Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Jun 1992

Vol. 420 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - European Union Treaty: Statements (Resumed).

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.

With your permission, Sir, I should like to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate. By and large, the contributions to which I have listened have been objective and constructive with perhaps few exceptions.

Since the commencement of this debate much has been said and written about the Treaty on European Union. Analysts on both sides of the divide have had a field day. Yet it is probably true to say that, in the minds of many ordinary people, there remains much doubt and confusion. For example, I have heard the argument advanced that there has been insufficient information available, that the full text of the Treaty should have been made available for everybody to study. Having read the full text I am not certain that those who write such texts really want to communicate with ordinary people. Sometimes those of us whose job it is to understand this European jargon continue to use this mythical European phraseology to the utter confusion of many of our listeners. Of course the text has been unravelled and rewritten by various interest groups nationwide and is now available in factual, abbreviated form. In my view those who really want to study the proposals contained in the Maastricht Treaty should not have any difficulty doing so by means of the many simplified forms now available.

There has been a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this debate which hopefully will disappear in the remaining week before the referendum. It is important that that hysteria should disappear since the outcome of the forthcoming referendum will have very serious consequences for Ireland and for the entire European Community. It will have consequences for our future as an economic entity as an island, disadvantaged nation on the periphery of Europe. It will also have consequences for our young people who are entitled to training to assist them in adapting to the fast changing technological climate in Europe and elsewhere. The European Community is positively committed to training. I do not like to refer to the billions of pounds that have been available because this may be confusing and misleading and may lead to comments that we are trying to buy the support of the Irish people for the Maastricht Treaty. The reality, however, is that between 1989-93 £3 billion will have been made available by the European Community for development works here. By any standard that is not an insignificant amount of money and cannot be overlooked in the debate on this proposal.

The outcome of the referendum will have consequences for our young people who expect and are entitled to work in their own country. We have a frightening and unacceptable level of unemployment. Will we be able to attempt to address that problem if we are economically and socially isolated from the centre of economic growth? Europe has acknowledged the problem and assisted us in addressing these matters. The EC has agreed to categorise us with Greece, Spain and Portugal, as nations in need of special developmental assistance. That assistance will be substantially increased in the years ahead. I have not heard anybody say that we do not need that level of assistance. I have however heard criticism of our begging bowl mentality. The people who make such criticism, also say that we should not play our part in full European integration. They talk about our pride as a nation or sometimes, our absence of pride but yet they expect us to take all and give nothing in return.

The Maastricht Treaty is about economic and monetary union and we are not being asked to surrender anything that would undermine our national identity or interfere with our Christian ethos or with our religious or cultural traditions. These unique characteristics are deep rooted in the hearts and souls of the Irish people who will take steps to ensure they are never eroded or undermined.

The more we move towards integration the greater the challenge to retain our individual identities and the greater the social and economic benefits for doing so. Already there is clear evidence of this trend on mainland Europe as even regions within countries promote and capitalise on their individual characteristics. They are supported in doing that by deliberate and positive EC measures. Indeed, the Leader programme is a classic example of how EC funds are made available for rural development programmes, for which I have some degree of responsibility. Between now and 1993, £35 million will be made available under that programme. I have a particular interest in this aspect of European integration as I face the challenge of implementing rural development programmes which are generously assisted by EC grant schemes. Doubts are being created in the public mind about the future of European funding post-Maastricht. In my view this again is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and is without any justification. What is beyond question is the extent of European funding to date and in my area of responsibility £104 million has been committed to this country up to 1993 under the operational programme for rural development.

The success of these programmes is a matter for us and, indeed, is a challenge to me as Minister of State with responsibility for rural development. I assure the House I will take whatever steps necessary to ensure that we get a positive return from this very generous level of European aid. It will not be the fault of the EC if we do get value for money or if we fail to put in place structures that will be of permanent benefit to our social and economic fabric. When I recently met with Commissioner MacSharry he assured me of the availability of further funding for Ireland post-1993. Despite everything that has been said in this House, am I to doubt the Commissioner's assurances? He has not let us down up to now and I certainly trust his integrity and credibility.

This brings me to the question of trust, a significant element in this debate. The question of trust has been referred to in this House, on television and in the print media. Those campaigning against the Maastricht Treaty have spoken about their lack of trust in the Government, in individual politicians and even in the European Community. Which politicians cannot be trusted? The Maastricht Treaty enjoys the backing of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour parties, as Deputy Ferris so ably demonstrated during his contribution this evening. Deputies in those parties have given it their backing. We are the elected representatives of the Irish people who made their choice through the ballot box. We are entitled to make judgments and recommendations. There is no obligation on the Government to provide funds to promote policies which are contrary to our collective judgment. The Government are leading from the front and the day we fail to do so is the day we abdicate the responsibility entrusted to us by the Irish people.

The Treaty also has the backing of all the major vocational and social groups in the country, the trade union movement, the farming organisations, Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre. Church leaders have acknowledged the importance and relevance of our role as Europeans and, indeed, our interdependence on each other. I acknowledge and respect the right of those who are opposed to the Treaty to express their viewpoint. They are an essential part of the national debate. However, they tend to concentrate on the more emotional aspects of the issue such as neutrality, the right to travel and to information and the question of abortion. These are important issues and they will be addressed in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Irish people, but they are not issues to be decided on in the present decision-making process. It is important that the Irish people recognise that those decisions, important though they are, will be addressed. Assurances have been given in this House by the Taoiseach and other Members that they will be addressed constructively and positively and in a democratic way in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people.

Between now and polling day, which is just one week away, I appeal to the Irish people to study the merits and demerits of the Maastricht Treaty. I appeal to the people to exercise their rights and express judgment on these proposals. The Maastricht Treaty does not provide the answer to all our economic ills. It is not a question of whether the controversial figure of £6 billion is an exact figure but rather that we should acknowledge the extent to which we have benefited from our membership of the EC and if we can allow ourselves to be isolated from the centre of the decision-making process in Europe.

I have addressed in the short time available to me the importance of the Maastricht Treaty and the need for the Irish people to reach a correct decision. I would like to have had time to refer to the importance of the European Community to the Irish agricultural industry. However, in view of the recent debate in the House on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, I do not think it is necessary for me to reiterate this point tonight. Irish farmers know that our agricultural industry could not survive without the support and backing of the European Community and that our food industry depends on a prosperous and expanding agricultural industry. Deputy Ferris referred to this point. The Government hope to generate additional jobs in this area which will assist us in tackling unemployment, which is the greatest social problem facing us at present. I call on the Irish people to vote "yes" in the forthcoming referendum.

As Minister of State with responsibility for European and Women's Affairs, I wish to focus tonight on the benefits for women of Community membership and participation in the proposed European Union. However, before I do this I should like to repeat the welcome I have already given to today's statement by the Council for the status of Women, indicating that a "yes" vote on 18 June is, on balance and in the long term, in the best interests of Irish women.

