WITH SEVEN weeks to go before the Amsterdam summit is due to agree reforms of the EU treaties, the Tanaiste has laid out the key Government objectives and called for continued EU financial support for Ireland.
The costs of EU enlargement, Mr Spring said, "must not be met at the expense of the EU's programmes in the existing 15". Mr Spring was referring to the concern that the accession of less developed central and east European states will divert EU structural, cohesion and agricultural funding away from Ireland.
He acknowledged that Ireland's output per head was now at the EU average, and that the benefits received from the EU regional policy had contributed substantially to the rise of GDP per capita from just 64 per cent of the EU average a decade ago.
But, speaking at the European Public Information Centre in Dublin yesterday, Mr Spring said a great deal still needed to be done here after 1999 to secure Ireland's long term competitiveness.
"Our economic growth, dramatic though it is, is far too recent to allow the build up of wealth which would allow us to do this on our own.
He said he was confident the European Commission, in bringing forward its proposals after the conclusion of the Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) for the financing of an enlarged Union, would make provision for Ireland's continuing development needs.
In particular, he said, agriculture was a crucial cornerstone of the economy, and was under pressure from various sources. "It is essential that appropriate provision be made for the agricultural sector and for rural development generally," be said.
He strongly defended the right of all member states to nominate an EU Commission member. Some member states have proposed that this right be taken away on the grounds that an enlarged EU would produce an unworkably large Commission.
Mr Spring said other member states must take account of Irish concerns on this issue, just as Ireland is sensitive to the concerns of its partners.
"No member state attaches greater importance than Ireland to an effective and independent Commission," be said. "We continue to believe that preserving the right of all memberstates to nominate a full member of the Commission is not only compatible with that objective, but necessary for the effectiveness of the Commission."
On the proposed strengthening of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy - the EU's "second pillar" - Mr Spring suggested the introduction of the concept of "constructive abstention" rather than the introduction of majority voting throughout the "second pillar".
This would permit Ireland or other memberstates to abstain on certain issues, allowing the rest of the EU to proceed with certain foreign policy actions while not committing Ireland to supporting them.
On the more general proposal of introducing "flexibility or enhanced cooperation" into EU decision making, Mr Spring expressed caution.
"Flexibility" would allow some member states to proceed with co-operation on certain issues, while those who dissent could opt out of cooperation on the particular issues.
Mr Spring warned against the development of a two speed Europe through the introduction of such flexibility. "The single institutional framework must be preserved," he said. "Enhanced cooperation should essentially be a last resort."
He agreed that the number of decision making procedures in EU institutions should be reduced, and that qualified majority voting should be extended in the "first pillar" of the EU - that concerning the Single Market.