Wednesday, 15 May - Introducing his resolution, which calls for a common foreign and security policy, Hans-Gert Poettering (G, EPP) spoke of the need for a step by step approach, possibly involving the WEU acting as a bridge so that by 1998, the date of the expiry of the WEU treaty, it would be conceivable to envisage a fully fledged EC policy as part of European Union. In the meantime, non-WEU EC member states, i.e. Ireland, Greece and Denmark, should not be excluded from the discussion. Speaking as a German, he then spoke of his support for a multi-national European force to be stationed in both Germany and France following the withdrawal of NATO troops from Germany.

Dealing with the question of a common foreign and security policy, Mr Poos was optimistic about a successful outcome emerging from the IGC. While he openly admitted there were differences of opinion of the exact nature of the Community's role and on the question of majority voting he did feel the political will was there to reach an agreement.

Ian White (Bristol, Soc) felt that if a common foreign and security policy was developed there was no need for the continued existence of the WEU but his main concern was the democratic deficit and, as he put it, the absence of 'parliamentary control of the Generals'. After all, war was too important to be left to them, he said, looking forward to the day when a new Commissiooner for Foreign and Security Policy would be accountable to Parliament.

Jean Penders (N, EPP) too supported a common policy in this area although to be realistic he felt it had to be based on an inter-governmental approach, at least at the beginning. It was, he added, clear that NATO would also have to be retained and here he urged both France and Spain to reconsider their respective positions and play a full part in this military alliance.

Christopher Jackson (Kent East, ED) felt that the various responses of the member states to the Gulf War clearly illustrated the need for an EC role although he did point out that this was no fault of the Community itself. Looking to the future and the possibility of a wider European Community comprising 400 million people it was, he said, important for the Community to develop a military role compatible with its economic strength. The question to be decided was how much joint policy making was needed and how the decision makers would be controlled.

As a start, the Community should be in a position to respond to disturbances in its doorstep whether it be in the Mediterranean or the Soviet Union, although he too envisaged the continuation of NATO. Other topics to be dealt with include arms exports and a common arms procurement policy. A number of speakers, including Alexander Langer (I, Greens), Ib Christensen (Dk, RBW) and Vassilis Ephremidis (Gr, LU) rejected the militaristic nature of the report bbefore the House, but Karel Dillen (B, ER) believed that, in the long term, Europe would have to grow up militarily. In the meantime, it would have to rely on NATO and the USA, he added.

It was then the turn of Commission President Jacques Delors, who wondered if the EC countries were ready to use their forces in the interests of international law. Reminding the House of the differences in Council between those member states who say a common foreign policy should run hand in hand with defence with those who want to retain a strong NATO link, he asked what the objective of the EC in these areas was.

He posed a number of questions. 'Do you feel the twelve member states have essential common interests', he asked. If so, he asked if these could be better safeguarded with defence responsibilities and if the answer again was 'yes', the conclusion then was that there had to be the ways and means of doing this, he stressed.

Referring to the conclusion of the Rome Summit last December, he said the approach to defence was an evolving one. He concluded that the EC was a long way from deciding whether there should be closer links with the WEU or NATO, or whether they should act as a bridge.

Mr Delors also argued that security considerations were strongly linked with internal matters such as the fight against crime and drugs. It also affected international cooperation, he said, where he felt the EC would have to make trade concessions in order to shhow responsibility to the outside world.

Pat Cox (Munster, LDR) wanted to know on what basis the new foreign and security policy would be constructed. Would there be an attempt to sustain what he termed the 'fiction' of drawing a distinction between the economic, political and military aspects of security which he suspected had been contrived as a means of accommodating Ireland's neutrality. He took the view that using this traditional neutrality policy as a bridgehead to take on new applicant neutral member states such as Sweden and Austria was inadequate and that there was nothing wrong with asking these countries whether they were prepared to make a long term commitment to defend the Community they aspired to join. Meanwhile, in the short term, he support the idea of Ireland applying for observer status to the WEU.