Before the debate was adjourned prior to Private Members' time I confirmed that the Labour Party remain committed to the principle of European Union and highlighted the importance of the Cohesion Fund and other funds which had been promised and perhaps secured today at the meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Twelve. In welcoming the statements of the party leaders of the four main political parties who had come together, in a united front, in this the final week before the referendum to commend a "Yes" vote to the people as the natural way to proceed, I sounded a word of caution that we should not under-estimate those groups who, for various reasons, genuinely believe that somehow or other the Maastricht Treaty will lead us into uncharted waters. I would not under-estimate those people, in particular old people, who believe that the Maastricht Treaty is linked to the question of abortion.
The blame for this rests primarily with the Government — admittedly, not with the present Taoiseach or Minister for Foreign Affairs but with their predecessors. Without consulting or advising the House they inserted a Protocol in the Treaty to prevent any involvement by the European Community or the Twelve in relation to Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, however this Protocol gave rise to a major problem and dilemma not only for the Government but for the committed people to whom I have referred. Because the Supreme Court interpreted Article 40.3.3º as permitting abortion in Ireland in certain circumstances, people linked the two questions. We therefore have a responsibility to reassure those people. That is the reason the Labour Party devoted a large proportion of their Private Members' time to the task of addressing some of the problems that have arisen following the decision of the Supreme Court, in particular with regard to the right of women to travel and receive information. The Government therefore took a risk when they decided to proceed with the referendum on 18 June without first addressing that problem.
There are pressure groups, including unemployed action groups, who are campaigning irrespective of the decision of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, for a "No" vote on behalf of the unemployed. One can readily understand therefore why the unemployed are confused. When we joined the European Community 20 years ago 60,000 people were unemployed but now to our disgrace the figure is approaching 300,000 at a time when we are about to ratify a new treaty which would lead to common borders and the free movement of capital and people. I am sure that the unemployed are disenchanted. Despite this, there has not been a proper debate, discussion or dialogue on some of the most important parts of the Maastricht Treaty which I hope will address some of these problems through the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds.
The Government must accept responsibility for this confusion. The Labour Party have attempted to be responsible in raising questions about the legality of the Treaty. We have decided, on balance, given that the Government have decided to proceed with the referendum on 18 June and that there is no alternative, that it is our responsibility in spite of our reservations, to call for a "Yes" vote. Given that the decision of the Danish people to reject the Maastricht Treaty has given rise to confusion and that the Government have refused to postpone the referendum I, and I suspect many others, will have to go to the polls on 18 June with our eyes wide open because, in the final analysis, this is a matter for the people themselves. If they vote "Yes", in effect they will be saying that they want Ireland to be part of a European Union and to ratify the Treaty on European Union if and when that becomes possible.
As things stand however the European Union that Irish people want cannot come into effect until 1 January next year at the earliest. Therefore the plans for economic union, including the single currency, cannot come into effect, and neither the Cohesion Fund nor the increase in Structural Funds, on which so many hopes for future economic development are based can be guaranteed. The Treaty has no legal basis at present and an overwhelming "yes" vote will not be enough to establish this. On the other hand, our voting "No" would deepen the European crisis, adding to the sense of paralysis prevailing within Europe at present. That is the risk this Government run by proceeding down that road at present littered with confusion and misinformation.
The Labour Party have supported, and will continue to support, European economic and social integration. We are more than aware of the importance of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We know that even the recent Common Agricultural Policy reform, with some of its attendant problems, will still lead to the emergence of a dynamic food industry here. We know how important that can be to rural life and the development of a comprehensive food industry here. Many people have argued that the manner in which this integration was negotiated was too speedy to take into account the justifiable concerns and apprehension of many European citizens, many of them Irish.
It is necessary to preface such comments by reviewing the manner in which those negotiations were conducted at the intergovernmental conferences leading to the Maastricht treaty. Initially there was to be only one such conference dealing with economic and monetary union since that was regarded as a natural corollary to the Single European Act, 1987. The Labour Party would have been content with that pace of development within the European Community.
