14 Ireland Pragmatism and the EU constitution Anna Gwiazda The EU constitution was agreed in June 2004 under the Irish presidency of the EU Council of Ministers. Certainly, the Irish pragmatic approach1 facilitated the successful conclusion of the IGC 2003–4. Non- confrontational exploitation of opportunities as well as the negotiating skills and quiet diplomacy of An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and his officials facilitated the final compromise (Institute of European Affairs 2004). This approach was not surprising given that the Irish politics and political culture are characterized by a pragmatic and non-ideological attitude. Similarly, “pragmatism, rather than any political or ideological commit- ment, frames the traditional picture of Irish attitudes toward European integration” (Tonra 2002: 201). Ireland joined the European Communities in 1973 along with Denmark and the UK. Ireland’s EC accession was a milestone in opening a poor European state to a global economy and reducing its economic dependence on the UK. A combination of domestic and international factors enabled Ireland to overcome its economic problems of the 1980s. The economy grew rapidly in the 1990s and Ireland came to be called Europe’s “Celtic tiger.” Per capita GDP in Ireland has increased from almost 60 percent of the EC average in 1973 to well over 100 percent today (Department of Foreign Affairs 2004). EU constitution building attracted political attention in Ireland after the second Nice referendum in October 2002. Initially, it was overshad- owed by the national argument on the Nice Treaty and the two referen- dum campaigns (Brown 2003: 1). Despite the widespread support for the EU (over three-quarters of the Irish regard Ireland’s EU membership as “a good thing,” Eurobarometer 2004b), the Nice referendum in June 2001 resulted in 54 percent of voters saying “no” on a turnout of 35 percent.2 Following the negative result, the government wanted to reassure Ireland’s EU partners that Ireland was committed to the EU and, con- sequently, held the referendum a second time. In October 2002, 63 percent favored the ratification of the Nice Treaty on the turnout of 49.5 percent. Ireland 129 Domestic structures in a comparative perspective Ireland is a constitutional parliamentary democracy. The Irish system of government has been categorized as a variation of the Westminster model (Gallagher et al. 2006) which is characterized inter alia by the doctrines of cabinet responsibility and cabinet confidentiality.3 One of the important differences from the Westminster model is the significance of the codified constitution in Irish politics and government (Coakley and Gallagher 2005). The 1937 constitution stipulates that the government exercises the executive power. In the Irish system the cabinet, headed by the Taoiseach,4 is the center of political decision making. On legislative power, Article 15 of the Irish constitution stipulates that the parliament, which is known as the Oireachtas, consists of the president and two houses: a house of repre- sentatives called Dáil Éireann, which has 166 members and a senate called Seanad Éireann, which has 60 senators. Members of Dáil Éireann, called TDs,5 are elected on the basis of STV proportional representation to serve five-year terms. The May 2002 parliamentary elections resulted in the re- election of the Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrat government headed by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern (FF). Most of the major political parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labor Party and the Progressive Democrats, have sup- ported European integration, though Sinn Féin and the Greens are exceptions.6 Constitutional policy coordination In Ireland the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is responsible for coordination of day-to-day EU business while the macro sensitive dossiers are dealt with by the foreign affairs department and the Taoiseach’s depart- ment (Laffan and O’Mahony 2003: 99, Department of the Taoiseach 2003). The DFA supervises developments in the EU from an institutional and political perspective while the Department of the Taoiseach (DT) is essential to the conduct of Ireland’s EU policy because it serves as the sec- retariat of the Taoiseach (Laffan and O’Mahony 2003: 38). Moreover, other departments are involved in the management of EU business. Fur- thermore, the establishment of the EU Committee strengthened the Irish cabinet in the EU field. Similarly, EU constitution building was coordinated by the department of foreign affairs. In particular, the European Union Division in the DFA, which manages Ireland’s EU relations, was key to the coordination process (see Figure 14.1). The EU division cooperated with the political division, in the area of foreign and security policy and with the legal division on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There were bilateral contacts between the DFA and other departments as well as interdepartmental activity. When the Irish government’s position at the IGC was formed the consultation process was rather