I should like to refer to the benefits gained by men and women since our accession to the European Community in 1973: the European Community has underpinned peace in Europe for two generations, from which Ireland, in common with other member states, benefit; membership provides full and free access to the world's largest and richest internal market — a vital consideration for Ireland whose dependence on foreign trade is one of the highest in the Community; net financial flows resulting from membership are nearly 8 per cent of the value of all we produce; the Community is committed, through its cohesion policies, to raising living standards here; industries invest in Ireland because through the community we have full access to a market of more than 340 million people; as a country with a large agricultural sector our farmers derive considerable benefit from the market access, price supports and structural measures available under the Community's Common Agricultural Policy. In particular, our farmers benefit from Community prices which are often twice, or more, what they would get for their produce in the world outside, assuming they could sell it; and because of membership we have a voice in international fora where decisions affecting the future of Ireland are taken.

Women, in common with men, have benefited from these very positive features of Community membership. In the same way, they will share in the general benefits which the Treaty on European union will confer. In essence, the Treaty is designed to give the Community the means to build on what has been achieved to date, to the benefit of the people of this country, the rest of Europe and the wider world. I wish to make a few specific points: economic and monetary Union, together with the completion of the Single Market, will provide a powerful boost to growth and jobs in member states; the cohesion aspects of the Treaty will help ensure that the benefits of growth are shared by all member states, including Ireland; the social policy aspects, citizenship rights and new competences in education, health and culture will help build a people's Europe; the provisions of a common foreign and security policy will enable the Community to contribute more effectively to the preservation of international peace and security and the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. This type of language is used throughout the Maastricht Treaty; the Community's capacity to help developing countries will be strengthened; and the Justice and Home Affairs provisions of the Treaty will provide the means to tackle international problems such as drug trafficking and related crime and fraud.

I have referred to the general benefits of Community membership for women, but there are particular benefits for them also. The benefits from Ireland's membership of the Community have included the development of an EC Social Policy as a result of which the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977, were passed. Subsequently, Directives on equal treatment were adopted. Community law has assisted us greatly in developing such concepts as equal pay, indirect discrimination and positive action.

The Community's two Medium-term Programmes on Equal Opportunities, covering the years 1982 to 1985 and 1986 to 1990, played a pivotal role in directing action by member states. These programmes focused attention on the need to shape policies to tackle the effect of new technologies on women's employment, women's unequal access to vocational training, the impact of the achievement of the Single Market on the services sector where female employment is predominant and the growth of temporary and atypical work.

All these activities have served to increase the participation of women in the Irish labour force and to provide them with national machinery — in our case, the Employment Equality Agency — whereby women can be assisted in seeking redress against alleged incidents of discrimination in the workplace. Since our accession to the Community, the level of women's participation in training has increased every year. I wish to give some interesting figures in this respect. In 1971 only 5 per cent of trainees in Ireland were women. By 1986, the participation rate of women had risen to 34 per cent. By 1991, women represented 42 per cent of all those completing training.

Ireland's membership of the EC has led to substantial advances in the position of Irish women in our society. Adoption of the Treaty on European Union on 18 June will ensure for Irish women that these advances will never be clawed back, regardless of the economic circumstances at a particular time, but rather that they can be built upon and strengthened.

The Government believe that the clear message for Irish women is that ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union will bring sustained benefits for them. The post-Maastricht process will increase prosperity from which all the people of Ireland will benefit and it will continue to improve the position of women in Irish society.

The Government have no hesitation in recommending the Maastricht Treaty for endorsement by the women of Ireland. Ireland has been a member of the Community for about 20 years. Our experience has been overwhelmingly positive. We know what the Community is about and we know we can trust it as a powerful force for progress and development. The Treaty on European Union will strengthen the Community's positive influence in our lives. that is why, like other Deputies, I am calling for a resounding "Yes" vote on 18 June.

I should like with the permission of the House to share my time with Deputy Gerry Reynolds.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

We are making statements on the Maastricht Treaty this evening primarily because the Danish people rejected it last week. The Government agreed to allow time for these statements because of the fear which exists within the Government that the Irish people may reject the Treaty. This is unfortunate, and the Taoiseach has a huge responsibility to try to rectify the current situation. As far back as February, we on this side of the House strongly warned the Taoiseach about the implications of the High Court and the subsequent Supreme Court judgments. He has refused to date to act positively in relation to this issue.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to request the Taoiseach, if at all possible, to publish the Bill on the right to travel and information before 18 June. I make this request because it is my firm belief that unless this is done there is a grave danger that the women of Ireland will reject the Treaty. This matter should not be under-estimated on a political level by the Government. I join with the Minister of State in welcoming the announcement this evening by the Council for the Status of Women in urging support for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. On balance, the women of Ireland will be best served by closer participation in European Union.

I join with the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, in restating the benefits that will accrue to Irish women if the Maastricht Treaty is passed. The Minister referred particularly to article 2 which provides that the Community shall support and complement the activities of member states in the area of equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work. Articles 6 states the principle of equal pay and contains a provision in relation to member states' activities in that area. Overall, it is important that women recognise that issues of great importance to them are being addressed in the Maastricht Treaty. One can only hope that the Government will stand by their word and will hold a referendum in the autumn on the right to travel and to information. I repeat that it would be most helpful if the Bill on this issue was published prior to 18 June.

At present there is great confusion across the country in that initially people were told that if the Treaty was not passed by the 12 member states it would fall. However having been rejected by the Danish people, the public are now being told that the other 11 members can go ahead with the Treaty. It is important that the Taoiseach clearly state the legal position and not fool the people. The Irish people do not like to be stampeded, but to date the Taoiseach has adopted a stampeding policy on the Maastricht issue and has mishandled it. His original carrot of £6 billion has proven to be an incorrect way of encouraging the people to vote for the Treaty. It would have been more appropriate for the Taoiseach to explain in detail to the people what the Maastricht Treaty is about. Instead, he literally asked them to come to the soup kitchen and drink from the soup bowl, but the people reject that type of activity. That is our historical temperament and we should not forget that. The change of approach at this stage may be helpful to the Treaty. There is major confusion because of the rejection of the Treaty by the Danes. I urge the Taoiseach to clearly state the legal position and whether there will have to be another referendum later this year in relation to ratification. This matter has not been satisfactorily clarified for the electorate and they do not know who is to be believed.

The Maastricht Treaty is not about abortion. The abortion issue is a matter to be dealt with at national level, and we will have to deal with it. It is very irresponsible of senior people in our society to adopt a scare-mongering approach in relation to this matter, issuing misinformation and insinuating that Maastricht is about abortion. All of us have a responsibility to repeat that Maastricht is not about abortion. We in this House will have to resolve that problem and the sooner we deal with it the better.

