council, Commission and Parliament, which interact with each other in various ways. It is the strong view of most people in the Convention that that balance should be maintained. It does not mean that one element or the other will not be changed, but if there is a change in, for example, the way the Council is chaired, an equally important change will be made with the Commission or perhaps more power given to the Parliament or whatever so that there is equilibrium among the three main institutions of the Union.

A working consensus, but not necessarily a majority, has emerged on a number of issues including the idea of a single constitutional treaty and a single legal personality, which would bring an end to the pillar structure. The importance of that is that the first pillar is generally subject to European parliamentary scrutiny, whereas, in general, the second and third pillars are not, except where the Council finds that it should consult with the Parliament. However, the Parliament does not have any legislative role in the second and third pillars. It has a consultative role in some, but not all, cases. The importance of having a single legal personality, therefore, means that a greater degree of democracy is created within the decision-making process. I must be honest and say that other speakers will present Members with a different view on how far we should go in that regard. However, that matter is part of the debate.

Another idea is an increase in the use of qualified majority voting, QMV, which I mentioned already, and co-decision of the Parliament – the role of the European Parliament as co-decision maker with the Council. That is a process which is probably unique, certainly in Europe, in which the Council and the Governments of Europe have to sit down with the Parliament and agree compromises in respect of legislation they want to put forward. That is an important power for the European Parliament in terms of ensuring full openness and accountability on the part of the Council.

There is resistance in some areas to extending qualified majority voting, which includes co-decision making. Some argue against it in some areas including, for example, the tax area, an issue which will be debated in Ireland to some extent. The question is whether we should have QMV in the tax area. There are other issues also besides tax.

On the question of the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the treaty, there is a broad consensus that that should be done. However, the issue lies in the way this should be done. Should it be part of the treaty or added on as a protocol and what is the legal difference in terms of its application?

There is also the question of clarification on the extent to which the European Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to European citizens. The bottom line on that is that it applies in so far as the EU institutions are acting on foot of European decisions. In other words, where the Council accedes to certain measures agreed by the Parliament, the rights applied under the charter would apply or where member states are implementing decisions agreed at European level, rights would apply in that case. They would not apply, however, in circumstances where a member state is acting under its own constitution in implementing matters which have not, or are unlikely to be dealt with, by the European Union and we can all think of such examples.

On the role of national parliaments in monitoring subsidiarity, one of the issues that arose early in the course of the debate on the Convention was the question of a European congress or Senate. However, it has been generally accepted that adding another tier of scrutiny would make Europe more opaque and less understandable than at present and that ways must be found to provide for national parliamentary scrutiny which does not obscure what is happening but rather clarifies it. We have already begun to take steps like that in the Oireachtas in relation to decision-making.

The idea of a congress is still on the agenda. One suggestion is that a congress could elect the President of the Commission. I do not believe that is a runner, but I am simply pointing out that issues which might not hit the headlines are also being debated.

The Presidency of the Union currently rotates between member states. Ireland will hold the Presidency from January to June next year. I have argued strongly that this is an important role for all states, particularly smaller ones, as they are then at the centre of what is happening in the European Union.

There was a counterproposal, primarily from the United Kingdom but supported by others, for a long-term elected president of the European Council. The exact way this might be done has not yet been thrashed out but the idea is that someone would hold office for two and a half or five years. It could not be held by the Prime Minister of a member state as it would be impossible to be president of the Council and Prime Minister of Ireland or anywhere else. That would not be feasible. Therefore, the question of who would be eligible to stand then arose.

The argument in favour is that it would be more efficient and provide greater continuity for the agenda of the European Union. Those of us who disagree argue that we can create efficiency and continuity by having the proper structures in place. I favour a team presidency. If it was introduced next year, though it will not, one would have Italy, Ireland and the current holder of the Presidency, Greece, as a team presidency. Each country could chair individual Council meetings for a year or two. There are ways to create the efficiency and continuity required without undercutting the rotational idea of the Presidency, which is important for smaller states.

I have mentioned the external representation of the European Union and the two hats being worn at present with Javier Solana representing the Council and Chris Patten representing the European Commission. Each is playing a first class part on the world stage but the question is whether it would be better to have a single representative. If that representative was appointed or selected, where would he or she sit? Would he or she sit on the Council or the Commission? Does one interfere with the Commission, essentially the policeman of the Union, or the Council, the political head of the Union? These issues have to be addressed.