However, a second intergovernmental conference arose out of the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union and the influence of the East European block which led to the unexpected unification of Germany at a pace few could have foreseen. In effect, German unification meant that the German Democratic Republic was absorbed into the European Community without any changes being effected in the existing Treaties. That development led Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand to request the then Irish Presidency, in April 1990, to place European political union on the agenda via a parallel intergovernmental conference. That was speedily agreed with the objective of containing a united Germany within a strengthened Community. As a result, political union appeared on the EC agenda much earlier than had been anticipated, with little prior preparation on the part of any member state.
The two intergovernmental conferences were conducted in the traditional manner of international diplomacy notwithstanding the fact that they were devising the constitutional framework for a European union. That meant that those negotiations were conducted by officials largely in secret, with Ministers being involved only periodically.
The final shape of the Treaty on European Union was determined by heads of state and governments of the European Council meeting held in Maastricht last December. Many fundamental issues were only then resolved, such as the irreversible commitment to European Monetary Union, the wording of an ambition to create a Federal Europe and the place of the Social Charter within the new union.
Some member states had published White Papers outlining their strategic demands to these two intergovernmental conferences in the months leading up to Maastricht. But in the case of most member states, including our own, there was no such White Paper published. Parliamentary debates were either not held at all or were very short on detail. Indeed, we did not allow any committee of this House to examine those proposals in detail. To some extent those activities offset the secrecy of the intergovernmental conference negotiations. But it cannot be claimed there was any widespread, democratic consultation on the aims of political union, which has led to some of the present confusion in people's minds. That criticism is particularly relevant to this country where no White Paper was published in advance. We allowed no fundamental debate to take place.
Indeed, the nature of the negotiations meant there was no scope whatsoever for amending the articles of the Treaty after it had been voluntary signed by the various governments, despite some claims to the contrary. Any particular concerns of a government are presumed by their partners to have been raised and dealt with satisfactorily during those intergovernmental conferences. Today our former Minister for Foreign Affairs explained even his dilemma because of the pace of the agreements that led up to the Maastricht Summit. Those intergovernmental conferences were never intended to work in that fashion; normal practice in their negotiations and procedures was never followed. Democratic consultation should have taken place prior to the opening of those intergovernmental conferences and continued throughout their duration which would have allowed us, like other countries, to have an input. This would have given the electorate an insight into what was being attempted. The people should have been consulted all along the way which would have eliminated some of the confusion now prevailing. At the time a broad consensus could have been formed, which would have eliminated some of the present disappointment and frustration.
In the aftermath of the Danish referendum, taking into account the uncertainty of the decision of our electorate on 18 June, it is imperative that in any future intergovernmental conferences — and there will be future important conferences, particularly on the question of neutrality — we be consulted in the process of negotiation, before final signature, before people are forced into another referendum or being told there are no other options available. The failure of this House to establish a committee which could have dealt with that problem is also the responsibility of Government. I join with the Council for the Status of Women and others who lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Government. If there is a sizeable "No" vote in this forthcoming referendum, the Government must accept some of the responsibility. We in the Opposition parties have endeavoured to assist the Government because we know that is the way the Government and the country should proceed.
The Labour Party believe that Ireland should actively campaign for a procedure whereby any future treaties on integration should be endorsed democratically by way of referendum in each member state. In that way Europe would be constructed by its citizens, not merely by officials, governments or political parties. In future, people will want the decision making process on these very fundamental matters in their hands by way of referenda. It should also be remembered that we involve our people because we are forced to do so by our Constitution, not out of any commitment to open government or democracy. Denmark was the only member state that involved its people voluntarily since their Constitution did not so stipulate. They have taken their decision and should not be condemned but rather facilitated in every possible way to become part of the twelve, which is legally necessary for the signature of any agreement on the Maastricht Treaty. We are pleased to note also that the French Government have decided to afford their people the democratic right to express their views on the Mastricht Treaty. All member states should adopt the same democratic mechanism in ratifying any future treaty on European integration.
I sincerely hope there will be a positive, majority "Yes" vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty on 18 June. The Labour Party cannot but be commended for their efforts at being constructive in what has been a most contentious debate, one which has left people very unhappy nationwide. I have no doubt that there is a sizeable number of our people who remain undecided, who are unhappy, who may even vote against the Treaty because of a lack of commitment, direction or proper debate, which is the responsibility of Government.