Committee Reports::Report No. 14 - European Parliament Draft Treaty Establishing the European Union::20 March, 1985::Report

1.The Joint Committee at its meeting on 7 November, 1984, decided that its Sub-Committee on Social, Environmental and Miscellaneous Matters and its Sub-Committee on Statutory Instruments and Legal Affairs would jointly examine the European Parliament draft Treaty establishing the European Union and draw up a Report containing a specific request for a debate thereon in the Dáil and Seanad.

Acknowledgements

2.The Report was prepared by Deputy Maurice Manning who chaired the joint meetings of the Sub-Committees. The Joint Committee is indebted to Deputy Manning and his colleagues on the Sub-Committees for their dedicated work.

Written submissions were received from the Irish Council of the European Movement and the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Finance.

The Joint Committee gratefully acknowledges the cooperation it received from the Government Departments and other bodies who made their views known to it.

The Joint Committee wishes to thank the Delegation of the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, led by its Chairman, Mr. Altiero Spinelli MEP, which visited this country in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the Resolution accompanying the draft Treaty, for its courtesy and practical help on that occasion (see para 4 below).

The Joint Committee is particularly appreciative of the unsparing assistance given to it in the preparation of the Report by Mr. Dermot Scott, Deputy Head of Information in Ireland, European Parliament, Dublin.

Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee

3.When the question of discussing the draft Treaty arose the Joint Committee considered whether the subject came within its Orders of Reference. While it acknowledges that the matter may not be free from doubt it believes that the Resolution passed by the European Parliament on 14 February 1984 adopting the draft Treaty technically brings the matter within its competence. The Joint Committee may, within its Orders of Reference, examine and report on “acts of the institutions of those Communities”. It is not altogether clear how this phrase should be interpreted in relation to the European Parliament but it would seem reasonable to regard it as comprehending Resolutions of that body and this view would appear to be in line with those expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Seanad on 26 July, 1973 [Official Report, vol 75, cols 766-767].

The Joint Committee believes that its Report on the draft Treaty will be of assistance to members of the Houses and particularly to those members who are also members of the European Parliament. The latter, under the Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee, are allowed to attend and take part (without, however, having the right to vote) in its proceedings.

The Joint Committee hopes that its Report will serve to mobilise debate in the Dail and Seanad on the very important concept of the European Union. Accordingly, it makes a specific request to have the Report debated in both Houses at the earliest possible opportunity.

Consultations

4.The Sub-Committees had discussions on the draft Treaty with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, representatives from the Irish Council of the European Movement and Mr. Dermot Scott.

A delegation of the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament comprising Mr. Altiero Spinelli MEP, Chairman of the Committee and coordinating rapporteur of the draft Treaty, Mr. Richie Ryan MEP, Mr. Lambert Croux MEP and MM Anne Marie Lizin MEP visited Ireland and attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on 6 February 1985. Members availed of this opportunity for an in-depth discussion of the draft Treaty with the delegates from the European Parliament.

In the course of a visit by a delegation of the Joint Committee to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 12 February 1985, members had further discussions with the Committee on Institutional Affairs.

Background Considerations

5.In the preparation of the Report the Joint Committee has adverted particularly to a number of considerations, such as:

-the development of the idea of European Union since 1945, and stated Irish views on it;

-the level of support shown for the draft Treaty in the European Parliament and in the Member States;

-the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, chaired by Senator James Dooge;

-the likelihood of far-reaching developments taking place in the near future, and the possible timetable;

-the need to evolve a coherent and persuasive Irish negotiating position in advance of these developments;

6.Following a summary of the provisions of the draft Treaty, the above background considerations are developed. They are followed by a consideration of the major issues which the draft Treaty poses for Ireland, and by a chapter commenting briefly on the content of the draft Treaty article by article. The Joint Committee then states its views and its conclusions.

Origin and preparation of draft Treaty

7.The initiative which led to the draft Treaty came from Mr. Altiero Spinelli MEP, an Italian and former member of the Commission of the European Communities. Mr. Spinelli was elected to the European Parliament in 1979, and decided to follow the strategy predicted for an elected European Parliament: that it would press for a full union of the peoples of Europe, and that it would do so by a direct appeal to public opinion and political leadership of the Member States, avoiding the pitfalls of diplomatic negotiation.

8.Mr Spinelli first created an informal cross-party grouping of members of different nationalities, which drew up a motion for a Resolution asserting the “need for Parliament to take the initiative in giving a new impetus to the creation of European Union”.

The European Parliament adopted this Resolution in 1981 and the Committee on Institutional Affairs was then established. The Parliament debated the broad outlines of policy in July 1982. The Committee then appointed six rapporteurs to make proposals on the principal aspects of the draft Treaty. Their contributions were drawn together by Mr Spinelli, who presented an overall package to the Parliament in September, 1983, outlining the substance of the proposal. This was in turn approved and given to a team of international lawyers for elaboration into treaty form.

9.The impetus behind the Parliament’s initiative was the frustration and difficulty experienced by the directly elected European Parliament of 1979 in implementing its policies within the framework of the existing institutions and decision-making procedures. The authors of the draft Treaty, of whom Mr Spinelli as coordinating rapporteur was principal architect, see their initiative as a proposal to reform and relaunch the Community, transforming it into a full political and economic union endowed with the authority and institutions which would enable it to function to maximum effect.

Adoption

10.The draft Treaty establishing the European Union was adopted by the European Parliament on 14 February, 1984 by 237 votes (a majority of the Parliament’s total membership of 434) to 31 with 43 abstentions (see Appendix 1 for the voting pattern of Irish MEPs). The Resolution accompanying the draft Treaty was adopted by 237 votes to 32 with 34 abstentions. The Resolution instructs the President of the European Parliament to submit the draft Treaty to the Parliaments and Governments of the Member States. Secondly, it calls on the newly elected European Parliament “to arrange all appropriate contacts and meetings with the National Parliaments and to take any other useful initiatives to enable it to take account of the opinions and comments of the National Parliaments”. Its third point “hopes that the Treaty. . . . .will ultimately be approved by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures”. The Resolution was noted by the Foreign Affairs Council of 13 March 1984 without discussion. The draft Treaty was submitted to the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach by the President of the European Parliament who visited Dublin for the purpose on 12 July 1984. Copies of the draft Treaty were subsequently circulated to all members of the Oireachtas.

B. SUMMARY OF DRAFT TREATY

Structure of the Document

Preamble

12.The Preamble states that the aim of the European Union is to continue and revive the democratic unification of Europe by means of more efficient and more democratic institutions and on the basis of the principles of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Preamble also restates the objectives of peace and liberty and international cooperation and refers to the role of local and regional authorities and to the principle of subsidiarity on which Community action must be based.

Part One - The Union

13.This Part provides that any democratic European State may apply for membership and that fundamental rights and freedoms shall be protected. Citizenship of the Union is conferred on citizens of the Member States. The Union would take over the Community “patrimony” and the provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Communities would constitute part of the law of the Union. There is provision for transitional recognition of the acts of the European Communities. The institutions of the Union are declared to be the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the European Council.

Part Two - The Objectives, Methods of Action and Competences of the Union

14.The common needs of European citizens and modern European society are outlined in the objectives of the Union, both internal and external. In the case of internal objectives the traditional economic and social aims of the Communities are to be coupled with endeavours to attain full employment, the elimination of regional imbalances, environmental protection and the requirement to give the Union the capacity to adapt itself to changes in the economic situation. Insofar as external objectives are concerned numerous aspects of international relations, including political and, potentially, security aspects, are to be coupled with the economic and development policy objectives of the Communities which are reiterated in the text.

(ii)cooperation, which means all the commitments which the Member States undertake within the European Council.

Transfer from cooperation to common action is provided for but not the reverse procedure, except for foreign policy matters. The principle of subsidiarity, whereby the Union shall act only to carry out those tasks which may be undertaken more effectively in common than by the Member States acting separately, governs the degree to which a matter is the competence of the Union.

Part Three: Title 1 - Institutional Provisions

15.The institutions of the Union are the same as those of the Community with the addition of the European Council. These provisions distribute legislative power between the Parliament and the Council of the Union. The Parliament would be elected by the rules at present in force. The Council is called the Council of the Union. Each national representation in the Council must be headed by a Minister permanently and specifically responsible for European affairs. The existing provisions for the European Council (i.e. Heads of State or Government) are formalised for the first time.

Voting would be according to the rules of the European Communities. Recognition is accorded, but only for a transitional period of ten years, to the use of a national veto.

The Commission would become the executive arm of the Union. It is the President of the Commission (appointed by the national Governments) who would appoint the rest of the Commission but the Commission may only take up office with the endorsement of Parliament. Insofar as the Court of Justice is concerned half its members would be appointed by the Parliament and half by the Council of the Union.

There is also provision for “organs of the Union” which correspond to existing bodies - Court of Auditors, Economic and Social Committee, EIB and EMS, etc.

Part Three: Title 11 - Acts of the Union

16.The title stipulates that the Parliament and the Council of the Union would jointly exercise legislative authority with the active participation of the Commission. The power of legislative initiative normally falls to the Commission but, subject to certain reservations, initiatives may also be taken by one of the two arms of the legislative authority. The joint exercise by the Parliament and Council of decision-making power is governed by a fixed system of successive readings by both and by the rule under which if either does not take a decision within the appointed time “the draft shall be deemed to have been adopted”.

In addition to standard laws (which will replace the present Community regulations and directives), provision has also been made for organic laws, which demand a broad consensus in Parliament and the Council, because their purpose is to define fundamental aspects of the Union’s activities.

The draft Treaty provides that the law of the Union would be directly applicable in Member States and would take precedence over national law. The Community rules governing judicial review would apply and would be supplemented by an organic law for the protection of fundamental rights.

Sanctions are proposed in cases of serious and persistent violation of the Treaty by a Member State. They extend to suspension from the Union.