There is also the extent to which the European Union should have competence in the areas of criminal law or economic co-ordination, for example. Should there be an elected president of the Commission? Which model should be used for such an election? Should there be a rotating presidency or QMV, as I mentioned? Should there be a solidarity clause in the defence area?

Social Europe is one of my main concerns. An important debate has commenced on the report of the social Europe working group which contains important recommendations concerning the values and objectives of the European Union. It proposes the addition of the values of social justice, solidarity and equality, particularly equality between men and women. The inclusion of such values would highlight the argument of the working group that the Union cannot be a credible force for good in the wider world if it is indifferent to questions of social justice and poverty in European society. Such principles will be of the utmost importance.

Regarding the timetable, the Convention is scheduled to complete its work in early June and the draft constitution will be given to the Thessaloníki European Council by the president of the Convention. The debate will the be taken up by member states and an Intergovernmental Conference will be established at some point, though we do not know when. The idea is that a period of reflection will be provided to ensure a gap, perhaps of some months, between the conclusion of the Convention and the start of the Intergovernmental Conference which could span both the Italian and Irish Presidencies of the Council but it is felt should not continue too long and conclude with the Irish Presidency at the latest.

A related issue is the date for the formal entry into the European Union of the candidate countries, 1 May 2004. It would not be reasonable, even with consultation and accession countries sitting in on the debate, to conclude on significant issues while such states are not full members. An issue of timing also arises. If a state is represented at a meeting but not a member and is asked to support an issue, there are questions as to whether that opinion is a true reflection of the state's views as it does not have a veto. The question of decisions being made before 1 May 2004 in terms of the final draft of the document should be borne in mind. There could be serious repercussions in candidate countries which are holding referenda on accession this year. If they cannot guarantee to their electorates that they will be full partners in the decisions on a new constitutional treaty, they could have serious problems.

In Ireland the debate on the Convention involves the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs which has commenced a series of hearings and debates and is briefed regularly by the Irish Convention participants. The National Forum on Europe has initiated a series of plenary sessions and regional public meetings on aspects of the Convention's work and will continue to operate for the rest of the year. I am pleased additional funding is being provided for the forum which only had a budget up to June this year; the new funding will bring it to the end of the year. It is an important window on debate for our citizens and it is in all our interests that it continue right through the period of the Intergovernmental Conference as important ideas and proposals will come through right to the end. The Minister for Foreign Affairs delivered a comprehensive overview of the position of the Government in his address to the Institute of European Affairs in recent weeks when he outlined the Government's position on the Convention.

I have outlined the membership of the Convention but, as Members can imagine, debate does not just take place on the floor of the Convention or in the Praesidium, though that is an important part of the process. There are political families such as the socialist family which consists of the MEPs, national parliamentarians and Government representatives which come together on a regular basis; the same goes for the Christian Democrat and Green families. They try to establish common positions, although because of the nature of the European Union even within the same political family there can be differences of opinion and emphasis. We have all experienced this, even in our domestic political families. It is important to bear in mind that in many cases the national family comes together.

Tomorrow I will meet the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and Deputies John Bruton, Gormley and Carey as well as Mr. Bobby McDonagh to discuss the issues we can promote jointly and those on which we disagree in order that we can present a united front to the Convention. Inevitably, because we come from different political families, we will present different positions. The bottom line is that we all defend the interests of Irish citizens and the citizens of the European Union.

The role of the Convention is straightforward. It must put in place a mechanism to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and keep it effective and efficient while giving us a positive role in the wider world. We talk about a united states of Europe but at present we are trying to find a common European approach to the situation in Iraq and we can see how difficult that is. The issue will, I hope, be resolved in a peaceful fashion but the desirability of a common European approach is obvious. Reaching agreement, however, is very difficult. Mr. De Rossa would be the first to recognise that it is a challenge to engage the public and help to chart out a vision for the Union.

The Irish members of the Convention all have their own views but there has been a convergence of the Irish position. The country has done well out of EU membership and we wish to continue to play a major role. We want to see the accession countries getting a fair crack of the whip. That should be our starting position as we seek a balanced treaty that recognises the European social dimension, an area to which Mr. De Rossa is personally committed. We must also ensure the economic development of the European Union.