Another matter that is causing confusion is the defence and neutrality issue. The question is constantly asked will we become part of a defence union. A common foreign security policy, as is clearly stated in the Treaty, will be dealt with in two ways: through systematic co-operation and through joint action. It must be stated that the joint action procedure extends to foreign policy and security matters but it does not extend to defence. Decisions on joint action will involve the European Council setting out the general guidelines and the Council of Foreign Ministers deciding on the subject of joint action and defining the scope, objectives and duration of the joint action. All decisions on common foreign policy issues, including co-operation and joint action, will be taken by unanimity — this is clearly stated in Article J8.2 of the Treaty. Article 34 sets out the role of the common foreign security policy in the area of security and defence. The common foreign security policy does not establish a common defence policy or a common defence for the union. The question of common defence and the scope and content of a common defence policy are left to an intergovernmental conference to take place in 1996 — Article J4 of the Treaty clearly states this position.

The European Union is not empowered to act in the area of defence. However, the European Union may request the Western European Union to act on defence matters of interest to them. The Treaty clearly states that a decision by the European Union to refer matters to the Western European Union must be unanimous. Where a member state disagrees with the proposed request to the Western European Union, no such request can be made. On defence matters each member state has the right of veto within the union — this is something the Irish people should be aware of. It must be recognised that member states who are members of the Western European Union can operate within that organisation in whatever manner they consider suitable provided — this is stated in the Treaty — such co-operation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this title of the Treaty.

A question that is commonly raised in the course of the campaign is whether Ireland could be forced into a war by qualified majority voting without reference to the Irish people. This argument is based on a wrong interpretation of Declaration No. 27 of the Treaty which provides that the conference agrees that with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity member states will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision. There was a similar section in the Single European Act which was never invoked. Majority voting is possible for implementing some decisions but only if this manner of voting is unanimously agreed, and this must be remembered. Decisions of fundamental principle and substance relating to common foreign security policy require unanimity.

Another question that is regularly asked — I can understand why the public raise this question — is whether a referendum will be held on a defence union in the future. People are concerned that they will be forced into a defence union in the future without consultation. My belief is that a referendum must be held despite any Government promise that there is a legal binding on the Government to hold a referendum. The Maastricht Treaty does not contain a mutual defence commitment. It does not require Ireland to join a military alliance — this is clearly stated in Articles B, J3, J4 and N of the Treaty. An amendment to the Maastricht Treaty would require an amendment to the Constitution by way of a referendum.

Article 28.3.1º of the 1937 Constitution clearly states: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann". Article 46.2 of the Constitution outlines how a referendum has to be held. It states: "Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum". In 1987 the European Court decision in the Crotty case established that any amendment to a Treaty previously established in the Constitution requires a further referendum. The Treaty of Rome has been established in our Constitution since 1972 when it was passed by referendum. It was amended by the Single European Act in 1987 and now we propose to amend it to deal with the Maastricht Treaty. Any further Treaties would require further amendment to the founding Treaty, the Treaty of Rome. This is a strong argument to legally suggest that a referendum has to be held and that any future Government will be bound to hold a referendum in relation to a common defence and security union within Europe. The Irish people should be made aware of this.

Another matter that arises relates to the rights of citizenship. Do the citizenship rights conferred on us in the Maastricht Treaty oblige us to introduce conscription and serve in a European army? Conscription is a matter for national law not European law. A number of member states use conscription although they are being discouraged from adopting that approach. There is no provision in the Maastricht Treaty for conscription or for a common defence union. To suggest otherwise is misleading. If we adopt the Maastricht Treaty our people cannot be conscripted either under Irish or European law, nor does the Irish Army become part of a European army. This will be addressed in 1996 at an intergovernmental conference. If at that time the Irish Government agrees to become part of a defence union they will have to put it to the people by way of a referendum. We must remember too, that all member states would have to unanimously agree to a defence union and every member state would have a right to veto. For anybody in the "No" campaign to suggest that conscription will occur is grossly misleading and irresponsible. There is an onus on us politicians to ensure between now and voting day that the people are not misled. I can understand the fears in the minds of parents who are afraid that in the future their children will be conscripted. Most of us here are parents and we would share that fear. We are not here to fool the people but to tell them honestly what is included in the Treaty. We must recognise our responsibility to our young people. We must recognise the opportunities the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty will give them, the opportunities for employment, further education, a greater involvement in Europe and so on. We must recognise that as the world becomes smaller due to increased communication and travel it is important to become more familiar and more closely associated with Europe from a social, educational and economic point of view.

This is the most serious decision this country will make since 1973 when we joined the EEC. If a vote had taken place yesterday or today, unfortunately, we would have had a majority "No" vote. It was only this morning, when the four leaders of the main political parties got together that the tide changed and we will now have a "Yes" vote on 18 June.

I compliment Deputy John Bruton, Leader of Fine Gael, who has led the way in this debate, for suggesting that all the party leaders come together to try to show the people that there is no hidden agenda, that political and monetary union in a European state is the way forward for this country and that the overall picture of the EC in the future is for a federal united states of Europe. This picture has not been sold to the people by the Government. There is total confusion among the electorate.

As a young person in politics I am aggrieved at the ineptitude of the Taoiseach and the Government and at the way they have taken the electorate for granted. They think they can use bullying tactics and say that there is £6 billion available and that the electorate will follow like lambs and will vote "Yes". Fortunately, things have changed. I hope it is not too late. There are still many issues to be discussed. People want questions answered. They want to know the political implications of European union and if Ireland loses its perceived control and ability to take decisions for itself. Will we lose our identity? Will Germany dominate the union? How will we preserve or increase our influence in union? What will be the impact on culture and language? Will social change be forced upon us and will defence and military dimensions mean more than a defensive role? These questions have been asked but they have not been answered. The people got a nod and wink answer from the Government —"trust us, everything will be all right on the day". The people are entitled to straight answers. The people are intelligent and hardworking and they want the country to go forward in a progressive way, economically and socially. They are entitled to better leadership than they have been getting so far.

Maastricht has not just fallen out of the sky to be discussed now. It has been going on since 1987. If Fianna Fáil Governments had decided to set up a foreign affairs committee it would have stimulated discussion on this and it would have alleviated the fears of people. I hope the young people and many organisations will come out and vote "Yes" on June 18. This is the most serious political decision we will be asked to make, and have been asked to make in the last 20 years. I hope the Government will see the folly of their ways and will at this stage initiate a more constructive debate and that the people will be happy with the decision they are making.