Part Four - The Policies of the Union

17.The introductory general provisions of this Part provide that the Union would take over the Community patrimony: and that the structural and conjunctural policies of the Union would promote “. . . . . . . . the progressive elimination of the existing imbalances between its various areas and regions”. The method of cooperation can also be used to coordinate national law to reinforce the consciousness of individual citizens that they are citizens of the Union and to fight international crime.

This Part contains three Titles - Economic Policy, Policy for Society, and International Relations. Tasks, competences and powers of the Union are laid down in the areas of the internal market and freedom of movement, competition, conjunctural policy (short-term economic policy) and in regard to the European Monetary System on the basis of concurrent competence of the Union and the Member States.

The sectoral policies provided for are in the areas of transport, telecommunications, research and development, and industry. They also include agriculture and fisheries and acknowledge the fact that Union aims in this area are already partly expressed in the Common Agricultural Policy. The aims of the CAP are subsumed in the Treaty as objectives of the Union.

The general provisions of the Title relating to Policy for Society provides that the Union shall have concurrent competence in the field of social, consumer protection, regional, environmental, education, research, cultural and information policies.

Article 58 on the Regional policy of the Union provides for reducing regional disparities and, in particular, the development of the least-favoured regions.

The concept of additionality, i.e. the Union to supplement the regional policy of Member States, is laid down and direct allocation of funds to the regions concerned is envisaged.

The principles and methods of action of the Title dealing with International Relations of the Union are defined as “the achievement of peace through the peaceful settlement of conflicts and towards security, the deterrence of aggression, detente, the mutual balanced and verifiable reduction of military forces and armaments, respect for human rights, the raising of living standards in the third world, the expansion and improvement of international, economic and monetary relations in general and trade in particular and the strengthening of international organisation”.

In the field of commercial policy the Union is to continue to have exclusive competence.

Development aid policy becomes a common policy after a ten year transitional period.

In carrying out its competences in the field of external economic relations the Union would be represented by the Commission to which the Council may give guidelines.

Diplomatic and political relations, including political and economic aspects of security, are to be dealt with by the European Council through the method of cooperation and the Council of the Union will be responsible for their implementation. The European Council (Heads of State or Government) may extend the field of cooperation, in particular as regards armaments, sales of arms to non-Member States, defence policy and disarmament.

There are elaborate provisions in Article 68 for transfers from the field of cooperation within the European Council to common action within the competence of the Union, as well as as for the reverse procedure.

Part Five - The Finances of the Union

18.The general provisions of this Part state that the Union would have its own finances, administered by its institutions, on the basis of the budget adopted by the budgetary authority (the European Parliament and the Council of the Union) and that the revenue of the Union would be utilised to guarantee the implementation of common actions undertaken by the Union.

The revenue articles lay down that when the Treaty enters into force, the revenue of the Union shall be of the same kind as that of the European Communities. The Union would be able to “amend the nature of the basis of assessment of existing sources of revenue or create new ones” i.e. it can control “own resources” as it sees fit and without having to consult national Parliaments.

The development of expenditure is determined by the Union’s common policies and actions. All expenditure would be subject to the same budgetary procedure, i.e. there is no provision for distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure.

Article 73 provides for a system of financial equalisation aimed at alleviating excessive economic imbalances between the regions.

Article 75 on the Budget provides for procedures similar to those in operation under the Community Treaties but a new Financial Regulation is to be established by an organic law.

Part Six - Final Provision

19.Entry into force of the Treaty does not require ratification by all Member States but only by a majority of the Member States whose population represents two thirds of the total population of the Communities.

The actual date of entry into force would then be determined “by common accord”, of those States which have done so. They would also decide on relations with Member States of the Communities which have not so ratified.

C. BACKGROUND TO CONCEPT OF EUROPEAN UNION

Development of the concept of European Union

20.European integration - whether as a federation, union or united states of Europe - came to the fore following World War II. It stemmed from a desire to eliminate intra-European conflict, to speed economic reconstruction, to avoid domination by the two superpowers, and to take advantage of the economies of scale provided by a continental market. Some also saw it as a means of reasserting the rights of provinces or communities swamped by nation states.

Several institutions were founded. Some, like the Council of Europe or OEEC (later OECD) were intergovernmental. Other were to a greater or lesser extent supranational - the European Coal and Steel Community, the EEC and Euratom - and were mainly economic in character. An attempt was also made to channel European defence and German rearmament into a Community mould, through the European Defence Community (EDC) and European Political Community (EPC), but this was unsuccessful; a later attempt to inject a defence aspect (the Fouchet plan of 1961) was also a failure.

21.At the Paris summit of 1972 the Nine called for the achievement of a European Union by 1980, and subsequently asked Mr Tindemans to report on how to achieve it. The Tindemans Report (1975) on strengthening the Community suggested that a two-tier Community might develop, with differing degrees of participation. This was judged unacceptable, and for this and other reasons the report was shelved.

Meanwhile the original areas of cooperation provided by the Treaties were being widened. European Political Cooperation (EPC) - completely separate from the Treaties - was started in 1970 and grew quickly in rhythm and scope. A Regional Fund was added in the mid-1970s. The European Council came into being in 1975. Monetary cooperation, starting with the “snake”, developed into the European Monetary System (EMS) in 1979, again outside the Treaties.

22.However, the ad hoc nature of these developments, coupled with a perceived need for better cooperation, and frustration over the delays caused by the wrangles over money and by the failure to allow majority voting in the Council, led Community leaders to conclude that new initiatives were needed. The main developments so far have been:

(1)The Genscher-Colombo proposals, adopted by the European Council as the solemn Declaration on European Union (Stuttgart, 1983);

(3)The establishment by the European Council of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, on the lines of the Spaak Committee of the 1950s, of which Senator Dooge is chairman (Fontainebleau, June 1984).

23.The following quotations from leading Irish politicians over the period 1962 - 85 show, with varying emphases, the basic commitment of Irish Governments to pursuing European Union:

“It is natural that we in Ireland should regard with keen and sympathetic interest every genuine attempt to being the peoples of Europe closer together. . . . . . .We were happy at the development of a strong movement towards closer European Union. . . .In the Bonn Declaration (February 1961) [the Member States] reaffirmed their resolve to develop their political cooperation with a view to the union of their peoples and set in motion procedures designed to give statutory form to this union. I desire to emphasise that the political aims of the Community are aims to which the Irish Government and people are ready to subscribe and in the realisation of which they wish to take an active part”.

-Sean Lemass, addressing the Ministers of the Member States, Brussels, 18 January 1962.

“We have always accepted and said publicly as far back as 1970 that a new political entity could develop out of the process of integration to which we are committed and which was endorsed by our people in a referendum”.

“When full economic and monetary union has been achieved, and when Ireland’s per capita income is at least 80 per cent of the Community average and rising, instead of 61 per cent as it is today, then the question as far as we are concerned may be reopened. But this assumes steady progress to convergence, which is conspicuously lacking today”.

“The attitude of this Government is quite clear: we wish to build on the Treaty foundations”.

“In recent years the Community has been stumbling from one crisis to another. We need in Europe to take quickly the necessary decisions to recreate a sense of direction and a new momentum in the Community. . . . . .In my view the various aspects of European progress are indivisible. It will be the Government’s endeavour to ensure that European integration proceeds in a balanced way, that political integration and coordination is paralleled by a convergence of the economies of the Member States”.

“There is no possibility of securing a common direction of economic policy in the interests of all the inhabitants of an area if 99% of the resources are held back to be disposed of at local - which in the case of the present Community means national - level. I fear that failure to face this reality......may in the end make real, as distinct from paper, progress towards European Union impossible”.

-Garret FitzGerald, at Centre for European Policy Studies Dinner, Brussels, 22 November 1984.

“Ireland’s principal reservation to date must be a scepticism as to how a political union can exist without a full economic union to underpin it. . . . .We in Ireland have always been in favour of genuine economic and social integration. . . .that will involve a fair redistribution of resources throughout the Community. . . . . .”

The case for moving from the present situation to a European Union

24.The Community’s original objectives, which are subsumed within the draft Treaty, are: to contribute to world peace; to enable a united Europe to contribute fully to civilisation; to merge essential interests in place of old rivalries and thus lay the foundations of an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe; to improve living and working conditions; to strengthen the European economies, etc.

At the most basic level, the Community’s present objectives can be summarised as follows:

-to avoid wars between the European nations

-to take advantage of a continental-sized economy

-thus to be better able to compete with the rest of the world, especially the USA, Japan and the newly-industrialising countries

-to provide assistance from Europe to the developing countries

-to promote Europe’s cultural civilisation and identity

-to cooperate, outside but in parallel with the Community, on foreign policy, in order to give Europe’s political priorities full expression on the world stage.

25.The reasons usually given by proponents of the draft Treaty for moving to European Union are:

-European Union was intended always as the eventual goal, as reaffirmed in 1961 (Bonn Declaration), 1972 (Paris Summit) and 1983 (Stuttgart European Council), and it is the completion of a process already begun

-it has been delayed by various national obstructions, but must now be pursued because of Europe’s increasingly difficult economic and political situation

-failure to make progress probably entails movement backwards as bottlenecks multiply and budget problems deepen

-many aspects of Community activity, such as the Regional Development Fund, European Political Cooperation and the EMS, have grown up over the last twenty-five years and are not covered by the original Treaties, while the Treaties themselves require updating, revision and codification after the same period

-new policies are needed, where the Member States can act more effectively as one

-effective decision-making depends on eventual acceptance of majority voting, but majority voting in turn depends on the security and confidence with which Member States view their membership of and commitment to the Community or the Union

-the object is not size for its own sake, nor nostalgia for European domination.

The draft Treaty specifically includes the principle of subsidiarity, by which administrative activity is carried out at the nearest possible level to the citizen. The intention therefore is for the Union to have responsibility for the things best done at a Continental scale, e.g. the customs union, competition policy, international trade negotiations, external relations, research and development policy, public procurement, transport infrastructure, environmental matters, economic and monetary union. There is no provision for European criminal law, police or education, or for many other normal aspects of a federal state, such as a flag, anthem or army.