This debate is helpful. We should not underestimate the task we face in selling to the public our vision for the European Union. We know there are doubts and fears unless politicians give the lead. These debates are helpful but much more will be required in the weeks and months ahead.

That led me to consider the role of the national parliament in the decision-making process. As a result of the Nice treaty referendum, it was decided that all proposals from Brussels would have to be monitored initially at our own level and that we should send early warning signals to the European Union in relation to matters we intended to work out and resolve at national level. In that regard, I compliment the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and its sub-committee on the work which has gone into scrutinising proposals emanating from the Union. That work is ongoing. The sub-committee has devoted a substantial amount of time and effort to deciphering the huge volume of material coming from Brussels. That is a good move and I welcome it.

In the final analysis, we must inform and reassure the people that we are representing them and that they are aware of what is happening in Dublin and Brussels. We must be mindful of this responsibility. Up to now there has been a certain disconnection between what happens in the European Union and the Houses of the Oireachtas and the public perception of that whole process but we have moved a long way. I am also aware of many other working groups in operation. I could continue for much longer but I am conscious of time constraints.

The outstanding EU issues include tax harmonisation, the election of the Presidency and getting the best provisions in the new treaty in order that Ireland will not only have an economic platform but will also be complemented by social cohesion. We should bear in mind that pooling our sovereignty does necessarily refer to defence policy alone. It also involves considering how best we can combat international terrorism and crime while also promoting peace.

Perhaps I will have an opportunity to intervene in questions later. I had hoped to refer to some other matters, ach beidh lá eile chuige sin.

I wish to focus on a few issues which require attention, including the charter of fundamental rights. It has been a matter of great delight in recent months to observe the fundamental change in the Government's attitude in that regard, to the extent that it is now prepared to support the idea of the charter being part of the treaty. That is crucially important to those in the trade union movement and civil society who look to a social Europe. However, what I do not quite understand – perhaps Mr. De Rossa will comment on this – is, if we embed something in a European constitution, how that trickles down to being important to an individual Irish citizen. Is there, perhaps, a need for national or subsidiary legislation or can one simply claim one's rights on the basis that the charter will now be part of the treaty? If it was to be part of the treaty, would it have similar effect as personal rights in the Irish Constitution? I would appreciate some clarification, although I realise there are no absolute answers to such questions at this stage.

With regard to the approach to sustainable development in Europe and the issue of peace, I cannot quite grasp how these matters will be dealt with. I share Senator Ormonde's concern in relation to the problems of vocabulary and understanding. Perhaps it is just the teacher in me but there is a great need to clarify certain issues, starting with sovereignty and neutrality. Irish people must recognise that when we joined the United Nations, we were no longer neutral. We take a political position on issues and there is a political neutrality which we share within the United Nations. Military neutrality is a different matter, in terms of taking military action in support of some objective. Moral neutrality is yet another concept; morally neutral countries are hardly a model we would ever pursue, in the sense of not having a view on the most corrupt regimes in the world. That debate on the whole issue of neutrality has not yet taken place and it must.

There is another issue which is not helped by language problems. I am not sure if there is a French word for "confederation", other than "federation" for the English "federation". In the English language there is a very clear difference between a confederation and a federation. Every time Mr. Chirac or others use the word "federation", shock waves run through Europe. However, if there was a distinction between a federation and the looser arrangement of a confederation, there would be very clear differences of nuance which would be of great importance to Irish people in coming to terms with the concept of being Irish within a broader European Union. That is another debate which has yet to take place.

I do not understand the concept of co-decision-making. I am not sure I would wish to be on the receiving end, if I had authority to make decisions. Not understanding how it works, it bothers me.

It has also been stated that there are controversial signals coming from the Convention. I want to mention three points. The workings of the Convention, and especially the Praesidium, are too secretive; with the publication of the draft constitution, the people are asking whether it is the intention to replace the Irish Constitution; and there are also concerns regarding reports that countries like Ireland will have to accept the constitution or opt out. It is essential that we debate these issues and bring clarity to them. I welcome the initiative by the Leader in starting this process. From today, we should set down a clear marker that we will demonstrate transparency and democracy and will fully debate these issues.

