Government to oppose mutual defence in EU treaty

The Government will strongly oppose new proposals to incorporate a mutual defence guarantee into the EU treaty, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has confirmed.

Responding to questions from journalists here on Saturday about the recommendations of a controversial report on EU treaty changes to be published today, Mr Ahern said that under "no circumstances" would he agree to an EU mutual defence guarantee like that in the WEU and NATO treaties. The report, the details of which The Irish Times has obtained, was drafted for the President of the Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, by a group of three "wise men" chaired by the former Belgian prime minister, Mr Jean Luc Dehaene. It recommends that the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) should incorporate such a commitment, although with an opt-out provision for Ireland and other neutrals.

But even going that far will be seen by Ireland's neutrality lobby as changing the character of the EU, and the report will be an embarrassment to the Government in the fraught PfP debate.

The paper, which is strongly supported by Mr Prodi, also sets out radical proposals for easing the future reform of the European Treaty by abolishing the unanimity requirement for amending those sections of the treaty which are regarded as non-core. It would also extend both majority voting and the co-decision powers of MEPs dramatically.

Speaking at the end of the summit, Mr Prodi made clear the rationale behind his thinking. "It would be impossible to manage a union of 20 to 25 with the unanimity rule. It is difficult enough now. These rules were created for a community of six," he said.

After he had presented a broad outline of the report to leaders at the summit dinner on Friday night, his desire to see a broader mandate for the IGC was strongly attacked by both Spain's Prime Minister, Mr Jose Maria Aznar, and President Chirac of France, who hopes to see any treaty changes completed by the end of the French presidency next year.

The reaction from other leaders was more constructive, if not enthusiastic, and notable for their silence were the British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, and the German Chancellor, Mr Gerhard Schroder. Both are believed to be in broad agreement with the proposals but anxious to test domestic waters carefully.

A source close to the President expressed considerable satisfaction at the reception Mr Prodi was given, insisting that the tide was beginning to turn in favour of an approach to the IGC which reflected the huge long-term challenge to EU decision-making posed by enlargement. Mr Ahern said the report would certainly not get unanimous backing and appeared to leaders to have been prepared in haste. It touched on "delicate and difficult" areas.

Senior Irish diplomats rejected the argument that legislative gridlock will inevitably follow enlargement and worry anyway that the extension of MEPs' powers would substitute one decision-making obstacle for another. They fear that such federalising moves will upset the careful small state/large state balance in the EU.

But Mr Ahern did pay tribute to Mr Prodi's wish to raise the focus of the debate from the immediate term to the longer and to the broader issue of the boundaries of Europe. "We can't be having IGCs every second day," he said.

Commission sources complain that among member-state leaders there is no strategic thinking about the future, but that the capitals will be driven gradually - as usual in the EU, at the last minute - to accept the logic of the need to make radical changes ahead of the first enlargement.

The leaders worked on a declaration that reflected the thrust of Friday's decisions and their tone. Language implying integration or harmonisation was dropped in favour of the less politically sensitive references to "co-operation" and "common strategies".

The Finnish Prime Minister and President of the European Council, Mr Paavo Lipponen, said their objective had been "to make an area of freedom, security and justice a reality. I believe that the declaration marks milestones on the road to that objective."

At the dinner on Friday night leaders gave their broad backing to the Commission's recommendations on bringing in six new accession countries to formal negotiations from January. But diplomatic sources say there were indications that the proposal to give Turkey candidate-member status will face French opposition at the Helsinki summit.

The Dehaene paper, which he produced with the British Labour peer, Lord Simon, and the former German president, Dr Richard von Weizsacker, will be published today. Running to a dozen pages, The Institutional Implications of Enlargement, argues that the EU must reform to enlarge but also to reconnect with its citizens.

The paper calls for the reform of the Commission through enhancement of the power of the President to select and organise his team of commissioners and the formalisation of the right taken by Mr Prodi to ask each of them to resign if necessary.

It accepts the logic of at least one commissioner per country. The Commission should also be given the right to represent the EU at all international negotiations and forums involving economic interests, notably in the trade areas of services and intellectual property and on the euro.

In the Council of Ministers, the report advocates a dramatic extension of qualified majority voting to all the policy issues with a parallel extension of the co-decision rights of Parliament. It accepts the need for a reweighting of votes in favour of the larger member-states. And it suggests that the strengthening of the role of the presidency should be considered.

Its most radical constitutional departure is to suggest that the treaty be split in two with only the core constitutional elements still subject to unanimity voting.

On defence, Mr Dehaene makes the case that the EU needs a capacity for autonomous action backed by real military force and argues that the treaty provisions on security and defence need to be strengthened with a pledge to mutual assistance if attacked.

The paper argues that the new IGC should begin its work with a draft treaty, prepared by the Commission, on the table rather than a much more cumbersome approach adopted by the drafters of Amsterdam. Commission sources insist such an approach would make it possible to make substantial revisions to the treaty by the end of next year.