D. REACTION OF MEMBER STATES TO DRAFT TREATY

26.The draft Treaty provides that its entry into force does not require ratification by all Member States but only by a majority whose population represents two thirds of the Community’s total population.

The draft Treaty was submitted by the European Parliament to the Parliaments and Governments of the Member States, in the hope that it would ultimately be approved by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. The reaction to this initiative so far is summarised below.

Belgium

The Chamber of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution on 24 May 1984, calling on the Government to open negotiations with the other Member States on the draft Treaty and to embark on the ratification procedure as swiftly as possible, and to encourage the other Member States to do so. A parallel text was introduced in the Senate on 20 March 1984.

Denmark

A resolution rejecting the draft Treaty was adopted on 29 May 1984, by 134 votes to 30, with 2 abstentions.

Federal Republic of Germany

Parliamentary committees have tabled resolutions generally welcoming the draft Treaty and promising to report on it within a year. The vote on the most recent resolution was approved unanimously, with the “Greens” abstaining.

France

The appropriate Delegations of the National Assembly and Senate both reported on the draft Treaty in some detail, welcoming some aspects and pointing to difficulties elsewhere, either of inadequacy or of over-optimism. However, the National Assembly Delegation, in its final paragraph, “considers that a new situation calls for a new Treaty and that the construction of Europe cannot be advanced unless the Community is provided with the means to establish an institutional system capable of expressing political will”.

Italy

The Chamber of Deputies unanimously adopted a resolution on 14 February 1984, pledging itself to embark at once on the procedure for ratification, and called on the Government to support it. Similar resolutions were adopted by the Senate on 10 May 1984 and 15 July 1984.

27.At the political level, the major development has been the support expressed for the draft Treaty by President Mitterrand (Strasbourg, 24 May 1984) and the subsequent establishment by the Fontainebleau Summit of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs (Dooge Committee), whose Interim Report is referred to below.

All Member States agreed to participate in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, and the participants act as the personal representatives of the Heads of Government. The Interim Report (December 1984) makes clear the identity of view of the original six members (the representatives of the Heads of Government of Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). Ireland’s representative, Senator Dooge, agreed with them on all points save on the issue of security. The British, Danish and Greek representatives had many more reservations.

28.Other Community leaders to have spoken positively about the draft Treaty or the movement towards European Union include:

Belgium

Mr Tindemans, the Foreign Minister, at the EPP congress (5 April 1984) and Mr Martens, the Prime Minister, in Le Point.

Federal Republic of Germany

Chancellor Kohl has spoken on repeated occasions: “Everything must be done to speed up our progress on the road to European integration” (statement supporting Mr Mitterrand’s speech, 24 May 1984); “We should seriously consider negotiating a new Treaty which does justice to the necessary institutional and political development of the Community” (The Times, 18 January 1985 - interview on the occasion of Mrs Thatcher’s visit to Bonn); “The principle according to which one sticks to the pace of the slowest member is not a good principle; in any case I am determined - as is President Mitterrand - to make an initial decisive step this year in this direction”. (European Management Forum, Davos, 1 February 1985).

France

Mr Dumas, Minister for European Affairs (now Foreign Minister), announcing French Government support (24 May 1984), Mrs Simone Veil, Mr Jean Pierre Cot, Mr Pierre Pflimlin, Mr Giscard d’Estaing, Mr Edgar Faure and various lists of intellectuals, scientists, Nobel prize-winners etc.

Italy

Spokesmen for all political parties: Mr Craxi, Prime Minister (29 March 1984); Mr Pertini, President of the Republic (26 May 1984); spokesmen for regional authorities and for both sides of industry on various occasions.

Netherlands

Queen Beatrix (at the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 17 February 1984); Mr R Lubbers, Prime Minister in E1 Pais (4 June 1984), and at the EPP congress (5 April 1984).

United Kingdom

The Alliance parties are generally in support, and the other parties either silent or opposed. Mrs Thatcher’s submission to the Fontainebleau meeting of the European Council and subsequent statements by government spokesmen contain many practical ideas for improving and extending existing Community activities.

Spain

The President of the Senate declared his support and that of the Prime Minister for the draft Treaty (Brussels, 23 March 1984).

Portugal

The Prime Minister announced his government’s support in Lisbon (29 May 1984).

29.The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) issued a statement in December 1984 in which it states that “better functioning of the European institutions will not suffice on its own to speed up the European integration process or to lend it a new quality. The present Treaty already provides, in important areas, that competences of Member States should be transferred to the Communities. Democratic control of opinion is denied to national Parliaments in these fields. It is thus essential that the European institutions be democratised so that they do not become bodies where Ministers, officials and diplomats have more decision-making power than the democratically elected members of the European Parliament. Far-reaching reforms are needed to ensure that there is competence at European level to solve problems which will require a solution at that level and which cannot be solved other than at that level. The ETUC considers that “the draft Treaty establishing the European Union. . . . . . .aims in that direction. Although the draft Treaty does not provide an adequate answer to all the problems it nevertheless indicates the course to be followed. . .[The] alternative to the European Union approaches survival in mediocrity. . [The] ETUC calls upon all of the Parliaments of Western European countries to take account of the European Parliament’s will to establish the European Union. . . .”

30.The Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, which speaks for both sides of industry organised at the European level, has also come out strongly in favour of moves towards European Union, e.g. the statement of its Chairman, Mr. Muhr, to the Dooge Committee (31 January 1985),

E. THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

(The Dooge Committee)

31.President Mitterrand, when addressing the European Parliament on 24 May 1984, proposed preparatory conversations which could lead to a conference of interested Member States to examine the further process of European integration on the basis of the draft Treaty and the Solemn Declaration on European Union. The Fontainebleau European Council on 26 June 1984 responded to this proposal by establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs. This Committee chaired by Senator Dooge comprises the personal representatives of the Heads of Government of the Member States. (1) It is charged with drawing up proposals for improving European cooperation both within the Community field and in that of political or any other form of cooperation. An Interim Report was submitted to the European Council meeting in December 1984 in Dublin.

The Joint Committee has borne in mind the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, whose final report is to be submitted to the Brussels European Council (29-30 March 1985).

Parallel between Dooge Interim Report and draft Treaty

32.In a notice to Members of 13 December, 1984, the European Parliament’s Committee on Institutional Affairs drew attention to a number of “striking parallels” between the Interim Report of the Ad Hoc Committee and the draft Treaty.

The matters in the economic field listed as needing further development are very similar to the areas outlined in Title 1 of Part IV of the draft Treaty. The same is true for the sections on the common values of civilisation (corresponding largely with Title 11 of the draft Treaty “Policy for Society”) and the section on external identity (corresponding to Title 111 of the draft Treaty “International Relations of the Union”).

33.The provision for majority voting in the Council, with unanimity required only for new areas of action or new accessions, is similar to the provision for majority voting in the draft Treaty for all matters subject to common action but with unanimity required for transferring new areas to common action.

The provision for a procedure under which “for a transitional period a Member State can plead a vital interest provided it can objectively justify it to the Council, which in turn must ensure with the help of the Commission that the vital interests of the Community as a whole are respected” reflects the provisions of Article 23.3 of the draft Treaty providing for a ten-year transitional period in which a Member State may invoke a vital national interest recognised by the Commission and justified in writing.

34.The provision for “differentiated Community rules, provided such differentiation is limited in time and based solely on economic and social considerations” corresponds to Article 35 of the draft Treaty.

The opposition to the European Council becoming simply another body dealing with the day-to-day business of the Community is along similar lines to the role envisaged under the draft Treaty.

The proposal to strengthen the role of the Commission corresponds to the aim of the draft Treaty. In particular, the method of appointing a new Commission is almost exactly identical to that envisaged in Article 25 of the draft Treaty.

35.The section on the European Parliament is somewhat vaguely worded. However, it takes up the proposals in the draft Treaty for joint decision-making with the Council as regards legislative power, expanding the supervisory role of the Parliament to external relations and giving the Parliament responsibility in decisions on revenue. The reference to the need to standardise voting procedure also reflects Parliament’s wishes.

36.The reference to strengthening the powers of the Court of Justice, although not making any specific proposal, reflects the aims of Article 30 of the draft Treaty.

37.The notice concludes with the suggestion that the parallels are so striking that the Intergovernmental Conference, which it is suggested should follow the June European Council, should take the content of the Dooge report as its guideline and the text of Parliament’s draft Treaty as the document on which to express, article by article, either agreement or a proposal for an amendment. An Intergovernmental Conference to negotiate a draft European Union Treaty is called for in Chapter IV of the Dooge Committee Interim Report, subject to reservations by the British, Danish and Greek members of the Committee. It is understood that the Danish Government has subsequently made clear that it would participate in such a conference if it took place.

Timetable

38.The Dooge Committee has been instructed to report to the European Council in Brussels on 29 and 30 March, 1985 at which its text will almost certainly be published. The Council will give preliminary consideration to the Report which will be considered in detail at the Milan Council (June 1985). The Heads of Government have already agreed to devote a full day to considering the Final Report.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Institutional Affairs will debate a Report on reaction in Member State Parliaments to the draft Treaty at the end of March. This Report will be debated by the European Parliament in Plenary Session together with the Final Dooge Report towards the middle of April.

39.The period between the Brussels summit at the end of March and the Milan summit at the end of June will be used for private and public debate at parliamentary and other levels, and for bilateral contacts between Governments. As noted above, there appears to be majority support for the establishment of an Intergovernmental Conference to negotiate a new Treaty, following the Milan meeting.

It is therefore vital that Irish politicians and civil servants are in a position to negotiate the most favourable outcome for Ireland should such an Intergovernmental Conference take place, for the work of the Conference could be as important to this country as the 1970-72 negotiations to enter the existing Community. Moreover, it appears likely that adherence to a European Union would require a constitutional referendum.