One of the biggest unsolved problems of the EU institutions is communicating what they do to the citizens of Europe. It is obvious that their efforts to date such as websites, brochures and information campaigns have not worked. Given that the EU will expand from 15 members to 25, and that the Convention is proposing to change the rules, what plans has the Convention to inform, and more importantly convince, the citizens of its benefits? This is an important issue for us politicians as we will be the people on the doorsteps answering the questions on these issues. Second, the big six countries, Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain and Poland, will make up 74% of the population. The remaining 19 countries make up the balance. How is the Convention proposing to convince the 19 that its work is in their interests?

I found the past few weeks fairly depressing, particularly in the context of common foreign and security policy, but at the same time it illustrates a difficulty which, I suppose, in our heart of hearts we have always known existed. If you put the Foreign Affairs Minister of the member states into a room and give them almost any substantive issue of foreign policy, they can come up with a common position, and we saw some evidence of that last Monday in Brussels. There is not a huge amount of disagreement on substantive issues, including Iraq, but none of us seriously believes that Prime Minister Blair would be looking to send British troops into Iraq were it not for the fact that George Bush wants to do it. That is the serious fault line and the serious problem with the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

One issue we clearly have not come close to sorting out is our relationship with the United States. Sometimes this does not matter. Frequently we have common interests. Frequently the interests of individual European countries – Atlanticist-minded countries and those of us who are not members of NATO – coincide, but we have seen much evidence in the past few weeks of the serious existing dangers and difficulties when they clearly do not coincide, either in terms of what we perceive as being our interests or in what we want to do about them. That is a real problem for us.

It also points out clearly the difficulties with Irish neutrality. Ireland is the only country describing itself as neutral or non-aligned within the EU which is taking what is essentially seen as a pro-US, pro-George W. Bush line. Politically we are aligned clearly with the NATO countries of Europe and aligned therefore against some countries which are actually members of NATO but are taking a more distinctly independent line.

As of now it is clearly not possible for the European Union to take a line which is independent of the firm and decided wishes of the United States and of the White House. That surely must be where we try to move forward. We need at least to determine for ourselves where our interest lies in having and waging and being capable of implementing an independent foreign policy. No doubt the rapid reaction force must form part of that. We cannot run before we can crawl. We must determine what are our common interests and clearly they must lie in the security of our own Continent, but we must also imperatively develop an independent capacity to do something about it.

I personally supported the intervention in Kosovo. The worst aspect of the American intervention in Kosovo was that it came so late.

I do not support what is happening now, nor does my party. I deeply resent the fact that the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy position, one which, incidentally, is clearly supported by the people of Europe, is simply being stopped because George W. Bush and the White House do not want it. Our leaders need to develop the political will, not only to sit in a room in Brussels and develop a policy but actually to implement it when the United States does not want us to do so.

There are other points which divide us such as the development of a social Europe and perhaps even tax harmonisation. I have not had an opportunity to develop those points but I wanted to give vent to my frustrations and depression on that one current issue.

We can talk about architectural issues such as double hatting and so on, which are all important from the point of view of the workings of the Union, but the core question is whether the future complexion of the Union will be a federalist one or a continuation of what it is at the moment, an association of sovereign states which pool some sovereignty in the interests of their peoples. Mr. De Rossa did not use the word "constitutional" but rather the words "constitutional treaty", which are quite distinct. Will that constitutional treaty steer us in a so-called federal direction? There was some disquiet when we saw Article 1 which mentioned competences being shared on a federal basis. I do not have any difficulty about this way of doing things globally within the Community but if there is to be a classic federation, with division of powers and so on, we will have some serious problems. We should look very carefully at the future direction of the Convention.

The Convention will not conclude on what we will be voting on in a referendum – it is a mechanism for giving national and European parliamentarians, national governments, accession states and the social partners a forum in which to debate a range of issues within a certain context and present their combined wisdom to all 25 Governments of the European Union. We hope they will take on board most of what we consider to be worthwhile. The Governments of the European Union will draw a red line through X or add to Y and finally the peoples of Europe will make the decisions on whether they accept the work of the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference. The key point is that the Convention is only one but a significant part of a process because it is creating a momentum. As I said, the fact that a number of member states have decided to beef up their representation at the Convention is a reflection of this.

