Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 325)
TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000
RT HON
ROBIN COOK
MP, MR EMYR
JONES PARRY
CMG AND MR
KIM DARROCH
320. Can you give us an illustration of what
would be the subject of enhanced co-operation if these provisions
went through under pillar one?
(Mr Cook) I would be reluctant to attempt that, Chairman.
We are content to listen to our partners concerns about this.
If, for instance, in the case of implementation of Common Foreign
and Security Policy there was to be a smaller group going ahead,
it may well be us that go ahead. I personally would hesitate to
put forward an example.
321. Because it is very difficult to find one,
as we have not had one already?
(Mr Cook) You are perfectly correct to point out that
we have not had one—indeed, I have made this observation
myself. Also, once you deduct issues like the Single Market there
is limited room for this to apply. I do think it should be born
in mind that those who are arguing for this—for instance,
particularly the Benelux countries—are not thinking of the
present European Union (and remember this has all been done in
the context of enlargement); they foresee an outcome in which
there may be a European Union of 26 Member States. To take one
area which they themselves do refer to, the issue of the environment
in, say, the Netherlands and Denmark, there is extremely high
public pressure for high standards of environmental protection.
It may not necessarily be the case that the applicant countries,
coming as they do from a much lower GDP base, would necessarily
be capable or wish to adopt such high standards in environment
and, therefore, they argue there may be a occasions in the future
when a number of countries may wish to proceed with enhanced co-operation
on environmental issues which not everybody might take part in.
That then brings you to a debate of whether a group of countries
can do so without it distorting the Single Market, for instance,
and could not apply environmental regulations on trade. I understand
the point they are making—it is a valid one.
322. If I could summarise the position we are
going to take—these revised draft proposals we would go
along with them or would we dig our heels in?
(Mr Cook) We do not see any reason to object to what
is done and on the table which appears to fully protect our interests
and, indeed, to take the example of the environment if it was
to proceed, we may wish to be part of that inner group.
Mr Maples
323. There have been some other changes though—it
talks about one of the purposes of enhanced co-operation being
to reinforce the process of integration, and what used to be a
majority of members who had to want to participate and it is now
eight, which is the current majority but it might not be in the
future. There is a provision in the Amsterdam Treaty that any
Member who was not part of the initial group could join later.
That has now changed as well. It seems to me this is a very different
proposal, substantially different, and particularly if countries
that do not want to join have given up their veto.
(Mr Cook) First of all, we would not accept an exclusive
form of enhanced co-operation. We would wish to insist on the
right of any member having the right to take part in any subsequent
state. On that point, I can assure you we would still insist very
much on what was part of the architecture of the original proposal.
On the threshold of enhanced co-operation, I personally do not
have a difficulty with eight. Eight is a very substantial number,
whether or not it is the majority of a European Union of 20 or
whether it is only a majority of a European Union of 15, and I
would not necessarily wish to stand in the way of eight members
going ahead, provided what they are going ahead with does not
damage our interests. It may well be in the case of the environment
we might ourselves want to be part of that eight.
324. Finally on the CFSP, I understood you to
say that we would not be prepared to allow any enhanced co-operation
in this area to go ahead unless there was a veto from those who
do not want to participate in stopping it. That is not the way
the current draft works because it refers to the use of Article
23(2) of the Treaty of the European Union and refers to bits of
that which do not actually include the right of a veto. Are you
saying quite categorically we do not allow enhanced co-operation
in the Common Foreign and Security Policy area without a veto
on behalf of those countries that do not want to join, if they
stated they were of a crucial national interest?
(Mr Cook) What I was stating was that we do not see
the case for majority voting on the adoption of a policy. We have
been willing to look at the case of majority voting on enhanced
co-operation on the implementation of policy. It may well be right
that the current draft does not fully reflect our negotiating
position but then that is not an agreed text.
Sir David Madel
325. Foreign Secretary, do we want Nice to fix
the date of the next IGC? If we do, do we want that date to be
2004?
(Mr Cook) Our position is that we believe that the
first new members should be present from the start of the next
IGC and take part in the IGC. We have already had an extensive
debate as to whether or not 2004 is a realistic target date for
the first new members. I think it is difficult to be precise about
when a future IGC may actually get underway. At this present point
we have not taken a view on that. The issue of principle I think
is very important, and those who pressed for an IGC to commence
in 2004 we would want to see make a commitment that they will
themselves work for enlargement to take place before 2004. These
are two interlocking issues, both of which are subject to wide
margins of judgment as to whether or not 2004 is the right year,
and at this point I do not want to commit myself.
Chairman: Foreign Secretary, a relaxing three
days at Nice it will not be. I would like to thank you and your
colleagues.
|