informal. The DFA took also the lead in the 130 Anna Gwiazda Draft constitution by Government Policy Position the Convention at the IGC IGC Oversight Group (DT) Figure 14.1 Ireland: domestic policy coordination for the IGC 2003–4. coordination of the Irish presidency of the EU Council of Ministers during which there was extensive high-level political and official inter- departmental coordination and discussion of the IGC issues and the Irish government’s position at the IGC 2003–4. The EU and International Unit in the DT chaired and serviced the IGC Oversight Group, which was set up in October 2003 to monitor the IGC developments. Officials from the departments of foreign affairs, of finance, of enterprise, trade and employment and of justice, equality and law reform attended the sessions while the EU division in the DFA pre- pared briefing papers. The Cabinet Committee on European Affairs chaired by the Taoiseach was the main formal forum for political coordination of the Irish govern- ment’s position because key decisions were taken at cabinet level. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs consisting of the Select Committee of Dáil Éireann and the Select Committee of Seanad Éireann did not play a formal role in policy formulation. It had regular briefings from the minister of state for European affairs and the minister for foreign affairs. However, as one of the interviewees noticed there was no obvious policy input. The role of the National Forum on Europe, established in October 2001 to keep the public informed about all EU issues, was limited in shaping the government’s position on the IGC. However, it certainly has a role to play during the ratification process of the EU constitution. Ireland 131 Data and empirical analysis of forming positions on the constitution for Europe For the study of domestic coordination process in Ireland, four experts were interviewed in November and December 2003 in Dublin. Two inter- views were carried out with experts from within the governmental system: a senior official from the DT and a senior official from the DFA. More- over, one interview was conducted with the Irish representative at the European Convention and the fourth interview was conducted with an academic specializing in Ireland’s EU policy. Of all the actors involved in the coordination process the experts men- tioned the department of foreign affairs and the department of the Taoiseach as the most relevant, yet, other departments took part in the formation of the government’s position at the IGC 2003–4.7 Overall, the Irish government welcomed the outcome of the European Convention, although there were some areas of concern such as defense, taxation and criminal law (Institute of European Affairs 2003: 2). First and foremost, the Irish government advocated a balanced institu- tional framework in which the interests and fundamental equality of all member states were protected. The Irish government advocated strength- ening and underpinning of each side of the institutional triangle – the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. With respect to the European Commission, it should preserve its central role with the right to initiate legislation. The interviewees observed that the Irish government could live with the idea of having fewer commissioners than the number of member states, on condition that equality was secured. With respect to the six-monthly rotation of the presidency of the Euro- pean Council, Foreign Minister Cowen considered possible changes to the running of Council presidencies (Cowen 2003). As regards a qualified majority voting threshold in the Council, the Irish government agreed in Nice to the Nice model. Yet, a preferable option was the Convention pro- posal. Consequently, the Irish government could assume a flexible approach to the contested institutional issues, such as the number of com- missioners, the Council presidency modus, the Council voting rules, on condition equality of all member states was maintained. Any institutional arrangement could be possible as long as EU member states were equally represented. The Foreign Minister Cowen stated, “so long as basic prin- ciples are respected . we will be open, imaginative and flexible” (Cowen 2003). The Irish vital interest also included defense, taxation and criminal law. Roche emphasized in his contribution to the European Convention: “There should be a further extension of the co-decision procedure in the legislative field. Such a move would go hand in hand with QMV in the Council . However, particular sensitivities of Member States may require different procedures” (Roche et al. 2003: 7). In fact, the Irish government 132 Anna Gwiazda insisted at the IGC on maintenance of unanimity in taxation. Moreover, the Irish government wanted to ensure that nothing in the EU constitu- tion would threaten the national, common-law-based system in criminal law. The Irish government expressed reservations about specific procedures in European security and defense policy. Foreign policy cooperation remained a controversial area because neutrality has always been a sensi- tive issue in Ireland.