Is it a good or bad idea for all member states to hold a referendum? It would be a very good idea. On the margins of the Convention, lots of little groups of different members come together to promote various ideas. One such group is promoting the idea of a Europe-wide referendum. That may take many different forms, but we have no way of obliging Germany to have a referendum. Germany will run 1,000 miles from the notion of a referendum, particularly in light of the experience in the 1930s and the rise of Hitler. Other countries in Europe have had similar experiences, resulting in similar knee-jerk reactions to the idea of a referendum, although that is not to say they will not take that route some day.

There is no way for us to oblige states to hold referenda, but we can encourage them to do so. Various delegates to the Convention have suggested that the member states they represent would hold consultative referenda on the treaty because they already have constitutional provisions in place. For example, Belgium has to go through its layers of regional and national governance before an EU treaty can be finally ratified by the national parliament. This is a broad consultative process which ends up as a ratification by a national parliament and, in terms of debate, is arguably a more effective means of ratification. Bearing in mind the diversity of Europe, the bottom line is that we cannot oblige states to fit into our shoes. We must respect the concerns, interests, experience and history of other states in the EU.

The Senators dealt with the issue of explaining complex issues well. As politicians, we are constantly faced with the problem of conveying complex ideas in which we are engrossed and of which we have a fair degree of understanding, but when one goes to a local community hall to explain a complex technical issue such as incineration, for example, how does one get the point across? The same difficulty applies to the European Parliament.

As a result of the diversity, we must find some terminology which is commonly understood across Europe. The term "subsidiarity" is eurospeak, but it is understood by the parliaments and governments across Europe, so it is common coinage at that level. Perhaps the problem relates to the lack of usage of the term in our own political discourse. If we had more discussion about subsidiarity between local authorities and national government, perhaps people would immediately understand the issues. Developing and deepening our political discourse on how power is exercised is essential.

In a submission I made to the Convention, I made the point that subsidiarity is required not only between the EU and the member states, but also between the states and their regions. There was a major hearing in the Convention a month ago at which the Committee of the Regions made a submission about how it wants to be engaged with European decision-making. There is a real debate on this issue. Ireland has one of the most centralised government systems in Europe, where local authorities have little power and where there are no regional authorities, other than the make-believe ones relating to European funding. This is an area we need to develop further.

The pooling of sovereignty is a fundamental issue which goes to the heart of what Europe is about. However, it must be borne in mind that it is voluntary. We have voluntarily agreed that we will pool sovereignty in certain areas. Our Ministers attend Council meetings to discuss issues which may or may not become directives. If directives follow, we have agreed within the Council process to share our law-making capacities with the other member states in order to create, for example, an environmental directive which will apply equally to Ireland, Britain, Germany and Poland because effective action cannot be taken by national governments alone.

On its own, Ireland is not in a position to protect its coasts from oil tankers which might break up. We need strong European legislation to allow us to do so. We can make all the laws we like, but they will not apply to the UK, Germany or Spain if there is no corresponding European legislation. The sharing of sovereignty is the key to that.

The evolution of the EU has bred a uniquely hybrid federalist, inter-governmental system. It is not like the US, German or Belgian systems; it is a unique European system, based on our diverse histories and social and governmental systems, in which we agree to share our power at certain points. The European Union is already federalist to some extent and, from my political perspective, it ought to be more so because I define federalism as a decentralisation rather than a centralisation of power. Real federalism is about only doing those things one needs to do at central level and doing everything else at national or local level. We will not achieve that level of ideal federalist structure in Europe within the next couple of generations, if ever. We will continue to evolve on the basis of the hybrid that is already in place.

The debate on the Convention asks whether we will disturb the existing balance if we shift it. How does one disturb that balance between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament in a way that ensures each retains an equal right within the system? I advise against getting too uptight about terminology. Let us look at what it means and argue from that point.

I have with me the socialist group's edition of the charter of fundamental rights.

The Commission has no power other than that given to it by the Council or the treaties. The Council has agreed to give a mandate to the Commission to negotiate on trade matters with the United States and within the WTO, etc., but the Commission must return to the Council with any proposals it seeks to agree on. The Council must approve what the Commission has negotiated. The democratic gap is that the European Parliament is excluded from this process. That is not to say other aspects do not need to be addressed.