F. GENERAL ISSUES ARISING FROM THE DRAFT TREATY

40.From submission received and discussions with various interested parties seven areas of particular difficulty for Ireland have been isolated by the Joint Committee. They are as follows:

Increased powers for the European Parliament

41.The draft Treaty provides for a considerable strengthening of the role and powers of the European Parliament in Community life vis-a-vis the other Community institutions. The following are amongst the more significant provisions in that regard:

-Should the Council not act on a legislative proposal within a fixed period, it would be deemed adopted

-Parliament would have increased budgetary powers in a context in which the Union would control “own resources” without reference to the national Parliaments.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has misigvings about these provisions and in its submission to the Joint Committee states that even the most advanced Member States would not wish “to enhance the role and powers of Parliament in the absence of balanced progress towards European integration overall”. It also criticises the fact that at no stage in the course of the Spinelli initiative were the Governments of the Member States consulted. Therefore the draft Treaty remains the sole product of Parliament itself.

The Taoiseach in a speech in Brussels on 22 November 1984 stated that “a radical review is required of the role of the second directly elected European Parliament” but added that “any changes to be made in this area will need to be carefully considered so that all can be assured that they would not have such a delaying effect”.

42.The articles relating to the institutions of the Union aim at a fundamental re-alignment of the balance of powers within the European Communities as they exist at present. The Parliament would jointly exercise legislative power with the Council of the Union. There would be difficulties for Ireland, according to the Department, about giving the Parliament an equal voice in the decision-making process in view of the fact that Ireland is represented by only 15 out of a total of 434 MEPs.

This view can be compared with that expressed in the Interim Report of the Dooge Committee. There, the European Parliament is referred to as a guarantor of democracy in the European system. It states that a parliament elected by universal suffrage cannot continue to be restricted to a consultative role.

Against these polarised views the argument has been expressed that Ireland has little to gain from a Community immobilised, and that experience shows that support for causes and objectives that this country shares with other Member States could be better mobilised on a European scale through a stronger European Parliament, as with the regional and social funds, and in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland.

Improvement of the Community’s Decision-Making

43.The Irish Council of the European Movement in its submission to the Joint Committee points to the inadequacy of the recent decision-making which too often includes a requirement for unanimous voting. One of the reasons for strong and very widespread support for the draft Treaty in the European Parliament is the need to overcome the apparent paralysis of the Community, e.g. constant battles over the Budget, renegotiation of terms for new entrants and a log - jam of decision-making because of lack of unanimity and failure to take majority votes.

44.Ireland has generally been cautious about majority voting (e.g. at the 1983 Stuttgart Summit), though it was used during the 1975 Irish Presidency, again in 1982 over farm prices, and subsequently on less controversial occasions. Negotiations in the Council on the application of the milk super levy last year, when the future of the dairying industry in this industry was under severe threat, did not serve to diminish our cautious approach to majority voting.

The Dooge Interim Report suggests the adoption of a new general voting principle. The only decisions which must be unanimous would be those concerning new areas of action or new accessions. Other decisions will be taken by a qualified or simple majority.

Phasing out the veto

“During a transitional period of 10 years, where a representation invokes a vital national interest which is jeopardized by the decision to be taken and recognised as such by the Commission, the vote shall be postponed so that the matter may be re-examined. The grounds for requesting a postponement shall be published”.

This would be the first time that the so called “Luxembourg Compromise” on vital national interest is given legal recognition albeit for a transitional period.

The phasing out of the veto over ten years could cause problems for Ireland. There are relatively few Irish MEPs and Ireland has a relatively less influential position in the Council. The country therefore risks its interests being ignored or overridden if it has no veto in matters of vital national interest.

Ireland’s weak position can be effectively protected only if the gradual phasing out of the veto follows effective redistributive measures in line with Article 45.2 which refers to the progressive elimination of existing imbalances between various areas and regions, Article 58 in relation to regional policy and Article 73 which refers to the alleviation of excessive economic imbalances between the regions.

In his speech referred to above the Taoiseach spoke of the need to limit the abuse of the invocation of vital national interest “to prevent decisions being taken which can by no conceivable objective standards be regarded as affecting the vital national interest of the country in question”. This practice is sometimes woven into a series of complex package deals and has given the Community a deserved reputation for dilatoriness and inaction that has seriously damaged its reputation.

The Dooge Interim Report suggests using the procedure only where a Member State can objectively justify it to the Council which in turn must ensure with the help of the Commission that the vital interests of the Community as a whole are respected. It should be noted that not all Members of the Dooge Committee agreed with this suggestion, five members refusing to recognise such invocations of vital national interest.

Economic convergence

46.In relation to economic aid for less-developed regions the commitment in the draft Treaty to economic convergence (Article 45.2) may be acceptable, but the means to implement that commitment, the regional policy (Articles 58 and 73) may be thought insufficient. In their submission to the Joint Committee the Irish Council of the European Movement state that one of the areas which must be covered in this or other documents of this nature, would be the need for greater safeguards for the development of marginal regions and economies.

The Department of Finance has stated that the provisions on economic policy would immediately and severely constrain national freedom of action in regard to economic policy thus effectively depriving the Government of the right to manage and develop our own economy. These constraints would apply, for example, to actions relating to fiscal policy and to such matters as capital movements, monetary and credit policies and exchange rate policy. The draft Treaty would itself impose, or create the potential for the institutions of the proposed Union to impose, much greater obligations than arise under the existing Treaties.

The draft Treaty would therefore impose an excessive degree of centralised decision-making without giving any clear-cut guarantees that parallel progress would be made in equalising incomes and levels of development throughout the Union. Article 45.2, which refers to balanced expansion and the progressive elimination of existing imbalances, would not, as it stands, constitute an adequate guarantee on which to base our participation.

Security and defence

47.According to the Department of Foreign Affairs the draft Treaty contains proposals which would involve fundamental alterations in the form and content of European Political Cooperation as it functions at present. Among the changes proposed in the draft Treaty are the following:

-the establishment of political cooperation on a Treaty basis. At present, political cooperation operates outside the Community treaty framework on the basis of a political commitment.

-the introduction of a substantive role, which it does not have at present, for the Commission in the areas covered by political cooperation.

-possible introduction of an obligation on Member States to adopt common positions in certain areas, even in the areas of defence policy and disarmament.

In the Interim Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, Senator Dooge did not agree to the inclusion of the sections relating to security and defence.

48.The relevant Article of the draft Treaty (Article 68) has the following provisions:

1.The European Council may extend the field of cooperation in particular as regards armaments, sales of arms to non-Member States, defence policy and disarmament.

2.Under the conditions laid down in Article 11 of this Treaty the European Council may decide to transfer a particular field of cooperation to common action in external policy. In that event, the provisions laid down in Article 23.3 [on the invocation of vital national interest] of this Treaty shall apply without any time-limit. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in Article 35 of this Treaty, the Council of the Union, acting unanimously, may exceptionally authorise one or more Member States to derogate from some of the measures taken within the context of common action.

3. By way of derogation from Article 11.2 of this Treaty, the European Council may decide to restore the fields transferred to common action in accordance with paragraph 2 above, either to cooperation or to the competence of the Member States.

4.Under the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 above, the European Council may decide to transfer a specific problem to common action for the period required for its solution. In that event, paragraph 3 above shall not apply.

Fundamental rights and judicial review

49.The Community Treaties do not specifically cater for human rights or the preservation of democratic principles. Article 4.3 provides that within a period of five years after entry into force of the Treaty, The Union is to draw up a list of fundamental rights in accordance with the procedure for revision of the Treaty (i.e. by unanimity). Until such time the Union shall apply the fundamental rights and freedoms derived from the common principles of the constitutions of the Member States and from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is possible that there may be a conflict between this Article and the fundamental rights articles in Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland). However, if this is to be regarded as a minimum standard there is less danger of this occurring. Under Article 43 the Court of Justice will have jurisdiction in this regard.

The Irish Council of the European Movement isolated Article 4 for discussion and at the meeting of the Sub-Committees on 5 February 1985 puzzlement was expressed by the ICEM delegation at its inclusion in the draft Treaty. The role of the Union in this regard and its relationship with the European Court of Human Rights was queried. Article 4 refers to rights derived from the “common principles” of the Constitutions of the Member States and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Ireland has constitutional provisions relating to fundamental rights which are unique. Therefore there could be problems in relation to the fundamental rights articles of our Constitution, e.g. Article 41.3.2° in relation to dissolution of marriage, Article 40.3.3° in relation to the right to life of the unborn.

Two-speed / two-tier Europe

50.Under Article 82 the draft Treaty provides that its entry into force does not require ratification by all Member States but only by a majority whose population represents two-thirds of the Community’s total population. Article 7 presupposes that the coexistence of the Union and the Community is impossible. This would cause little difficulty if all Members of the Community become Members of the Union.

Should the original six countries (plus, possibly, Spain and Portugal) ratify the draft Treaty (perhaps amended), Ireland could be left with the choice of opting in or out. To opt not to join the Union (irrespective of any possible legal difficulties, e.g. whether or not the existing European Community would co-exist with the new Union) would effectively exclude Ireland from the central decision-making process.

51.In any form of Union Member States would in some respects be differentiated but potential development would be open to all. The creation of a two-speed Europe - a division into two classes of Members, divided from each other on a multiplicity of grounds - could essentially destroy the cohesion of the Community. However, it could mean that other states could catch up at different stages.

G. DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE ARTICLES OF THE DRAFT TREATY

PREAMBLE

52.The preamble states that the aim of the European Union is to continue and revive the democratic unification of Europe by means of more democratic institutions and on the basis of the principles of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Preamble also restates the objectives of peace and liberty and international cooperation and refers to the role of local and regional authorities and to the principle of subsidiarity on which Community action must be based. The Preamble can be read in conjunction with Article 12 in relation to competences of the Union:

“The Union shall only act to carry out those tasks which may be undertaken more effectively in common than by the Member States acting separately, in particular those whose execution requires action by the Union because their dimension or effects extend beyond national frontiers.”

