OPNINION/Garret FitzGeraldA convention in Brussels, attended by representatives of the governments and national parliaments of all 25 existing and candidate member-states and applicants, and of the European parliaments and the Commission, is currently preparing proposals for what will in effect be a draft Constitution for the European Union.
The work of the European convention is well advanced, and by the end of April the threads of its deliberations will have been drawn together, for it intends to report by the end of June to a subsequent Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), which will use this report as a basis for a reformed structure of the enlarged Union. There is uncertainty as to the procedure by which plenary sessions of the convention will reach their decisions.
But it should be made clear that the procedure of the convention differs fundamentally from that of the EU community institutions, within which there are well-defined provisions as to what decisions require unanimity and what can be decided by qualified majority voting. Moreover within the traditional community system, legislation can be enacted only if proposed by the Commission - which is the guardian of the general European interest and of the interests of smaller states.
By contrast, in the convention any of its members - including government representatives - can make proposals for recommendations to be adopted by "consensus". And "consensus" may mean by a majority - perhaps, but not certainly, a large majority - of its members present. Once adopted in this way, such proposals may be very difficult to revisit at the subsequent IGC - especially where they have the support of governments of most large member-states. For no one will thank any government for reopening matters in the IGC in relation to which it had failed to press, and gain some support for, its view in the course of the deliberations of the convention.
This "open debate" approach has been designed to enable parliamentarians, both national and European, to play a much larger role than they are usually permitted to do at home. And there are in fact heartening signs that this is leading to some proposals that would make the community more open and democratic - with more emphasis than some governments may want to see on issues like human rights.
There is, of course, no precedent in Europe or elsewhere for this kind of operation, which is like a breath of fresh air in a system that over time has become a little stale. In a sense, it is a very democratic procedure, in that Opposition as well as Government representatives from both member-states and applicants are actively engaged in the process. In that respect it can be said to reflect the views of the peoples of Europe in a way that has never previously been possible.
It could work well - but only if all concerned, governments and parliamentarians, are equally actively engaged with it. However a potential imbalance has now started to arise because of the recent appearance at the convention of the foreign ministers of France and Spain as well as Germany, whilst the foreign ministers of other states, including Ireland, are still absent.
Recognising the danger that this development could pose for smaller countries, the Belgian, Swedish and Greek governments have now arranged to be represented by their foreign ministers, and others may now follow suit. In the light of all this, our Government clearly needs urgently to review its stance on its representation at the convention. For, even leaving aside the large state versus small state issue, the fact is that Ireland has some particular, one might say unique, concerns in at least two important areas, which could be affected by recommendations by the convention.
First of all, some of the larger continental states, with much higher corporate taxation levels than ours, want to see some harmonisation of tax levels - not just because our low corporate taxes have diverted so much industrial investment to Ireland, but because some applicant states are showing signs of following our example in this respect.
Of course we are not the only country resisting harmonisation of tax rates - so are Britain, Sweden and Luxembourg. But Swedish concerns are the opposite of ours: the Swedes fear pressure to lower their very high tax rates. Britain also has a somewhat different concern from ours and it is at least conceivable that the interests of either or both of these two countries might be met by provisions directed towards their special needs, leaving Ireland uncomfortably isolated.
Moreover, there is another important respect in which we differ from all other member-states. We are like Britain, and unlike other member-states, a common law country - but Ireland is unique in being a common law state with a quite rigid written Constitution. And this means that in the justice and immigration area, where major changes are under way at the European level, we have potential problems that need special attention - problems that our partners, to whom neither the common law system nor our Constitution are familiar, will have difficulty in grappling with.
These legal matters need to be addressed in a very positive way, by actively seeking to find solutions to problems, rather than by being vocally defensive on these issues, for we simply cannot afford to be seen to be difficult on too many fronts at once. Our success in the second Nice referendum has not wiped out memories of our earlier negative vote on enlargement, and Ireland is not at present "flavour of the month" with many of its partners.
It implies no criticism whatever of the present energetic Government representative, Dick Roche, to say that it is now vitally important that for the next six months the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, who meets his opposite numbers on equal terms, be our Government delegate at the convention. At this stage his presence would be seen as an indication that we are taking the convention seriously, and thus could increase the capacity of our delegates to influence its outcome in relation to matters of serious concern to Ireland.
I know that this will impose a heavy burden on Brian Cowen at a time when he will also be heavily engaged, together with the Taoiseach, in attempting to achieve a final resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. But we simply cannot afford to risk losing out on European issues of vital importance to us - and it is not flattery to say that we are lucky at present to have a Minister with the qualities necessary to handle both these problems simultaneously. I hope that in his address to the Institute of European Affairs next Wednesday, he may be in a position to address this issue of convention representation.