I attended the European Council in Helsinki, on 10 and 11 December together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. This was the second time EU leaders had met during the Finnish Presidency. We had previously met during October for the Special European Council in Tampere on justice and home affairs. The very significant work conducted across a range of issues during the Finnish Presidency allowed for a very successful European Council meeting in Helsinki – that allowed leaders to focus, in the main, on matters of future concern to the Union in the new millennium.
I begin by outlining the format of the Council. It began on 10 December, with a meeting with the President of the European Parliament, Mme Nicole Fontaine, with whom there was a useful exchange of views on the Intergovernmental Conference, Enlargement and Employment. The Millennium Declaration adopted by the Council was discussed as the first item of the morning working session which followed. A detailed discussion of enlargement formed the bulk of that session. European security and defence was the topic for discussion at the working lunch and issues such as the Intergovernmental Conference, the effective functioning of the Council and economic and employment matters were examined on Friday afternoon. A variety of external relations matters, most notably Chechnya were discussed over dinner. On Saturday morning, as is usual, leaders focused on the draft Council Conclusions. In addition, we were joined for lunch on Saturday by the leaders and Foreign Ministers of the applicant countries.
The first item discussed was the Millennium Declaration. This is essentially a "mission statement” for the Union as it enters the next millennium. The declaration captures in a succinct fashion, the reasons for the Union's existence, the achievements to date, the challenges that lie ahead and the values that underpin our response to these challenges. It confirms that the role of the Union should be to ensure its inhabitants' security and welfare, as well as contributing to building a more stable, just and peaceful world.
I am pleased that this European Council took a significant further step towards the enlargement of the Union. It was crucial to reinforce the momentum towards enlargement. In recent months I have had the opportunity to visit some of the accession countries and I met a number of their leaders at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul. They were looking forward to the Helsinki European Council as heralding a new stage in their accession to the Union. It did this not only by conveying a clear and positive message to these countries as to the steps necessary for accession but by agreeing on the format of the Intergovernmental Conference that will address the institutional changes necessary for enlargement to take place. I will return to the Intergovernmental Conference later. The Council decided that the accession negotiation process should now include all 12 accession countries on an equal footing and that each should be judged on its own merits. Importantly, the Council also confirmed that the Union should be in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.
Our discussion on enlargement recognised that the question of inclusion of Turkey as a candidate country was one of the more complex political issues on the agenda at this Council. I have long called for Turkey to be included as a candidate while recognising the necessity for all candidates to comply with the Copenhagen criteria before entering into negotiations. It was also important to reflect the concerns of Greece and Cyprus in the outcome. I am pleased to say we successfully found a formula to include Turkey as a candidate country reflecting the above considerations which were acceptable to everybody. It was a mark of the Council's determination to grant candidate status to Turkey that saw Secretary General-High Representative Solana, Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen and a Presidency representative flying last Friday to Ankara to explain the Union's position. It was particularly pleasing that we were joined on the following day by Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit. Turkey will now benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. Significantly, this will entail a political dialogue with a particular emphasis on human rights.
It was also important that the European Council gave its support for the UN sponsored talks in New York aimed at a political settlement of the Cyprus problem. It was appropriate that Cyprus be encouraged in its accession efforts and that a signal be given that while a political settlement to the island's division would aid accession such a settlement was not a precondition. The Finnish Presidency is to be congratulated for its work on the enlargement portfolio and I look forward to the European Conference planned for the latter part of next year, during the French Presidency; and to the consideration of the next regular progress reports on all candidates at the EU Council in December 2000.
It had been agreed at Cologne that an Intergovernmental Conference would be convened early in 2000 to resolve the institutional issues left over from the Amsterdam Treaty that needed to be settled before enlargement began. The Finnish Presidency has been invited to submit a report on the Intergovernmental Conference, on its own responsibility, to the Helsinki Summit. The approach in the Presidency's report coincided largely with our own position. It suggested a limited agenda for the conference focusing on the Amsterdam leftovers and a small number of other institutional questions.
At Helsinki, EU leaders agreed that the Intergovernmental Conference should be convened in early February and conclude by December 2000. The conference will examine the three Amsterdam issues – size and composition of the Commission; the weighting of votes in the Council; and the possible extension of quality majority voting – as well as a small number of related institutional changes. In addition, the Portuguese Presidency will report to the European Council on progress by the conference and may propose additional items that could be considered for the agenda. Arrangements were agreed for the close association and involvement of the European Parliament in the work of the conference. The candidate countries will also be regularly informed of progress and have the opportunity to put their points of view. The scope of the Intergovernmental Conference agenda, which we decided, provides a realistic basis for the conference and should enable it to complete its work by the end of next year.
During the process itself, in common with many other member states, we will continue to insist on the continued right of all member states to nominate a full and equal member of the Commission. Any new weighting of votes in the Council must be accompanied by the larger member states giving up their second Commissioner. Ireland will also be seeking assurance that the equality within the Commission thus achieved would be maintained in the future. The special summit in Lisbon in March will provide Heads of State or Government with a first opportunity to review the process.
In addition to the Treaty changes to be considered by the Intergovernmental Conference to prepare for enlargement, changes in the working methods of Council are also necessary. As a result, the General Affairs Council submitted to Helsinki specific proposals for improving the operation of Council with a view to enlargement. These proposals, which were adopted, generally reflect a realistic assessment of where improvements in the working methods of the Council are possible. It was also agreed to reduce the number of Council formations to a maximum of 15 through discontinuing or merging certain formations – at present there are 22. All of these efficiency related changes can be made within the existing Treaty provisions.
Following from the Cologne European Coun cil, an issue of key interest to Ireland at the summit was the Common European Policy on Security and Defence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, will return to this issue in more detail in his concluding statement. This is an issue on which we have continued to remain vigilant so as to ensure that any progress continues to be acceptable to Ireland and to our fellow neutral partners. That the final outcome on this issue at the summit was acceptable to us is due in no small part to the Minister, Deputy Andrews, and his very active involvement in this issue at the General Affairs Council.
The discussion on this matter at Helsinki acknowledged the good work that has been done on non-military aspects of crisis management in tandem with work on the military aspects. In addition, the report by the Presidency on this issue rightly made clear that the EU's engagement relates to the Petersberg Tasks and not to the so-called Article 5 issues of mutual defence. It was important for us that the EU at the highest level be seen to support the UN, and recognise the primary role of the UN Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. I am pleased to say that at my request the Conclusions reflect that fundamental point.
Two main areas were addressed, from Ireland's point of view – capabilities and decision making structures. As to capabilities, it was agreed that member states would be able by 2003 to deploy a force of 50,000 – 60,000 capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks. Participation by any member state will be on an entirely case by case basis as individual missions arise. I also emphasise that what is involved is not a standing European Army and the Conclusions from the Council explicitly recognise this fact at Ireland's request.