I would like to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Quill.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

The developments in Denmark last week were, of course, a shock and a serious disappointment to everyone who is committed to the further development of the European Community and to the specific provisions and advances enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty. However, we in Ireland will make up our own minds. Regardless of the legal and other complications which the Danish decision has presented and which must of course be resolved, there can be no doubt that Ireland's future lies along the road of increasingly close co-operation and partnership with our European neighbours. In this regard, it is of paramount importance that we give a resounding "Yes", now, to the agreement painstakingly negotiated and agreed at Maastricht. It was not put together suddenly, as Deputy Ferris sought to convey, earlier tonight.

Whatever way one looks at it, the Maastricht European Union Treaty is a major step along the road to economic, monetary and political union in Europe. Ireland's physical and, it has been said, psychological separation from the European mainland has meant that we have not been as deeply involved in the major political developments in Europe this century as perhaps we should. Closer union with our Community partners as a whole will provide us with the opportunity to rectify that and to become centrally involved in European and global change.

A strong Europe is a necessary counterbalance to the economic strength of the US and Japan. Political union should help to ensure that the rivalries which have riven Europe in the past will be no more because people and nationals will have joined together freely. The scope for one dominant country to wield power unilaterally over the rest of Europe will be restricted. European union will provide a powerful base on which to support the development of Eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

It would be inconceivable for this country not to want to play a full part in the historic developments now being put into place to build a Europe which will not alone be better able to provide improved living standards for its own people but a Europe that will also be a focus for stability, strength, and peace, in the new international political order which is now evolving from the profound changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Republics. Ireland as a nation long sought democracy. We want now to play a positive role in its emgergence in other lands.

The referendum on the Treaty of the European Union on 18 June will provide an opportunity for the Irish people to reaffirm our commitment to those ideals while making one of the most important and fundamental decisions since the foundation of the State. I am confident that there will be a substantial majority in favour of the Maastricht Treaty simply because we recognise that Ireland should, and must, be part of a progressive and outward-looking Europe.

Ireland has gained immeasurably in political, social and economic terms since we joined the European Community in 1973. The Single Market Programme which will remove trade barriers between the member states of the Community and which will be completed by the end of this year, has already attracted significant investment in manufacturing enterprises in Ireland, particularly from countries such as the United States and Japan, to take advantage of the opportunities which the Single Market will provide across Europe. This investment has been an important factor in the more than 55,000 increase in employment achieved in the non-agricultural sector over the past five years.

As Minister for Science and Technology, I particularly welcome the recognition which the Maastricht Treaty gives to the importance of research in strengthening the competitive position of European industry. The Single European Act adopted in the referendum in 1987 identified research as a priority for the Community, particularly in relation to the development of European industry. It stated in Article 130f:

The Community's aim shall be to strengthen the scientific basis of European industry and encourage it to become more competitive at international level.

The adoption of the Maastricht Treaty will reinforce this and extend the scope of Community research to deal not only with industry but also to promote "all the actions deemed necessary by virtue of the other chapters of the Treaty".

Community research is organised by means of Framework Programmes covering a wide cross-section of technological areas such as industrial and materials technology, agriculture, environment, energy, marine and the number and quality of researchers in the Community.

The Community is currently implementing the Third Framework Programme for the period 1990-1994 at a cost of IR£4,275 million. In the Second Framework Programme 1987-1991, Irish researchers competed very successfully, securing contracts worth over IR£58 million.

More important, however, are the research linkages which are being set up between Irish laboratories, including those in industry, the third level institutions and the research establishments, with laboratories in other member states and in the EFTA countries. Projects supported by the community normally have a transational character and involve consortia of researchers from at least two member states coming together to pursue an objective. Our records show that under the Second Framework Programme over 2,000 research project linkages were established by Irish researchers. There were almost 500 research linkages with the UK, over 300 with Germany, almost 400 with France and indeed almost 100 with Denmark.

The research budget has increased from 2.6 per cent in 1988 to 3.8 per cent of the total Community budget in 1990. In the Delors II package, which sets out the means necessary to follow the new Treaty, research expenditure would increase from IR£1,850 million per annum to IR£3,190 million in 1994. The increase is about 72 per cent. It is anticipated that in 1997 RTD expenditure will reach approximately 5 per cent of the total Community budget. The scale of funds available for research is likely to increase following the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty due to the broadening in scope of Community activities.

Access to Community programmes is vitally important to the research community in Ireland in enabling them to develop working contacts with researchers elsewhere in the Community and this in turn improves our potential to keep abreast of scientific and technological development.

The Maastricht Treaty will reinforce the Community commitment to cohesion. The new text is very clear. It states in Article 130b that "the formulation and implementation of the Community's policies and actions and the implementation of the internal market shall take into account the objectives set out" in relation to cohesion and "shall contribute to their achievement". This emphasis will place an even greater responsibility on Community research programmes to play their part in promoting cohesion.

I will be particularly anxious that the benefits of Community research will impact on the competitiveness of Irish industry. I have already stressed to my colleagues at the Council of Research Ministers that Ireland expects the Framework Programme to fulfill its obligation in this regard. I will be proposing at the next Council of Research Ministers that new initiatives be put in place to maximise the involvement of small and medium-sized industry, particularly those on the periphery of the Community.

In addition to the Community-wide research measures I have outlined above, I would also like to mention our national programmes for science and technology. The significant increases in expenditure on measures to improve the industry-related S & T measures could not have been contemplated within available public sector financial resources without the co-financing available under the Structural Funds which allows the recovery from the community of 75 per cent of the direct State expenditure involved. The returns from this expenditure will come not just from an immediately welcome, if modest, direct employment effect but, more significantly, by building the foundations in technological competence within Irish industry and its supporting infrastructure which will provide a sound basis for sustainable job creation in future years.

In 1988 our national expenditure on science and technology was £3.1 million. This year it is £34 million. Next year it will be of the order of £49 million. With the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty this will increase substantially in the post-1993 era.

The Single European Act introduced a significant change in Community policy with the clear acceptance of the need for cohesion between states and the introduction of the Structural Funds to help bridge the gap. This Community-wide commitment to the development of less-developed countries, such as Ireland, is strengthened under the Maastricht Treaty. A new Cohesion Fund is to be established and in addition, the role of the Structural Funds as a principal instrument for transferring resources from richer to poorer areas of the Community is reaffirmed and greater flexibility in using those funds for development purposes has been provided for.

The new Treaty also provides for Community action to encourage the development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, energy and telecommunications. These will be of particular importance for the economic and social development of regions such as Ireland which are disadvantaged by their distance from, and difficulty of access to, the main central areas of economic activity.

The small size of the Irish domestic market means that employment and living standards in this country are highly dependent on our success in international trade. We already have one of the most open trading economies in Europe. Exports of our goods and services account for over 70 per cent of our GNP and Irish exports are now found in over 120 countries throughout the world.

Our most important trading links are with our European Community partners and here the facts speak for themselves. In 1991 over £11 billion of our total exports of £15 billion were to markets within the European Community. Our future prosperity is clearly linked to our full continuing membership of the EC.