While the Union may take action only in those cases where its intervention is likely to be more beneficial than that of the Member States acting in isolation, it is endowed with instruments and procedures for initiating and furthering the appropriate action in such cases.

PART ONE

THE UNION

Article 3 concerns the conferring of citizenship of the Union on citizens of the Member States with the rights and duties attaching thereto. It may not be independently acquired or forfeited. Each Member State retains full control over citizenship.

Article 4 concerns the fundamental rights and freedoms granted to every person coming within the jurisdiction of the Union. The Treaty makes a distinction between fundamental rights and freedoms, which are directly protected, penalties being imposed on the Member States for violation of these which may go as far as suspension, and economic, social and cultural rights which the Union undertakes to maintain and develop. This Article fills a major gap in the Community Treaties which have no provision for a Member State that ceases to be democratic.

Article 7 provides in principle that the acquis communautaire is to be respected. The role of the Union is primarily that of successor to the European Communities. This presupposes that the coexistence of the Union and the Community is impossible. This would cause little difficulty if all Members of the Community became Members of the Union. The Union is therefore to be seen as an entity going beyond the existing Communities whilst at the same time taking over the functions which they discharge.

Article 8 lists the current institutions with the addition of the European Council (Heads of Government) which is formalised for the first time. The existing Council is to be known as the Council of the Union.

PART TWO

THE OBJECTIVES, METHODS OF ACTION AND COMPETENCES OF THE UNION

Article 9 lays down broadly defined objectives as in the as in the EEC Treaty in the social sphere, the economic sphere, international relations and the sphere of development cooperation.

Cooperation: Acts of Member States following agreements made in the European Council.

Article 11 states that there may be a transfer from cooperation to common action (by unanimity) but not vice versa.

Article 12 contains provisions relating to the competences of the Union and Member States. It reinforces the principle of subsidiarity stated in the Preamble (see paragraph 52).

Article 13 is equivalent to Article 5 of the EEC Treaty. Members are to abstain from any measures which would jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the Union. This Article can be read in conjunction with Article 44 which relates to sanctions, including suspension, for serious and persistent violations of the Treaty principles.

PART THREE

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Articles 14 to 19 contain nothing new. However, Article 16 refers to “the other powers attributed to it by this Treaty”.

The Council of the Union replaces the existing Council of Ministers and is brought into the framework of the Treaty.

Article 20 contains an innovation. Each representation from Member States is to be led by a Minister permanently and specifically responsible for Union affairs. This will provide better continuity and coordination by avoiding contradictory decisions by, for example, Agriculture Ministers and Budget Ministers.

Article 23 lays down and defines the majorities to be utilised. As in the existing treaties varying levels of weighting are required. The most frequently used at present is the qualified majority in which two big States can block a decision.

Article 23.3 lays down the right to postpone a vote by invoking a vital national interest. This is the first time that the so-called “Luxembourg Compromise” is given legal recognition by being enshrined in the Treaty, albeit for a transitional period of ten years. To ensure that it really is a vital national interest conditions are laid down:

(a)The decision being taken must jeopardise a vital national interest;

(b)This must be recognised as such by the Commission;

(c)The grounds for requesting a postponement of a vote must be published.

The European Council (i.e. Heads of Government) designates the President who constitutes the Commission. Parliament invests it by approving its programme and the Commission can only take office after such investure.

The Solemn Declaration on European Union adopted by the Member States in June 1983 provides in Article 2.3.5 that, after appointment, the Commission should present its programme to be debated and voted on by Parliament. the Department of Foreign Affairs in their submission objected to the fact that the Commission could only take up office with the endorsement of Parliament.

The Commission’s term of office is altered from 4 years to 5 years to coincide with Parliament.

Article 26: Under Article 11 of the EC Treaty the Members of the Commission were appointed by accord of the Government of the Member States. The draft Treaty under Article 26 gives the President more scope for choosing his own Commissioners in consultation with national Governments, building on the procedure followed since 1976. This system could reinforce the cohesion of the Commission.

Articles 27, 28 and 29: The Commission adopts its own rules and carries out the functions attributed to it by the Treaty. Article 29.3 and 29.4, relating to a vote of censure by Parliament, are the same as the current provisions which have never been used.

Article 30: This contains only one innovation. Half of the Members of the Court are to be appointed by Parliament and half by the Council of the Union (i.e. Council of Ministers). Article 167 of the EEC Treaty lays down that the Judges shall be appointed by common accord of the Governments of the Member States.

Article 31 formalizes existing provisions, i.e. the European Council shall consist of Heads of State or Government and the President of the Commission.

Article 32 provides for powers the same as the present European Council in the area of cooperation (i.e. foreign affairs). To these are added the traditional powers of a parliamentary Head of State - power to appoint the Head of the Executive, i.e. the president of the Commission, and the right to address communications to other institutions. The links between the European Council and the Parliament remain unchanged, except for the introduction of questions to the European Council.

Article 33 corresponds to the EEC Treaties except that half the Members of the Court of Auditors are to be designated by the Parliament and half by the Council. The only new organ is the formalisation of the previous European Monetary Cooperation Fund which is in any case foreseen for Phase II of the EMS.

The types of legislation proposed under the draft Treaty are less numerous than in the case of the Communities. There are laws which will be the responsibility of the Parliament and the Council with the collaboration of the Commission and also regulations (Article 40) and decisions which are measures adopted by the Commission for the implementation of the laws. The distinction between Regulations and Directives thus disappears. This simplification is ascribable to the controversy which surrounded the direct applicability of directives, a subject dealt with by earlier Joint Committees. If an Act of a Community institution is directly applicable by virtue of a Treaty provision, it takes immediate effect in domestic law and becomes a source of legal rights which the private citizen can enforce in Irish courts without the interposition of domestic legislation.

“A Directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.”

In its 11th Report the First Joint Committee considered the question of the implementation and direct applicability of Directives and indicated that it would prefer “a single rule that all Directives should be implemented by Statute or Statutory Instrument except where existing Irish legislation already provides necessary authority”.

Under the draft Treaty the Commission has not got exclusive powers of implementation. Member States may be required to implement laws (Articles 13 and 34).

Article 34 states that laws are to be restricted to fundamental principles leaving it up to the responsible authorities in the Union or the Member States to set out details for implementation. This Article is to be read in conjunction with Article 42 which provides that the law of the Union shall be directly applicable in Member States.

Article 35 allows for temporary exemptions or transitional measures in application of laws where it is justified by the particular situation of a Member State. This Article is relied on in Article 52 in relation to the EMS, for example. This procedure allows for useful flexibility and has precedents in the EEC.

Article 37 confirms the role which the EEC Treaty conferred on the Commission regarding the initiative for the enactment of laws and conduct of the legislative procedure. However, if the Parliament or the Council wishes to present a draft law, it must send a reasoned request to the Commission which then would retain control over the draft from the technical point of view. Failing that, the Parliament or the Council may introduce a draft law conforming to their original request. This situation should arise only rarely and even more rarely lead to the adoption of a law, regard being had to the powers vested in the Commission in relation to the legislative procedure.

Article 36 lays down that Parliament would share legislative powers with the Council of the Union (i.e. Council of Ministers), in the way they currently share budgetary powers. This is discussed in paragraphs 41 and 42 above.

The Department of Foreign Affairs believes that this provision aims at a fundamental realignment of powers within the European Communities as they exist at present.

Article 38: Provision has been made at various points in the draft Treaty for organic laws, i.e. laws pertaining to the draft Treaty itself if adopted (see Article 34.2). Because the purpose of an organic law would be to define fundamental aspects of the Union’s activities, a qualified majority in Parliament (a majority of Members and two-thirds of votes cast) and in Council is required. All draft laws are submitted first to the Parliament and then to the Council. Article 38 provides for a system of time-limits and when the prescribed periods have elapsed silence on the part of either institution is deemed to constitute acceptance. However, in order to prevent a text ever being adopted without a vote a law may not be regarded as having been adopted unless it has been expressly approved either by the Parliament or the Council. The provisions imply that the Council and the Parliament should normally reach agreement (co-decision). Where they disagree, unless the Council has rejected it unanimously, a conciliation procedure is opened.

The provision for a deadline responds to one of the main criticisms of the Council, namely that it consistently fails to act on legislative proposals, sometimes for years on end.

Article 41 lays down that the Union institutions shall, when useful, conduct hearings with persons affected by proposed legislation.

Article 43 provides that the powers of review of the Court of Justice are to be extended by organic law to include the right of appeal for individuals, equal treatment of all institutions, the application of human rights provisions (see Article 4), jurisdiction of the Court to annul an act of the Union, right of appeal against national courts that fail to ask for or disregard European Court rulings, possibility to impose sanctions against Member States failing to fulfil their obligations and compulsory jurisdiction to rule in any dispute between Member States in connection with the objectives of the Union.

The Community Treaties do not make any special reference to democracy or human rights as such. However, the Court of Justice had demonstrated that the Community Treaties must be interpreted in the light of the principles common to the Constitutions of the Member States. Under Article 43 the jurisdiction of the Court in this area is clearly affirmed.

Article 44: Member States who seriously and persistently violate the democratic principles or fundamental rights provisions (Article 4) or any other provisions of the Treaty may be suspended by the European Council at the end of a lengthy procedure involving the Court of Justice and the Parliament.

The question raised by the Irish Council of the European Movement concerning the relationship between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights is also relevant in relation to this Article.

PART FOUR

THE POLICIES OF THE UNION

Article 45: This is an introductory Article in relation to the policies of the Union, which recognises as its starting point the Community patrimony. It is to be read in conjunction with Article 9 on the objectives of the Union. The Union’s action must be based on the balanced expansion and the progressive elimination of existing imbalances between the various areas and regions. When read in conjunction with Article 58 on Regional Policy and Article 73 on financial equalisation this Article appears largely aspirational.

Article 46 provides for coordination of national laws by the European Council particularly in relation to combating terrorism and also to reinforce the feeling of citizenship of the Union.

