THE publication of the Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy allows for a renewed focus on the process of Treaty reform in the EU - the Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) - which, opened in Turin at the end of March.
The question of how the EU can accommodate Europe's extraordinary diversity, while at the same time ensuring that" the ties that bind the member states together are sufficiently strong to maintain the stability of the system, is emerging, as one of the key issues facing the IGC. Moreover, it is one of the key questions facing Irish negotiations.
Dermot Scott, in a recently published booklet by the Institute of European Affairs*, argues that "Ireland's overriding concern at the 1996 IGC may well be whether it, emerges as part of the inner circle of the Union, the core, or is forced to opt for the less integrated outer circle or non core".
Although the EU has always been faced with the tension between integration and diversity, it is a much more acute dilemma for the Union at this stage of its development for a number of reasons.
First, the Union faces the challenge of a continental enlargement with the prospect of up to 10 additional member States by 2005. Future enlargements are not like those of the past because of the number of potential applicants and their level of economic development.
Second, existing Treaty provisions for one of the Union's primary goals Economic and Monetary Union - specifically allow for the involvement of a restricted group of states. Third, there is considerable conflict among the existing member states about the future of the Union.
Some member states, notably the UK, have a very minimalist approach to the IGC which is in sharp contrast to the aspirations of most of the continental member states. That old conflict between the integrationist states and those that favoured minter governmental co operation, once embodied in the EEC and EFTA, is now found within the Union itself.
For all of these reasons, different political forces have coined a bewildering range of terms - a Europe of concentric circles, an a la carte Europe, variable geometry Europe, flexibility, two tier, and two speed Europe and so on to conjure up a Europe which can accommodate divergent attitudes towards European integration and the diversity of national situations.
Behind all of these terms lie differing conceptions about the geographical reach of Union policies, decision rules and institutional design. Agreement may well be found at the IGC to include a "flexibility" clause in the new Treaty which would allow a limited group of states to deepen their ties without waiting for all member states to come on board.
This may be the only way that the Union can widen its membership while at the same time deepening integration. Otherwise it might disintegrate into a loose free trade area. Put simply, the creation of a core or an avant garde may be both necessary and desirable for the Union at this stage.
Although desirable for the Union, greater flexibility raises particular problems for this country. Ireland's European policy has never favoured "variable geometry" or other such devices because of the danger that Ireland might find itself in the second tier of a two tier Europe or in the outer ring of a Europe of concentric circles. At this IGC Irish negotiators may have to agree to a flexibility clause or some such formula as the price of a new Treaty.
DEBATE on greater flexibility comes at a time when Ireland's ability and willingness to participate fully in all aspects of Union activity is open to question. It is as yet unclear whether Ireland can meet the convergence criteria for membership of EMU, and even if this is achieved, whether Ireland should, in fact, join given the UK opt out. In addition, developments concerning the common foreign and security policy, particularly in relation to defence, are extremely sensitive for any Irish Government.
The tone and tenor of the debate so far on the White Paper's suggestion that Ireland might join the Nato sponsored Partnership for Peace shows just how retarded the discussion in Ireland is about security in the new Europe. Other areas where there might be recourse to greater flexibility such as co operation on justice and home affairs may also cause some problems for Ireland.
The question from an Irish perspective may well be how a flexibility clause would be applied both in terms of general principles and institutional structures. As always in these matters the devil is in the detail. The following criteria appear appropriate and sensible*:
. any avant garde or core should be open to the eventual participation of all willing states;
. States that are unable to participate fully at a particular time should be given assistance and support from their partners to help them join;
. States that have opted out of particular activities should not interfere with or under mine those deepening their co operation nor should they not have full rights in decision making;
. the Court of Justice and the Commission should have an enhanced role in policing all forms of differentiated integration;
. no state should have a permanent opt out from an agreed Union goal.
Difficult questions remain about who should finance additional activities and how the overall structure of the Union would work. Paradoxically, greater flexibility will require stronger rather than weaker central institutions to manage a more diverse range of decision rules and activities.
Enhanced flexibility offers a path to deeper integration while allowing individual states deal with particularly sensitive issues, but the emergence of a permanent or semi permanent core of which Ireland is not a member would alter the quality of Ireland's membership of the Union and its place in the Union's political hierarchy.