No one can deny that our recent export record has been impressive. In 1991, the value of exports grew by 5 per cent to £15 billion — the highest ever. However, there is no room for complacency. Nobody owes us a living and competition for markets will intensify in the Single Market. This is why under the industry operational programme, which is funded by the EC Structural Funds, the Government highlighted the need to improve the marketing capability of Irish industry as a priority.

All of the marketing programmes of An Bord Tráchtála are assisted by the European Regional Development Fund and attract the highest support rate available — 75 per cent of eligible expenditure. Structural Funds support underpins the ability of the Government to get behind and support the marketing efforts of Irish industry. Since 1989 Exchequer funding for marketing programmes has increased by some 50 per cent, a level of increase which would simply not be possible without EC assistance.

The Community is, therefore, opening up enlarged and more accessible markets and providing us with the financial support which helps our firms to break into those markets. We must trade to survive and the movement towards even closer economic and political union can only assist us in these efforts. It has been said before and I will say it again, European Union should be to the benefit of Ireland above all countries.

Important as the economic benefits of EC membership have been to Ireland, our participation in the European Communities is based first and foremost on a strongly held belief that the European ideal is right for us and that only within its structures can we grow and develop to our full potential. It is this conviction which will, I believe, bring the people of Ireland to vote "Yes" next week. We will not abandon the achievements of the Maastricht Treaty.

I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy M. Ahearn, for sharing his time with me. In the brief time available to me I would like to appeal to women and young adults to come out and vote enthusiastically for the Maastricht Treaty because this is a treaty that presents the prospect of closer European co-operation and integration. I would say to young people, particularly those who have a fluency and a competence in modern European languages — which I did not have in my day — and a good standard of education to see in the newly emerging Europe an opportunity to play their part in shaping a powerfully strong, united Europe, a Europe that can be a force for peace and social justice in the very unsettled world in which we live today; a world that presents an enormous number of challenges. I have faith in the capacity, the will and the idealism of the upcoming generation to play a strong role in a united Europe.

In relation to women, I am particularly pleased with the statement issued today by the Council for the Status of Women. Their statement is an illustration of a spirit of generosity and "States personship" because they admit having grave reservations. Nonetheless, they have shown a spirit of patriotism in putting the overall and the long term good of the country first. They are deserving of great praise for the statement they made today. I have no doubt that that statement will have profound influence on women who have not yet made up their minds. It is in the best interest of women to vote for a continuation and a deepening of involvement in European affairs. Experience has shown that women have benefited from our membership of the EC. In the past two decades a range of equality rights — equality before the law, equality in the workplace — have been put in place for Irish women, rights that may not, and I suspect would not, have come, certainly not with the same intensity and urgency had we been left to our own devices. The concept of equal pay for equal work for men and women is not enshrined in our Constitution. That is a concept that derives from the Treaty of Rome. Irish women have made great advances within Europe. It is in their overall interest to continue to promote Europe and closer integration between Ireland and the other member states.

There are matters of particular concern to women that have been substantially advanced in Ireland because of our membership of the EC. I refer in particular to two areas: that of environmental protection and consumer protection and law. Ireland's environmental laws were abysmally archaic, or almost non-existent, until we became members of the EC. As a result of a range of European Directives we now have laws that protect clean air and clean water, laws that have created an awareness in Ireland of the value of our environment and the crucial value of maintaining a clean and green environment not alone for its own sake and the health and the sense of well-being that that promotes but also for the sake of our economic development. Our future on the world stage and on the European stage depends on our maintaining and jealously protecting that reputation. The future of our food industry, our tourist industry and our industry in general depends on how we maintain and care for our environment in the years ahead. I am convinced that will happen in a much more structured way because of our continuation in Europe.

I would like to refer also to another area of primary concern to women: that of consumer protection and consumer law. There was little if any emphasis on consumer law or consumer protection before we became a member of the EC. Now we have fine consumer laws, admittedly not as fine-tuned or as developed as they ought to be, nonetheless, we have the basis for consumer protection because of the influence of Europe on Irish affairs.

The Deputy has one minute in which to conclude.

There is plenty of concrete evidence — not hearsay. Hearsay is the basis of many of those statements made under the banner of "Vote No". Anybody who makes claims for a "Yes" vote can base their arguments on fact. Everything I have said here this evening is based on fact and on reality. I acknowledge there is a certain amount of uncertainty in the minds of a number of people. I appeal to the Government to address themselves to a more focused and sharpened campaign to come to terms with a residue of uncertainty which is still out there among the electorate, uncertainty about the legal basis of the Treaty, uncertainty about certain implications of the Treaty. It is not beyond the capacity of the Government to listen to the views expressed by people and in the next ten days to answer their questions and to lay their fears to rest. In the long term our future as a people, men and women, young and old, rests with Europe. I would hate to see us consigned to what the Cork writer, Frank O'Connor once upon a time, referred to as the backward glance. I think it is time to look forward and to move forward.

A Chathaoirligh, I am very glad to participate in this debate on the Treaty on European Union. The Treaty is its own best defence. Unfortunately, this debate got under way without adequate public information. The Treaty has been obscured by the malicious, uninformed and irrelevent angles put forward largely by those who are opposed to it. My proposal is that all newspapers should summarise the main contents of this Treaty in the next week or so. They should not give a commentary but a summary so that the people can read what is in this Treaty. When read, it becomes a much less terrifying document and becomes what it is, a most limited document with hundreds of compromises, the result of the deliberations of a committee with various interests. It is a most limited document and it is far from the objectives of those who started out to put it together in the first place.

I call on the Government, who up to now have done a limited amount because they did not wish to break a national strike, to produce a supplement in the national newspapers for people from every walk of life to read. When they read it, they will not be intimidated by it but will be quite comfortable with it. They will see that much of the hysteria that has been spread by those who oppose the Treaty is totally unsubstantiated. An opportunity to read the contents of the Treaty will confirm the Irish people's support for amending the Treaty of Rome to achieve a deeper union.

That is what this Treaty is about. It is written in the form of an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. Most people have not read either the Treaty of Rome or the Constitution, but both have served us well. The Treaty on European Union is one further intensification and maturation of that process. The Government's short guide to the Treaty, which is about to be delivered to homes throughout the country, is acknowledged to be inadequate. Added to that, the Taoiseach's presentation in the debate has been nothing short of disastrous. It is, therefore, important that this Treaty be allowed to speak for itself. That is why I argue particularly for a direct presentation of the contents of the Treaty in the national media over the next week.

Unfortunately, this debate opened with the Taoiseach issuing a threat to Irish women that if the Treaty was not passed there would be injunctions in the days following as there were, sadly, earlier this year and that if we did not accept the bribe of the £6 billion that money would be lost to the Irish nation. He should instead have presented it as it is, a few steps further on the road to European Union. Presented in those terms, I know that the intelligence of the Irish people would have responded as it has on major decisions in the past and agreed to go these few steps further.