PART FOUR (Title I)

ECONOMIC POLICY

Article 47 lays down the timescale for completing the internal market with entirely free movement of persons and goods within two years, services within 5 years and capital within ten years.

Article 48 grants the Union competence to complete and develop competition policy.

Article 49 provides for approximation of laws in relation to undertakings and companies, and taxation insofar as is necessary for economic integration.

Article 50 provides for the Union to coordinate economic guidelines and objectives for the action of Member States. Union financial assistance may be made dependent on Member States fulfilling these objectives.

Article 50.1 states that the Union shall have “concurrent competence in respect of conjunctural policy”. According to Article 12, in relation to competences, this can be taken to mean that the Member States shall continue to act so long as the Union has not legislated.

In the submission from the Department of Finance dissatisfaction was expressed with this Article: “It is not clear what the concept referred to in Article 50.1 of ‘concurrent competence in respect of conjunctural policy’ would involve, although Article 50.3 implies that only Member States whose economic policies comply with the guidelines recommended by the Commission would be eligible for financial assistance from the Union”. However, such criteria apply to other organisations of which Ireland is a member, such as the International Monetary Fund.

This instrument would be likely to affect those less prosperous or “weaker” Member States, while having little coercive effect on the financially strong Member States, who would be unlikely to be dependent to any significant extent on the financial aid of the Union. The Department of Finance has consistently taken the view that all Member States have a responsibility with regard to proper economic policy coordination, as the spillover effects of the economic policies of the larger Member States can restrict severely the policies of the weaker Member States.

Article 51 and 52: Article 51 grants the Union concurrent competence regarding monetary and credit policies aiming to coordinate the use of capital market resources.

Article 52 provides for the gradual transformation of the EMS into full monetary union including the use of the ECU as reserve currency and as a means of payment. These measures are to be adopted by an organic law, subject to differentiated application under Article 35.

Articles 51 and 52 of the draft Treaty would appear to provide for the gradual development of a European monetary authority with its own system of control as foreseen in the second stage of EMS, and subject to a veto in the European Council. Such a system to be effective would seem to require that many of the monetary policy functions now exercised by national central banks be transferred to the EEC. Indeed, while Article 52 in particular refers to the duties and obligations of the national central banks it would appear that if the draft Treaty were implemented in full it would turn them into sub-offices of the central controlling monetary authority provided for in Article 51. According to the Department of Finance it is very unlikely that progress towards European Union is anywhere near the stage where Member States would be prepared to cede this type of responsibility for monetary policy to the central EEC monetary authority provided for under Article 51 of the draft Treaty.

Article 53 provides for the Union to have concurrent competence with the Member States to pursue sectoral policies at the Union level, in particular in relation to agriculture and fisheries, transport, telecommunications, research and development, industry and energy. In each of these areas the Union is to act where there is Union-wide interest or where there is an advantage of scale in taking action at that level. Article 53(a) lays down the intention of the Union to pursue a policy designed to attain the objectives provided for in Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the EEC - which describes the basic principles of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Department of Agriculture have indicated support for this aim of the Union.

Article 54 lays down a procedure whereby the European Council can integrate into the Union other forms of cooperation that Member States have established outside it. It also provides for the Union to set up its own specialised agencies. An example of such an agency would be the current European Airbus Project.

PART FOUR (Title 11)

POLICY FOR SOCIETY

Articles 55 to 62: Policy for Society, includes, in a single framework, social and health policy, consumer policy, regional policy and research policy, on the one hand, in which areas the competences already granted to the Community are appreciably strengthened, and education and environmental policy, cultural policy and information policy, on the other hand, in which areas the Union is also given some new competences compared with those of the Community.

Article 56 defines areas in which the Union may take action in relation to social and health policy. In addition to those mentioned in Article 118 of the EEC Treaty the following areas are added: epidemics or disasters, prevention of addiction, research and marketing of pharmaceutical products, treatment of citizens of third states and trade union and employee participation.

Article 58 provides for a regional policy. The inclusion of regional policy under Policy for Society as opposed to economic policy is questionable. This can be regarded as an analytical defect in the draft Treaty as it is felt that the regional fund belongs more properly to the economic or political sphere. The submission from the Department of Finance stated in this regard:

“In the context of improved policy coordination, the Irish authorities have continually stressed that if the weaker regions are to be able to adhere to improved guidelines or obligations for Community convergence and coordination, there is a need at the same time for adequate and substantial transfers of Community funds to these regions”.

PART FOUR (Title 111)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNION

Article 63: This introductory Article refers to the achievement of peace through various methods including peaceful settlement of conflicts, security, deterrence of aggression etc. It can be read in conjunction with Article 9 in relation to the objectives of the Union. In international relations the Union can act either by common action or cooperation.

Article 64: Where the Union has exclusive or concurrent competence it can act by common action. The Union is granted exclusive competence concerning commercial policy and provides for a gradual transition of development aid policy to the Union with a coordination of national programmes. Apart from this increase in responsibilities for development policy, the Union’s competences in the field of international economic relations are the same as those of the European Community.

Article 65: The Commission shall be responsible for relations with non-Member States and international organisations. It shall negotiate agreements on the basis of guidelines issued by the Council; such agreements requiring approval by the Council and the European Parliament before they can be ratified. These provisions are equivalent to existing provisions of the Community Treaties, except for the requirement of parliamentary approval before ratification.

Article 66: provides for the Union to use the method of cooperation (i.e. decisions by the European Council) to coordinate international relations in other fields of common interest not covered by Article 64, including matters relating to the political and economic aspects of security. These areas correspond to those currently dealt with by European Political Cooperation.

Article 67: In the areas referred to in Article 66 the European Council would be responsible for cooperation: the Council of the Union would be responsible for its day to day conduct and the Commission would be allowed to propose policies and actions to be implemented, at the request of either the European Council or the Council of the Union. The Union is to ensure the consistency of the policies of the Member States and coordinate their position during the negotiation of international agreements and within international organisations. Member States retain their right to act individually where immediate action is necessary. As with European Political Cooperation, decision -making power remains in the hands of National Ministers, meeting within the European Council or the Council of the Union.

Article 68: The European Council may extend the field of cooperation “in particular as regards armaments, sales of arms to non-Member States, defence policy and disarmament”. The European Council may transfer a particular field from cooperation to common action. In that event, the area so transferred would not be on the same basis as other areas subject to common action because:

(1) Article 23, allowing a Member State to invoke a vital national interest, would be applied without any transitional time limit;

(2) individual Member States would be allowed to derogate from some of the measures taken;

(3) the European Council would be allowed to restore the fields so transferred to the field of cooperation.

This Article can be read in conjunction with Article 35 relating to differentiated application of laws (for further discussion on Article 68, see paragraphs 47 and 68).

Article 69: The Commission, with the approval of the Council, will establish representations in non-Member States and international organisations. They shall be responsible for representing the Union in matters of common action and also for coordinating, in collaboration with the diplomatic agent of the Member State holding the Presidency of the European Council, diplomatic activity in the fields subject to cooperation. Where there is no Union representation, the Member State holding the Presidency shall be responsible. This Article reflects current Community practice, except for the provision for the role of the representation in coordinating the diplomatic activities in the fields subject to political cooperation.

PART FIVE

THE FINANCES OF THE UNION

Article 70: The Union is to have its own finances, administered by its institutions and utilised for the implementation of Union activities. The budgetary authority would be the European Parliament and the Council of the Union.

Article 71: The Union would have the same sources of revenue as the EEC, i.e. customs duties, agriculture levies and a percentage of VAT. However, the percentage of VAT to be received would not have a ceiling laid down in the Treaty as is the case at the moment. Under Article 71.2 the Union would have the power to amend the nature or the basis of existing sources of revenue or create new sources. Creation of new revenue would not require amendment of the Treaty and consequent ratification by national parliaments. The Department of Finance feels that this could deprive national governments of sources of revenue. However, any such change would come about by organic law. Under Article 38 approval of a draft organic law requires a qualified majority in the Parliament (i.e. a majority of members and two-thirds of the votes cast), and in the Council.

Article 71.3 allows for the possibility of the Union setting up its own revenue collecting authorities. The Department of Finance feel that this approach implies a degree of centralisation to which, at the present time, it is difficult to believe Member States would subscribe.

Article 72: Expenditure is to be on the basis of annual budgets. It is to be determined on the basis of an assessment of the costs. Effectiveness would be monitored, with a view to cost, in annual reports. Thus, according to the Department of Finance, expenditure of the Union would be determined by the requirements of policy rather than by available revenue. Ireland has consistently supported this type of approach. With the absence of a limit on revenue and the simplified voting procedure for expenditure programmes, the growth of expenditure under the provisions as they stand could be expected to be extremely rapid.

Article 73: A system of financial equalisation is to be introduced by organic law. The aim is to alleviate excessive economic imbalances between the regions. This Article should be read in conjunction with Article 45 in relation to promoting balanced expansion and progressive elimination of existing imbalances, and Article 58 on regional policy.

The European Parliament Committee on Institutional Affairs stated in reply to a question from the First Chamber of the Dutch Parliament(1) that the system proposed was similar to the “financial equalisation” system used in the Federal Republic of Germany. It would be one of a range of measures aimed at assisting poorer regions of Member States. It did not preclude the resources released by this mechanism from being used to improve the infrastructure in economically less-favoured regions.

Article 74 provides for multiannual financial programmes to be used as the basis for the preparation of the Budget. The programme would be adopted by the Council and the Parliament on a proposal from the Commission.

Article 75: The annual Budget must include all items of revenue and expenditure and must be in balance. The Budget would lay down maximum amounts for borrowing and lending. The financial regulation, setting out details, would be established by an organic law.

