MINISTER'S RESPONSE:THE GOVERNMENT was unhappy with the compromise proposal being considered as the basis for a future global trade deal, Tánaiste Mary Coughlan has said.
However, she insisted that Ireland would not issue a veto over the current session of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in Geneva this week.
"This idea of using the word veto at this stage is very dangerous. At this point in time we do not have a deal. This is not the place that a final decision will be made. That decision will be made in six months' time," Ms Coughlan told The Irish Times.
Ms Coughlan said that wielding a veto over a process involving 153 countries was the last "click of the dice" and would not happen before a final undertaking later this year.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio yesterday, she said the "parameters of a deal" now existed following talks over the weekend, but that agreement was "a long way from a final deal".
Discussions had taken place on the services issue and there had been "good progress". She said some 43 per cent of Ireland's exports were from the services sector, including the banking and financial services sector.
In the farming sector, she said the Government had articulated its "unhappiness". But she noted that the only agricultural product which now had "sensitive" status in the talks was beef. Ms Coughlan said she did not believe anything would be put forward in the coming days that would require a vote. "I can't say that this process will even be brought to finality on Tuesday or Wednesday," she said.
The Government had always looked for a "balanced deal" and while there was progress in some areas, there was still sensitivity in others.
The Irish Famers' Association has been pressing the Government to wield its veto over the talks, which are aiming at liberalising world trade in agriculture, goods and services. It has warned that the tariff cuts outlined in the compromise proposal would devastate the beef industry and cost 100,000 jobs.
Ms Coughlan said she had expressed reservations to EU trade negotiator Peter Mandelson about the proposals because they were bad for EU agriculture and did not offer enough access to developing market economies for goods and services.
"We told him we didn't see it as being balanced. We want it to be more ambitious on services, we thought it should be more ambitious on industrial market access, and we still have a problem with beef," said Ms Coughlan.