However, with bribery on the one hand and threats on the other the backs of the Irish people were up because of their sense of principle.

I confess to being seriously concerned about the outcome of this referendum because of how the campaign has gone in recent times. The only way the retrieve it is to give information to people that they have been denied to date. They have been fed propaganda from both sides and very limited information up to now. There is nothing as reassuring as the reading of this Treaty which is so cautious in its objectives because it is the result of the work of a committee with many varied interests.

I make my plea for special information as a passionate European. I am excited at the prospect of being a citizen of a new European Union. I see that as a process that adds to my Irishness rather than diminishing it in any way. It gives me a wider arena in which to present the unique qualities that make me Irish and that make the Irish identity important and special, and it acknowledges and respects the cultures of many other countries.

My regret is that the Treaty is a watered down version of the enlightened aspirations of those who led this process. I am glad that much of the leadership came from our party, from Deputy Garret FitzGerald, Professor Jim Dooge and others who established the Single European Act procedure. In this Treaty on European Union we are amending the Treaty of Rome to take a number of cautious but significant steps towards deeper union. Especially welcome to me are the provisions on education, a single currency and the Social Charter. I regret that these are modified and limited by the interaction of the many interests of the Community.

As a young woman — although at 39 the claim to youth is a bit tenuous — I find this Treaty very valuable. Europe has meant a great deal for women. At a social event I attended earlier, the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women presented me with a copy of her statement released tonight. I welcome very much that the Council for the Status of Women have finally said that, despite the problems over the Protocol and the situation in relation to abortion information and the right to travel, Europe has been good for women. It has been a broader environment that has forced Ireland to accept proper standards in relation to payment of women in the workplace and has provided proper protection for women in the area of social welfare.

Broadly speaking, Europe has been good and it has certainly been a leavening influence on more traditional conservatives in Irish society. It is something that women would wish to see develop. I understand that despite their deep reservations about the Protocol, the Council for the Status of Women have come out in support of Maastricht. I have been for the Maastricht Treaty from the beginning and I hope we will have a positive result. I have supported it because I see the problem of the Protocol as something that can be resolved in the short term while the Maastricht Treaty, and the deepening of the European Union is something that will benefit generations of Irish people.

In regard to defence, the Treaty itself is its own best defence against the various allegations made in relation to defence and the possibility of conscription. Anybody who reads the relevant section of the Treaty will realise that that is one of its most carefully phrased objectives. Many countries with neutral interests, with pacifist interests and with interests similar to our own, participated in the drafting of that section of the Treaty.

On a point of order, Sir, could I ask whether you might indicate how much time is left and the amount of time you intend to allocate to the two Independent Members who wish to speak in the debate?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy in possession has until 10.10 p.m., but she may if she wishes give way to allow the other two Members to make a brief contribution.

I am sure that my colleague on the Dublin City Council would give us a few minutes.

I am sure that I could make a few minutes of my time available for the Deputy and Deputy Garland to share, Members who are always worth listening to. I rarely agree with the Deputy but I am always willing to listen. I shall try to conclude my contribution at about 10.5 p.m.

This Treaty is the best defence against the false allegations made in relation to defence and possible conscription. It is valuable to read the sections of the Treaty that relate to defence. The commitments in the document in relation to defence are most clearly specified. They relate to co-operation in the area of defence, co-operation in security policy and the ultimate possibility of co-operation in a direct defence policy. This section is the most cautiously framed section of the document and acknowledges entirely and with respect the concerns of countries such as Ireland in relation to commitments that we might make in the area of defence and security.

A reading of the Treaty gives the lie to the notion of the loss of sovereignty, in that everywhere in the document the principle of subsidiarity is affirmed. It has been my experience of Europe in the context of roads plans in the city council of which I am a member, and which you, Sir, and one of the Deputies opposite are also members, that Europe has been a protection of the individual's rights. Europe has tried to force on the Irish Government a greater acceptance of the rights of regions in the disbursement of substantial expenditure. In fact, the history of Europe in relation to the protection of sovereignty, at the level of districts and regions, has been much more impressive than that of our own sovereign Government, which others would like to shore up at the expense of Europe. It is arguable in Irish and British circles that Europe is likely to defend local and regional sovereignty against centralised government.

I am very concerned about what I perceive as a growth of nationalism in the context of this debate. One of the foundation stones of the Treaty of Rome, the Council of Europe and the Coal and Steel Union was the achievement of peace in Europe. It is very easy to forget that so many decades on, but when one notes what has happened in Eastern Europe and what is just under the surface in Denmark in relation to the Dane's relationships with Germany, one realises that what we have taken for granted for two decades could be very easily distorted and returned to an unstable, nationalistically based European environment. We have got used to the Europe of common objectives, the Europe that sets a lead in European conservation policies — and I know that Deputy Garland would support me in that — and a Europe that is trying to lead the world in that area.

Somehow our union of very varied and very different interests has freed us to be that force in world politics. A return to narrow nationalism, from whatever basic instinct, would be a most serious backward movement for Irish politics, for Irish individuals, for me as a woman, for me as a youngish woman and for my children and their future. I would be very concerned for the peace and prosperity of Europe if there were anything other than a "Yes" vote to the referendum. I should love to read substantial sections of this incredibly boring document into the record of this House — an action that would be of value because no one I have heard speaking in this debate has done so — because most people would then realise that they have nothing to fear from it, that it is a most cautious document. Deputies who would like something much more radical are opposing it. The document represents a few steps down the right road. With some reservation, I shall give my colleagues an opportunity to make their contributions.

Acting Chairman

They will be brief contributions, I can tell you, Deputy.

I shall make sure that they are very brief, because of my due caution.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has made sure of that already.

I commend the Treaty to the House, to the people of Ireland, to the women of Ireland and to the children of Ireland, of which I have three. I believe that the future of Ireland's many young children is safer if we take these cautious steps towards European union, towards a better world for all of us, and, hopefully, towards leadership for the world at large.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Gregory and Deputy Garland now have between them less than five minutes.

I sincerely thank Deputy Flaherty for allowing me some minutes of her time. I am sure that the Minister may well do likewise for Deputy Garland. It is a great pity that we, as individual Members of this House, have to rely on the crumbs thrown to us from other Members.

Fifty-five Members of Fine Gael have been frustrated.

I should have thought that we would all be equally entitled to an opportunity to speak.

Acting Chairman

Deputy, time is limited.

However, I have suffered from that disadvantage for ten years in the House and I suppose that I shall continue to suffer from it until I am no longer elected as an Independent Member.

Listening to Deputy Flaherty emphasising the role of the news media and the newspapers in particular, I found it quite ironic that not a single member of the news media was present in the House to hear her words. So much for the role of the news media.