In reply to a question by the First Chamber of the Dutch Parliament(1) in relation to Article 75.2, which refers to exceptions to the rule that loans may only be used to finance investment, the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament had this to say:

“Parliament felt that it would be too rigid to rule out loans entirely. If there is indeed a greater extent of economic convergence and monetary unity, the possibility of exceptional deficits and loans should be available. However, Parliament would expect the future Commission, Council and Parliament of the Union to be extremely cautious in such matters. Such loans would, as laid down in the draft Treaty be exceptional.”

Article 76: A procedure is laid down for adopting the Budget involving two successive readings of the draft Budget in the Council and the Parliament. Each institution may over-rule amendments adopted by the other by a larger majority, ending with the second reading in the Parliament in which it may reject the Council’s amendments by a qualified majority. On its second reading, the Council may refer the whole Budget back to the Commission and ask for a new draft. If the Budget is not rejected by the Council the Parliament may give a final decision by the qualified majority specified in Article 17.2 (b), i.e. a majority of its Members and three-fifths of the votes cast. This procedure is similar to the procedure currently followed concerning the “non-obligatory” part of the Budget, in which the European Parliament’s powers are greater. However, in compensation the Council is given, for the first time, the possibility of referring the Budget back to the Commission, a power which the Parliament loses.

Article 77 provides for the “provisional twelfths” system for monthly expenditure when the Budget has not been adopted by the beginning of the financial year. After six months this ceases, and the Commission may only effect expenditure to enable the Union to comply with existing obligations. Thus the existing Community system of “provisional twelfths” is given further teeth by the stricter system that would come into force after six months.

PART SIX

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 82 provides for the draft Treaty to be open for ratification by all Member States of the Community. It also allows for the Union Treaty to enter into force among a majority of Member States, representing two-thirds of the population of the Community. It therefore provides for those Member States that so wish to move ahead and create a European Union, to the exclusion of the others. Implicit in this Article is an assumption that either all Member States will wish to move from the Community to the Union, or that those which do not will agree to dissolve the Community and negotiate a form of association with the Union. Legally, a non-contracting State could insist on the maintenance of the Community, with Community provisions governing those areas mentioned in the existing Treaties but no such State would be happy with a Community where the Union States could act as a block, and with the costly institutional duplication that this would entail.

Article 83 relates to a formality in relation to the deposit of the instruments of ratification.

Article 84: One representation within the Council of the Union of one-third of the Members of the Parliament or the Commission may submit to the legislative authority an amendment to the Treaty. The approval of both the Parliament and the Council of the Union is necessary. The amendment shall enter into force upon ratification by all Members.

Article 85: The European Council shall determine the seat of the institutions. Two years after entry into force of the Treaty, if the European Council so fails, the legislative authority shall decide.

Article 86: The provisions of the Treaty are not subject to any reservations. Member States are not precluded from maintaining, in relation to the Union, the declarations they have made with regard to the Treaties and conventions which form part of the Community patrimony.

H. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

59.Unlike all the earlier efforts to unite Europe by force, the Community’s objective is unity by mutual consent, and it is striving towards a Union based on a freely-accepted body of law. By the very nature of things progress is slow and laborious and sometimes made only reluctantly, for it is never easy for any Government to give up its powers and prerogatives, and no administration is happy to abandon its traditions.

The future of Europe lies with its youth and the Joint Committee finds it distressing to detect a note of despair among them about the progress of the Community. The Community’s hesitations and failures, which regularly make media headlines are not, to their minds, what a united Europe is all about. They want the Community to evolve in such a way so that society can become more generous and human.

60.On the other hand the Joint Committee would like to point out that people often fail to realise that progress actually has been made, that Europe has begun advancing towards integration and that there has been a definite change in attitudes of mind. What is critically important, in the Joint Committee’s view, is that the climate, underpinned by adequate institutional support, be created to allow the citizens of the Community to work together to master the many problems facing it. Accordingly, the Joint Committee welcomes all suggestions for improving the working of the Community and for making progress towards European Union. The Joint Committee sees the establishment of the Union as the mechanism whereby the Community can be moved onto a new plane where its nature and concept can be infused with qualitative change. It congratulates the European Parliament on its initiative in adopting the draft Treaty establishing the European Union, which it regards as an interesting and valuable blue-print of how European Union might be achieved.

61.The Joint Committee recalls the great historic benefits of cooperation within the Community and in European Political Cooperation, to the Member States as a whole and to Ireland in particular. The scale of the financial support for Irish agriculture has brought that sector through the last difficult twelve years at a fraction of the cost to the Irish taxpayer of a purely national system. Resources have also been transferred to this country through the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and through interest subsidies, while Ireland has also borrowed extensively on advantageous terms from the European Investment Bank and under the New Community Instrument. Grants and subsidies to Ireland from Community funds totalled IR£4,211,773,000 over the period 1973-83, against total contributions of IR£689,835,000 (a breakdown of these figures is given in Appendix 4).

However, entry to the Community has entailed other benefits and costs. Lowering our tariff barriers has decimated our traditional industries, with consequent unemployment, though with benefits for consumers. Free access to the Community market has been a major selling point for the Industrial Development Authority in its drive to attract foreign industry. Higher agricultural prices have to some extent raised consumer prices.

62.Moreover, there have been some disappointments. The European Regional Development Fund has been an inadequate instrument for the purpose of bringing about economic convergence between the less-well-off peripheral regions and the rich central regions. The recent development of the CAP has not been to Ireland’s advantage, and the measures taken to limit agricultural spending - such as the milk super-levy and “budgetary discipline” - will hit Irish agriculture severely, and in the Irish view, unfairly.

63.The Joint Committee is aware that there are many reasons for the strong and very widespread support for the draft Treaty in the European Parliament. There is the need already mentioned to overcome the paralysis of the Community, instanced by constant battles over the Budget, renegotiation of terms by new entrants and the log-jam of decision-making because of lack of unanimity and failure to take majority votes. There is also the belief that improvements to the existing mechanisms, though necessary, were no longer sufficient, nor could they be achieved without the Community making a major advance. It is often contended also that if we did not move forward the Community would increasingly fall apart under the strains imposed by moving always at the pace of the slowest or most unwilling Member State.

There is a need to codify, consolidate and revise the legislative bases of the Community. Finally, Members of the European Parliament are very much aware of the obligation on Parliament to fulfill its historic role as a motor of integration.

64.However, the Joint Committee feels that a detailed examination of the draft Treaty reinforces the long-standing Irish consensus on the appropriate way in which the Community should advance towards closer integration:

-monetary union should be preceded by adequate economic union, particularly by economic convergence between the poor and rich regions;

-that there is no way in which political union can exclude the possibility of Ireland opting to continue its policy of neutrality.

Improved Decision-making

65.The Joint Committee recognises the need for improved decision-making within the Community, and particularly within the Council of Ministers. It appreciates that the need for the Council to act with unanimity is not in accordance with the Treaties, but is the result of subsequent political action. It recognises that majority voting would enable the Community to speed up its decision-making and embark on new programmes of activity.

The Joint Committee considers it quite legitimate for a directly elected Parliament to discuss initiatives to develop the Community and press for implementation of its findings.

Parliament’s full potential as a democratic power can only be realised in a climate of open cooperation between the three institutions. While the Joint Committee is keen that Parliament should engage in moves of its own, it must also state forthrightly that parliamentary participation in the actual decision-making process cannot be other than at the expense of the Council’s quasi-monopoly of this. It reiterates the view that a small country, with relatively few MEPs and a relatively less influential position in the Council, risks being ignored or overridden if it has no veto on matters of vital national interest.

Phasing out Veto

66.The Joint Committee recognises that executive boards, whether in Government, business or other organisations, can only operate effectively by the will of the majority. But agreement to abide by the will of the majority presupposes a high level of common interest and mutual support. The Joint Committee therefore considers that any eventual phasing-out of the veto must follow the introduction of an effective redistributive mechanism which shows a high level of solidarity from the strong to the weaker. This is in line with the views quoted above (Para. 23), and particularly affects consideration of Articles 9, 22, 23, 34-44, 45, 8, 58 and 73 of the draft Treaty.

Economic Convergence

67.The Joint Committee is not happy with the economic policy section of the draft Treaty. The reason for this is that the various Articles have been viewed as they appear at present rather than as they might lost in the future if and when the Union comes into being. The Joint Committee feels that the provisions in the draft Treaty as regards economic and monetary policy seem to be much more definitive than the aspirations towards regional policy expressed in Article 58. While the Article on financial equalisation - Article 73 - is attractive it would be necessary to have some idea as to how far the equalisation would go before assessing its merits.

Neutrality

-that the situation following the possible entry into force of the Treaty would be legally unchanged from the present situation, where it is agreed that the “economic and political aspects of security” can be discussed in European Political Cooperation;

-that any move to include a defence or armaments dimension in “cooperation” (equivalent to European Political Cooperation) could be taken only in the European Council and by a unanimous decision;

-that any decision to make such a dimension subject to “common action” (equivalent to existing Community procedures) could be taken only on the basis of unanimity in the European Council;

-that should such a decision be taken, the right of veto would remain indefinitely in force in this area;

-that the Council, acting unanimously, could exceptionally authorise one or more Member States to derogate or opt out of the common action (in the same way as Ireland opted out of the implementation of economic sanctions against Argentina during the Falklands conflict);

-that, unlike in other fields, activities in this field could be retransferred back to cooperation (i.e. European Political Cooperation), or to the sole competence of the Member States.

-neutrality is a principle of Irish foreign policy and should not be bargained against material advantage.

-the provisions of the draft Treaty do not overtly threaten Irish neutrality, since there is a requirement of unanimity. However, it should be pointed out that in the future, Ireland might well be faced with a decision by all other Member States to proceed in this area, and a dilemma would then exist, whether to allow the other Member States to proceed without Ireland, thereby excluding Ireland from an area of Community activity, or to veto the move altogether. The consequences of such problems should be examined and discussed before Ireland enters any negotiations touching on this area.

