Vol. 418 No. 5
4 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether there is a danger that the fundamental issues of European Union relating to the major benefit to Ireland from our EC membership will be unclear to the general electorate due to the preoccupation with the Irish protocol; and if he will outline his plans to inform the public before a referendum on the Treaty is held.
A referendum on the Treaty on European Union will be held as a necessary step in Ireland's ratification process. Prior to the holding of a referendum, there will, of course, be a referendum campaign and the Government will explain the Treaty on European Union fully and comprehensively. As part of their contribution to the debate, it is the Government's intention to publish a White Paper on the Treaty in the near future. The White Paper will set out the detailed provisions of the Treaty, the implications for Ireland, and the reasons the Treaty on European Union will be of major benefit to Ireland and to the process of European integration.
The Irish people will be asked in this referendum to make a fundamental choice. The issue will be clear to them. Do we wish to participate in the process of European integration to which we committed ourselves in 1972 and move forward together with our partners towards greater cohesion and prosperity, or do we wish to opt out of this process and isolate ourselves by our own choice? I have no doubt that when all the facts and arguments are presented and debated the Irish people will be fully aware of where their interests lie and will approve the referendum by an overwhelming majority.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, will he agree that the shambles in relation to the Maastricht Treaty has arisen as a direct result of the ineptitude of the Government and, indeed, the Minister's ineptitude at EC level to get the Ministers to agree an addendum to the protocol? Is he aware, in view of the announcement which the Government made at lunch-time, that this Treaty is now likely to be voted against by a wide variety of people? This applies particularly to women who are afraid they will not be allowed to travel. If the Treaty is adopted with the present protocol, is the Minister aware that women will not be allowed to receive information or have the right to appeal to the European Court? What specific action will his Government take before the Maastricht Treaty referendum to ensure that people who wish to vote for it will be able to do so?
I am surprised at the Deputy's vehemence. I would have thought that, in an approach to Maastricht, we would have continued on the path to consensus. I am not in the business of allocating blame in relation to ineptitude but in the Government's approach, particularly on the wording of the addendum to the protocol, consensus was sought. An announcment has already been made in relation to Maastricht and consensus will also be sought. The Deputy must bear in mind that, from any point of view, the question of disentangling the Supreme Court decision on abortion on the one hand and Maastricht on the other is fundamental. They are two very important issues and the Government see an all-party approach as fundamental to the future of Maastricht.
I will allow a brief supplementary from Deputy Owen. Let us not forget the time factor in dealing with these questions.
This matter is of vital and fundamental interest to the people of this country. Will the Minister tell the House what will become of the Treaty if it is not adopted by this country because of the confusion and misinformation which has been put out by the Government? Can it be adopted by the other 11 countries? What, for example, will happen to the membership applications for countries such as Sweden, Austria, Finland and Norway? Where will the EC stand at that stage if this country is misled into voting against the Treaty by the Government?
I do not agree with the Deputy's analysis of the situation. The Government have adopted a proper approach to this issue and problem which now confront us. As I said, we seek to disentangle the two issues and I would have thought that the direction of the Deputy's question would not seek that achievement. It is unfortunate that the Deputy is adopting such an attitude. The Government are seeking to deal with Maastricht on its own, separate and apart from the protocol abortion issue.
Do not blame us.
Where did the protocol come from in the first place? The Government are authors of their own misfortune.
I am sorry, Deputy Dukes, you may not intervene at this stage.
We now have to deal with the problem as we find it and that is what we are doing.
Whose legacy is it?
It is not a question of whose legacy it is, it is a matter of dealing with it as we now find it and in the future. That is what we are trying to do.
The Government were sold a pup.
I would have thought that the Opposition party, with their concern for Maastricht and what it means to the future of this country, would have adopted a totally different attitude.
The Chair's concern is to dispose of these questions within the time limit. We now come to Question No. 5. An error in relation to Question No. 5 was brought to my notice a short time ago, perhaps Deputy Taylor-Quinn will correct me if I am wrong. "That Title and Article N of the Treaty", not "Article IV", is the correct interpretation of this question.
We have come to an arrangement about that. I understand that I will read the response to the original question in the first instance and then we can correct the matter by way of supplementaries thereafter.