Deputy Flaherty has spoken both at the city council and here tonight about how well the Treaty of Rome and other agreements have served us. The Treaty of Rome may have served Members of the House well, but I wonder whether the 300,000 unemployed persons and the many thousands of people who have emigrated each year in the past 20 years since Ireland joined the European Community would feel that the Treaty has served them well. I doubt it very much. For that reason, if for no other, I shall urge people to vote against ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. I ask them to vote against the Treaty as a protest on behalf of those people who have been forced out of this country, those who have been forced out of employment and the nearly one-third of our population who are forced to exist on social welfare assistance.

The Irish people should decisively reject the unprecedented panic statement issued today by what I might rather unkindly refer to as the "Gang of Four"—the Taoiseach and Deputies Bruton, O'Malley and Spring. Those four politicians have presided at Government level in the past ten years over the very Administrations that have resulted in the appalling unemployment levels I have referred to and in one-third of our population having to depend on social welfare.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Gregory, I must tell you that you are now running out of time if you intend to give Deputy Garland a minute in which to speak.

I shall certainly allow Deputy Gerland to take over. I must protest at being restricted to such a few moments. Perhaps the Minister would give up a few minutes of his time——

Acting Chairman

It is the order of the House that I call on the Minister at 10.10 p.m.

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I appeal to the Irish people to give a resounding "No" vote on 18 June. Apart from the actual Treaty itself, there are two subsidiary issues. The first of those is the question of the existence or otherwise of the Maastricht Treaty. The fact is that the Treaty ceased to exist on 2 June.

All the huffing and puffing by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, will not get away from the fact that in reply to a question of mine on 8 April, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: "If Ireland, or indeed any other member state, should decide not to ratify, then the Treaty will not come into effect for any state". Today the Taoiseach was disingenuous, to say the least, in stating that the Danes had not irrevocably rejected the Treaty as they had until the end of the year to have a change of heart. This is clearly nonsensical as there is no way the Danes will change their minds unless there is a renegotiation of the Treaty.

The public are now being asked to buy a very expensive pig in a poke which will cost the taxpayer £600,000 on publicity, plus all the ancillary cost attached to a referendum. The whole exercise is now an appalling waste of time and money. The second issue is another reason for the referendum not to take place, that is the lack of Government money being provided to the "No" side in this debate. The Government have clearly acknowledged that they see it as their duty to present a "Yes" case to the public in a partisan fashion. It is quite clear, from the information booklet——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has one minute to conclude.

The booklet is a disgrace, it contains at least seven errors of fact which, due to the inadequate resource of the "No" side will not be properly explored. In any event, the public should not be asked to make such a major decision on the basis of a slim pamphlet of 16 pages. The Government are not making the slightest effort to ensure that the public are being given an opportunity to make an informed decision. What the Government are saying to the public is, in effect, that they and the main Opposition parties have decided — wrongly — that Maastricht is good for us; they are asking the public merely to rubber-stamp the treaty.

This booklet has been distilled from the Treaty itself, which is over 250 pages. Unlike Denmark, where the Treaty was available free of charge to the public our Government, no doubt mindful of their good housekeeping duties, are charging £6.95 for the privilege of reading this vital document. The public are entitled to better treatment than this and they are very angry at the cavalier way they are being treated by the Government. Of course Government Ministers and their backbenchers would know nothing about the reaction on the doorsteps because they are basically sitting complacently in their offices waiting for the public to do the needful. I have news for the Government, Fine Gael and Labour — they have a shock in store for them on 18 June. The Government negotiated this Treaty behind the backs of the people, they were told that this Treaty had been negotiated in their best interest but not what it contained.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy must now conclude.

Could I have another two minutes, by agreement with the Minister?

Acting Chairman

No, I am calling on the Minister.

There is a precedent for this.

Acting Chairman

I call on the Minister to conclude.

May I conclude, Minister?

Acting Chairman

Will you please address the Chair, Deputy Garland?

There is a precedent in this House whereby the Minister will allow the Deputy in possession some extra time. Will the Chair ask the Minister to allow me more time? If he refuses I will accept it but I will not do so unless you ask him.

Acting Chairman

The order of the House stipulated that the Minister would be called at 10.10 p.m.

On a point of order, I made a mistake, there is no reason——

Acting Chairman

I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to conclude.

This is a disgrace, this House is a farce.

We have had a good discussion today which has allowed us to consider the crucial issues which will go before the people in the referendum on 18 June.

There can be no doubt about the significance of the referendum for Ireland and for the future of Europe. The Irish people are being asked to pronounce on whether Europe should continue the process of integration. The people must decide whether we approve the goals and objectives of the Treaty on European Union. It is no exaggeration to say that the eyes of Europe will be upon Ireland in nine days' time. One historian has described the decision facing our people on 18 June as "the most significant decision in European history which Ireland has ever been asked to make."

When I met my colleagues in Oslo on 4 June we were perfectly clear that the Treaty ratification process would have to continue and that the decision by Denmark would not bring it to a halt. We were anxious to assure Denmark that the door for participation in the European Union remains open. While I respect the democratic decison of the Danish people, there was agreement by all Foreign Ministers, including the Danish Foreign Minister, that the Eleven member states should continue the process that had begun more than two years ago.

When the ratification procedure in member states has been completed the Twelve will, together, review the situation. It is not possible to predict at this stage the options that will be available to us then. One thing is clear, our partners are determined that the Treaty on European Union at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, should not be thrown away simply because one member state has decided to reject it.

It has been suggested that if the drafters of the Treaty had provided for the contingency of one member state rejecting the Treaty we would not now be in the uncertain situation in which we find ourselves. This option was never available. Article 236 of the EEC Treaty, and similar articles in the Community Treaties, require all member states to agree to amendments of the Treaties. The Treaty on European Union, as well as providing new "pillars" of the Community in justice and home affairs and the common foreign and security policy, is made up largely of amendments to the Community Treaties. Thus the option of providing for the coming into effect of the Treaty on European Union with a number fewer than 12 was not open to the drafters of the Treaty.

It has also been argued that with the rejection by Denmark of the Treaty on European Union, the ratification process should cease and that we should abandon the effort to create a European Union. Such an approach would ignore the fact that when the Government decided to sign the Treaty they did so on the clear understanding that they would adhere to the ratification procedure. This procedure in Ireland involves the referendum which takes place on 18 June and detailed consideration of the Treaties by the Oireachtas.

Denmark has taken its decision. I respect the democratic view of the Danish people. The Irish people are also entitled to make their judgment on the new Treaty. The Government will not deny them this right.

The Treaty on European Union negotiated by the twelve member states of the European Community represents the culmination of a political process involving enormous political will to achieve its goals. Member states will not lightly throw away what was achieved. This was made clear by Foreign Ministers in Oslo. If the ratification process continues to finality without Denmark, I believe that the overwhelming interest of the remaining Eleven will ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union in order that the process of European integration can continue.