Fundamental Rights

70.For more than two centuries the history of Europe has been characterised by constant efforts to improve the protection of fundamental rights. Founded on the human and civil rights declarations of the eighteenth century, all European constitutions today contain an established body of inviolable fundamental rights and freedoms. This is particularly true of the Member States of the European Communities. In contrast to the constitutions of some East European countries, the constitutional orders of all Member States not only recognise essentially the same body of fundamental freedoms, but also provide for the judicial enforcement of such rights in the event of violations. All Member States, aware of their common heritage of ideas and political traditions have, moreover, become parties to international conventions on human rights; in particular, they have without exception become parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.

71.The Treaties of Paris and Rome are designed primarily as instruments of economic integration, and probably for this reason, but perhaps also on account of the restricted powers accorded to the Community institutions, do not include for the Community its own catalogue of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice had to deal at a relatively early stage with complaints in which it was maintained that a particular Community act violated a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution of a Member State. In its desire for uniform application of Community law, the Court of Justice contented itself in the initial stages of its case law by declaring in regard to such complaints that it was not one of its tasks to ensure that national rules of a Member State were observed, even where such rules were of a constitutional nature. Only from the end of the 1960s could an evolution be discerned in the decisions of the Court. In two judgments of principle, in 1969 and 1970, it ruled that respect for fundamental rights formed an integral part of the general principles of law, the observance of which the Court had to ensure. The protection of these rights, while inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, had nevertheless to be ensured within the framework of the Community’s structure and objectives.

72. However satisfactory and worthy of approval the method developed by the Court may be, it cannot rectify at least one of the shortcomings affecting the legal order of the Communities through the lack of a written catalogue of fundamental rights: the impossibility of knowing in advance which are the liberties which may not be infringed by the Community institutions under any circumstances. The European citizen has a legitimate interest in having his rights vis-a-vis the Community laid down in advance. He or she must be able to assess the prospects of any possible legal dispute from the outset and therefore have at his or her disposal clearly defined criteria. The fact that judgments, which operate only ex post facto, cannot fully satisfy this requirement of legal certainty is inevitable in the nature of things, and in no way implies criticism of the Court’s approach.

73.In contrast to the Community Treaties which do not place any great emphasis on democracy itself, although conceived within the context of a democratic Europe, the draft Treaty establishing the Union, having a much wider purpose, emphasises its democratic nature. The Joint Committee sees the Union as a Union of democratic States with democratic character as a pre-condition for membership. Being mindful of the difficulties encountered within the Council of Europe, the Joint Committee accepts the need for the Union to take precautions to avoid any internal political developments in any Member State which might induce it to violate democratic principles or fundamental rights.

74.Article 4.3 of the draft Treaty provides that within a period of 5 years after its entry into force the Union is to draw up a list of fundamental rights in accordance with the procedure for revision of the Treaty. For the time being, the principles common to the national Constitutions and the European Convention on Human Rights constitute a minimum standard. The Joint Committee wishes that the Union, in drawing up its own declarations, should ensure that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the rights derived by the citizens of Member States thereunder. The Joint Committee is particularly anxious that any conflict between the fundamental rights charter of the Union and the fundamental rights Articles in Bunreacht na hÉireann (The Irish Constitution) is avoided.

Two-tier/two-speed Europe

75.In order that the Treaty enters into force and that the Union be thereby established ratification by all Member States is not required. This could lead to a two-tier Europe where a non-contracting State could legally insist on the maintenance of the Community, with Community provisions governing those areas mentioned in the existing Treaties. The Joint Committee would anticipate in such an event a costly duplication of institutional structures competing with each other. It draws attention to the fact that such a proposal in the Tindemans Report had previously been judged unacceptable. The Joint Committee would see a two-speed Europe as vitiating the essential cohesion of the Union.

I. CONCLUSION

76.The Joint Committee deprecates the fact that no debate has taken place so far in the Houses of the Oireachtas on the draft Treaty establishing the European Union, and calls for one to take place forthwith. Indeed, parliamentary debates on Community affairs are irregular and infrequent. In the Joint Committee’s view, this may well, be a major contributory factor in the results of a survey, of the ten Member States, conducted by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, revealing this country as the least European in its attitudes. It hopes that in the future, debates on European affairs will be given the priority they deserve in the Dail and Seanad.

77.During the referendum campaign to allow for our membership of the Communities the weight of emphasis was placed on the financial aspects, particularly in relation to the CAP, to the detriment of the broader issues, such as economic and political integration. The time has come to redress this imbalance by bracing ourselves to undertake the next move in the development of the Community, namely, to become citizens of the Union.

78.The Joint Committee feels that the Community has lost the vibrancy which was inculcated into it by the founding fathers and has a tendency to stagnate. The present institutional structures have all the symptoms of fatigue. The internal market has not been completed. Economic convergence and monetary union are far from realisation. The Regional Development Fund has failed to halt the centripetal pull of economic development to the wealthier areas of the Community at the expense of the less-favoured peripheral areas, such as Ireland. The Community, instead of representing an integrated social and economic body has a distinct mosaic appearance.

79.Another area where the Joint Committee would like to see accelerated progress is in the field of company law. This is essential, in its view, to allow for the commercial development and economic revival of the Community.

80.European Union is a dynamic process and, as the “Three Wise Men”* so rightly said, it must lead to a Community prepared to display increasing solidarity. The basis for this could be a new Treaty, which would respect the fundamental principles of the existing Treaties and supplement them to establish a European Union.

The idea of a Treaty on European Union is not new, since it was launched some years ago by Mr. Tindemans in his report on European Union. It would confirm the role of the community as the cornerstone of European integration and the role of the European Council as the political body responsible for laying down guidelines for European cooperation. An Act along these lines would not itself create European Union but would provide a framework for achieving it.

81.The dividing line between the Community and political cooperation has become increasingly blurred so the time is ripe for putting forward concrete ideas. The major issues facing the Community (the economic crisis, energy problems and relations with developing countries) can no longer be solved without reference to foreign policy decisions.

The Joint Committee is in favour generally of moves to improve the workings of the European Communities, and to move towards genuine European union, and it welcomes the European Parliament’s initiative in adopting the draft Treaty establishing the European Union.

82. The Joint Committee is aware of the considerable support among European leaders for the draft Treaty and for other proposals for bringing the Union about. It is conscious of the need to prepare Irish political and public opinion for a possible international conference later this year, and for the possible entry into force of the European Union following a successful outcome to the conference. It is conscious also of the need to protect Ireland’s vital national interests, and to prepare our negotiators to defend them in such a conference.

83.The Joint Committee is aware of the considerable economic, social, cultural and political advantages to be gained from a properly functioning European Union. It stresses that these advantages could be achieved at the expense of Ireland’s national interests, unless:

-there is a sufficient commitment to provide the European Union with adequate financial resources

-there is a sufficient commitment to redistribute these resources within the Union to bring about economic convergence

-the degree of solidarity shown to this country is sufficient to offset the risks to our vital national interests consequent on phasing out the veto and allowing greater powers to the Commission and Parliament

-an acceptable formula is adopted to allow Ireland’s neutrality to continue indefinitely.

84.The Joint Committee wishes to stress the immense advantage to this country of past and continued membership of the European Communities, despite disappointments in particular areas. The Joint Committee stresses that exclusion from the Communities or from an eventual Union would leave Ireland to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the Union, along the lines of EFTA membership, and would exclude Ireland from the advantages of the CAP, from the Regional and Social Funds, from European Political Cooperation and from many other fields in which we cooperate, to our common advantage, with the other Member States in the Community. Enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal would only make Ireland’s possible exclusion yet more anomalous. The Joint Committee considers that of all the vital national interests that must be defended within the Community none is more vital than Ireland’s continued membership itself.

85.Following the failure of the projects for a political community and a defence community in 1954 the Spaak Committee came into being entrusted with the coordination of the work which would lead to the first relaunching of Europe. The Dooge Committee, thirty years later, is charged with the task of another relaunching of Europe. The Spaak relaunch took place in the aftermath of a disastrous world war in Europe but, nevertheless, became one of the high points of the history of European unification. The Dooge relaunch is taking place in the midst of an unprecedented economic recession. However, the Joint Committee hopes that it too will go down in history as a new embarkation point for European integration.

REPORT

A. INTRODUCTION

Acknowledgements

Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee

Consultations

Background Considerations

Origin and preparation of draft Treaty

Adoption

B. SUMMARY OF DRAFT TREATY

Structure of the Document

Preamble

Part One - The Union

Part Two - The Objectives, Methods of Action and Competences of the Union

Part Three: Title 1 - Institutional Provisions

Part Three: Title 11 - Acts of the Union

Part Four - The Policies of the Union

Part Five - The Finances of the Union

Part Six - Final Provision

C. BACKGROUND TO CONCEPT OF EUROPEAN UNION

Development of the concept of European Union

The case for moving from the present situation to a European Union

D. REACTION OF MEMBER STATES TO DRAFT TREATY

Belgium

Denmark

Federal Republic of Germany

France

Italy

Belgium

Federal Republic of Germany

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Spain

Portugal

E. THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

(The Dooge Committee)

Parallel between Dooge Interim Report and draft Treaty

Timetable

F. GENERAL ISSUES ARISING FROM THE DRAFT TREATY

Increased powers for the European Parliament

Improvement of the Community’s Decision-Making

Phasing out the veto

Economic convergence

Security and defence

Fundamental rights and judicial review

Two-speed / two-tier Europe

G. DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE ARTICLES OF THE DRAFT TREATY

PREAMBLE

PART ONE

THE UNION

PART TWO

THE OBJECTIVES, METHODS OF ACTION AND COMPETENCES OF THE UNION

PART THREE

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

PART FOUR

THE POLICIES OF THE UNION

PART FOUR (Title I)

ECONOMIC POLICY

PART FOUR (Title 11)

POLICY FOR SOCIETY

PART FOUR (Title 111)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNION

PART FIVE

THE FINANCES OF THE UNION

PART SIX

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

H. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Improved Decision-making

Phasing out Veto

Economic Convergence

Neutrality

Fundamental Rights

Two-tier/two-speed Europe

I. CONCLUSION