By and large, the Commission can take no action unless a directive agreed by the Council and the Parliament empowers it. For example, Ireland had a row with the Commission about budgets. It was a row about a decision made by ECOFIN that certain guidelines would be complied with and Ireland, as one of the countries that agreed to those guidelines, felt it was not in its interests to comply with them at that point. The Commission could only act on the basis of the power given to it by the treaties or the Council. The Commission has an important role in policing the implementation of agreed policies. There are many examples of how this has been dealt with in Ireland and elsewhere.

Senator Minihan asked if the convention operated a top-down or bottom-up process. That this impression exists is, in part, a failure on the part of the media in the way it has not reported most of what is going on and how it reported some of the debates. The convention has been in place since March 2002 and will conclude in June, but the public debate on it is only beginning to open up. We can all take a share of the blame for this. There are six Irish representatives on the convention and six youth members also attended it. An Intergovernmental Conference will be held when the convention concludes its work and it is important that the momentum is maintained.

It is emphatically not a top-down process. The main criticism of the Praesidium and how it operates comes largely from the Euro-sceptics within the convention. They do not want the Convention to succeed, nor see any evolution of the Union. How many party organisations would open their executive meetings to the press? It does not happen and it is unrealistic to argue that the Praesidium should have an open door policy when it is trying to tease out issues. The Praesidium will not make the final decision; it is for the Convention to do so.

A question was asked about the big six countries. I think the population of the 19 small states makes up slightly more than 50% of the population of a 25-member EU. In any event, there is no way six states can make a decision within the Council. While co-decision issues require a minimum of 71% of Council votes, a majority of states must also agree to it and there must also be a balance of population. There is a triple lock on decision making on QMV. While I, like Senator O'Rourke, have attended a number of meetings, I have yet to meet a Minister who attended a Council meeting where a vote took place. I am not aware of any time when a vote took place at the Council. The constant pressure is to find consensus. Europe will not work if it operates on a basis of states being pressured into corners.

The value of QMV is not that a decision can be passed by a vote of 71% of those present, rather that there is an incentive to reach a decision. If there is a requirement for unanimity, as there is in many areas of policy-making, those that disagree can block everything and refuse to budge. If QMV is in place, every state will have to engage with it.

Senator McDowell raised the question of the relationship between the EU and the USA. I do not believe that there can be a peaceful world without a solid, friendly and co-operative relationship between Europe and the USA. This relationship must be based on equality and recognition that there is an international legal framework within which we operate. I will be travelling to New York and Washington next week with a delegation of MEPs to discuss the Iraqi issue. We will seek to meet people of various political stripes to talk to them about what we believe needs to be done. The European Parliament's position, adopted by motion a few weeks ago, is that there should be no unilateral military action against Iraq. If there is to be military action, it must be decided by the Security Council but more time should be given to the inspectors to reach a peaceful resolution.

Senator O'Rourke asked how to present Europe so that people feel comfortable with it. Senator Brian Hayes raised a similar point. It has to be on the basis of people recognising that the clean air they breathe is at least partly the responsibility of all Europe.

Senator Ryan asked about extending the Petersberg Tasks and the clarification of competencies. No major extension is being proposed to the Petersberg Tasks. There is, in a sense, a clarification. The Petersberg Tasks were formulated before international terrorism was seen as a threat and before it emerged on 11 September 2001 in the United States. The idea is to see how the Petersberg Tasks can cope with a situation where states increasingly have to protect themselves against that type of attack and what role the Union plays in that area. This is where the concept of a solidarity clause arises. It is not the same as a mutual defence clause. If, for example, the UK believes there is a threat of biological attack and Ireland has a service, be it medical or otherwise, that could be of assistance, we would make it available. There would be other implications as well. However, it is an under-developed idea at present.

People who are interested in this issue should read the report of the defence working group, of which I was a member. I argued strongly against the idea of a mutual defence agreement, where each country would have an obligation to respond in the event of an outside attack on a member state. I argued it from a pragmatic point of view. I believe it will not carry. There are other arguments for and against it, but I believe we are sidelining a range of other issues by getting too deeply involved in a debate about something which is unlikely ever to happen.

Senator Mooney raised the question of the likely issues in the next European election. If I knew the answer to that, I would hardly tell him.