In a welcome, if belated, statement of policy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, has emphasised the political importance of the Convention on the Future of Europe and clarified the Government's approach to the issues involved.
He spoke as the French and German governments put forward proposals for a dual presidency of the European Union and for majority voting on foreign policy and defence issues. While his speech struck a more positive tone about the convention's work than heretofore, it is open to the criticism that this is a belated recognition of political reality. It still falls short of the imaginative, serious and detailed engagement necessary to represent Ireland's interests most effectively.
Many members of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Coalition felt that matters European should be given a rest after the exertions involved in winning the second Nice referendum last October. There was a widespread feeling that the Future of Europe agenda was developing too fast, going ahead of popular opinion. That made for a reluctance to engage fully with the convention's agenda and a failure to realise in good time how influential it will be in framing the next treaty. This speech attempts to come abreast of the political realities.
To say it is a pity that Mr Cowen did not announce last night that he himself will become directly involved in the convention is no reflection on the good work being done by the existing Government representative, Minister of State, Mr Dick Roche - but rather to recognise the convention is now centre stage in a major way. A member of the Cabinet should represent Ireland's view in a direct hands-on fashion in the national interest, particularly since another European referendum is on the cards. This would be the best guarantee that Ireland will be taken seriously in the convention's proceedings. It needs to be if Ireland's EU presidency from January to June next year is to be successful - including chairing treaty negotiations on the outcome of which a further referendum will be required here.
Mr Cowen now accepts that a constitutional treaty is probable and that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is likely to be incorporated in it. The Government has put forward an interesting proposal to elect the Commission president by an electoral college combining national parliaments and the European Parliament.
The Coalition is prepared to extend qualified majority voting, but determined to maintain a veto on taxation. It wants to see the Commission remain strong to protect small state interests. It is willing to accept a solidarity clause in an extended set of Petersberg Tasks, but not a common defence commitment. These policies are pragmatic and consensual, but they lack the visionary input now required in the major European project in hand. Mr Cowen personally should opt in, not out.