In the view of all major political parties in the House, the economic case is overwhelmingly in favour of the Treaty on European Union from Ireland's point of view. I will not go over this ground again in detail. I can do no better than quote from a recently published study of the economic consequences of the Treaty by leading Irish economists for the Institute of European Affairs who concluded as follows:

The balance of economic advantage lies with voting to ratify the Treaty on European Union. With sound and prudent management at European level, the Union could yield Ireland real and concrete gains — in lower interest rates and financial charges, in easier access to the world's largest market, and in larger net income transfers from the Union.

These benefits, coupled with the reinforced commitment to cohesion, the Cohesion Fund and the provision for regular reviews of the progress towards cohesion objectives, are a sound basis for Ireland's acceptance of the new Treaty. It will be for us to ensure that these benefits are applied to the best economic advantage. In my view this has to be in the fight against unemployment which, so far as the Government are concerned, is their first priority.

The provisions in the Treaty on European Union concerning a common foreign and security policy will enable the member states to develop their co-operation on these issues and will permit the European Union to play a fuller and more coherent role in international affairs commensurate with its standing in the world and with its responsibilities. The common foreign and security policy will enhance the capacity of the Union to contribute to stability in Europe, to preserve international peace and security and promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The international backdrop against which the common foreign and security policy is being developed has changed dramatically in the last three years. The Cold War has ended and the confrontation between the superpowers is over. The Warsaw Pact has been dissolved and NATO is transforming itself into an organisation which is working with its former enemies in Eastern Europe for a new and co-operative security order in Europe. Indeed, when I was in Oslo last week I noted that all these countries were present for a meeting of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council which brings together the members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. Now that the Cold War has ended security policies and the attitudes that went with them are being re-examined everywhere. Europe is in the process of building new structures for peace based on dialogue and co-operation.

Ireland has long advocated these principles. The objectives for the common foreign and security policy which are set out in the Treaty on European Union are ones to which Ireland can readily subscribe: to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union; to strengthen the security of the Union and its member states; to preserve peace and strengthen international security in accordance with the United Nations charter and the principles of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe; to promote international co-operation; and to develop and consolidate democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The provisions in the Treaty concerning a common foreign and security policy do not involve any military commitments. The Treaty on European Union provides for discussions and negotiations on a common defence policy and for an intergovernmental conference to discuss such a policy in 1996 but the Treaty on European Union on which the Irish people will be voting on 18 June does not establish a defence policy, let alone involve us in any military commitments.

I also want to refute suggestions that the Maastricht Treaty will lead to a free trade in arms between the member states and that our traditional policy on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons will be eroded. Trade in arms is specifically excluded from the scope of both the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, and this position will not change under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. There cannot be a single market in arms and military equipment in the Community.

The European Union will be neither a military superpower in itself nor a source of support for countries which might seek to overarm themselves. On the contrary, the Community is now embracing the policies which Ireland has long advocated in relation to non-proliferation and arms exports. The declarations adopted by the European Council in Dublin in 1990 and in Luxembourg last year show clearly a growing commonality of view among the Twelve on the need for increased action to prevent the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons and to exercise restraint in the export of conventional weapons. These have long been central objectives of Irish foreign policy and we will continue to work for these aims in the European Union.

Those who claim that the Treaty on European Union will allow the establishment of a European army and allow conscription to be foisted upon the Irish people either have not read the Treaty or are deliberately trying to mislead the people. I welcome the statement made earlier today by Deputy De Rossa that conscription cannot be introduced into Ireland by this Treaty and that such an argument is a red herring to the real debate. I urge all those who are concerned about this issue to find out for themselves.

Read the section.

There is no mention of it good, bad or indifferent.

There is a need for reassurance.

Copies of the Treaty and of the White Paper on the Treaty on European Union have been sent to all public libraries and post offices and can be consulted there. In addition, copies of the Short Guide to the Treaty are being distributed to every household in the country and additional material is also being made available. It is interesting to note also that today the Taoiseach indicated that a free phone service is being made available to the people on Thursday——

Will the Minister consider my proposal?

——to provide any information that they may require on any item relating to the Treaty.

Will the Minister consider my proposal that a summary supplement should be published in the national newspapers?

That is worth considering but I cannot give any promises in that regard. Certainly, it will be examined. There is one final point that I would like to emphasise here. The State does not have open-ended authority to agree to future amendments of the Union or EC Treaties without a further amendment of the Constitution. As the Taoiseach has indicated, the Irish people will be consulted and will have an opportunity to say "Yes" or "No" to any future Treaty establishing common defence for the European Union.

Women's issues have played an important part in the debate so far on the new Treaty. I warmly welcome today's decision by the Council for the Status of Women to urge women to vote "Yes" on 18 June. I have had a number of meetings with members of the council and, together with my colleague the Minister for Women's Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, I have discussed women's concerns in considerable detail. Our discussions have covered not only European issues but also domestic issues. I appreciate the concerns of the council and their view that this Treaty, like the existing EC Treaties, should provide a means of reinforcing women's rights. I am glad that the council have concluded that a no vote would not serve the interests of Irish women in the long run. In that regard I should say that either tomorrow or the following day I am due to meet the Dublin branch of the Womens Political Association. I understand that the Cork branch of that association have called for a "No" vote.

A debate on Europe has to be a dialogue and I am happy to engage in a dialogue with the opponents of the Treaty. The Government have been accused of trying to pressure the Irish people into accepting the Treaty. That is not the case. However it is the Government's duty and responsibility to present the facts as we know them before the people. This we are doing in a non-confrontational, non-hectoring, calm and concerned fashion.

It has struck me during recent weeks that the opponents of the Treaty have not spelled out an alternative vision for Ireland or for Europe if the Treaty on European Union is not ratified. Neither have the opponents of the Treaty spelled out the implications if Ireland were to find itself outside the European Monetary Union but subject to its decisions or on the second tier of a two-tier Europe. To ask the opponents of the Treaty to spell out the alternative is not being negative. Why should Ireland give up its right to influence events in Europe? Why should we stand aside from a process which will affect the interests of the Irish people for many years to come?

The joint statement issued by the four party leaders this morning gives a clear indication of their common commitment to the Treaty on European Union. It is a very important statement which makes clear that Ireland will participate positively and actively in the development of European integration.

The Irish people have been inspired by the vision of those who founded the Community, including Monet, Schuman and all those other great Europeans with the European ideal. That vision has replaced war with peace, devastation with prosperity and despair with hope. That vision has played a significant role in the collapse of the old communist regimes and their replacement with fledgling democracies. That vision has inspired a long list of applicants for membership of the Community. We in Ireland are being asked to keep faith with that vision on 18 June. I have no doubt that we will do so in a very positive and significant fashion.

Top
Share