Jim O'Keeffe
Question:1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether he has had any contact with the Danish Prime Minister in connection with the Maastricht Referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Danish Referendum on Maastricht Treaty.
As the Deputy may recall, I met with the newly appointed Prime Minister of Denmark when he visited Dublin on 10 March as part of a tour of EC capitals in his capacity as President of the European Council. In the course of our discussions we naturally touched, briefly, on Denmark's referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
I assume, however, that the Deputy's question is primarily concerned with the outcome of the referendum and, in this connection, I can confirm that I have sent a message of congratulations to Prime Minister Rasmussen on the referendum result. I am delighted that Denmark has now joined Ireland and all the other Member States which have endorsed the Treaty and I look forward to the early completion of the ratification process in the Community.
I share the general sense of relief that the Danes have finally ratified the Maastricht Treaty. I can only hope that the UK follow their example in rapid order. Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply and his earlier discussions with the Danish Prime Minister in that Prime Minister's capacity as President in Office of the EC, has the Taoiseach made any proposals, or will he make any proposals, for improvements at EC level from the point of view of encouraging economic growth and a reduction in unemployment in the Community and of encouraging a more coherent political response to the awful crisis in Yugoslavia?
I can assure the Deputy that at our meeting on 10 March he discussed the question of initiatives for growth, for increased economic activity throughout the world, the GATT talks, and Prime Minister Rasmussen asked me to take a message from the Danish Presidency to President Clinton on St. Patrick's Day which I did. The Deputy will be aware that the growth initiative has finally been launched and I expect the question of high unemployment throughout Europe will be an issue for discussion at the Copenhagen Summit. In that regard the Presidency sets its own agenda, but they are in no doubt as to what the priorities are for the Copenhagen Summit.
Would the Taoiseach agree that there are many lessons to be learned from the extreme difficulty that was experienced in getting both the Danish and French public to support the Maastricht Treaty in their referendum and that such difficulties are likely to recur in referenda in all member states unless the way in which European Treaties are drafted is changed to take them out of the hands of Intergovernmental Conferences meeting in private with no public accountability while they are at work, and to ensure that the form of European Treaties in future is more similar to federal constitutions of countries like the United States, Australia and Canada where there are clear rights for localities, for Governments and for citizens as well as for the union rather than the type of "bureaucratise" that tends to characterise existing European Treaties, including even the Treaty of Rome?
While the Chair is anxious to provide some latitude on this question I must dissuade Deputies from the notion that they can discuss the Maastricht Agreement now.
I am not proposing to discuss it.
Deputy Bruton is talking about future Treaties. The next one we could be talking about is in 1996 which, indeed, will be under the Irish Presidency. We will have plenty of time and experience between now and then to learn what is good and bad in the Maastricht Treaty as is presently agreed. It is never easy for 12 member states to agree on a particular type of Treaty. There is no doubt that in Denmark and in France the ordinary citizens felt there was a distance being created between themselves and the central management of the 12 member state Community. Consequently there was a large debate on subsidiarity. Maybe many things were being done at central level that could be done better at national level. I do not think any of us would disagree with that and maybe if that had been recognised in time a different view might have been taken at the time they were discussing the Maastricht Treaty. We will have plenty of time to discuss it between now and 1996.
With reference to the Danish Referendum and the changes the Danish Government negotiated consequent on the rejection by the Danish people the last time around, does the Taoiseach consider that it ought now be necessary to re-present the changed Treaty to the Irish people in view of the fact that the issues which the Danish Government renegotiated and got agreement on were not presented to the Irish people at the time of our Referendum?
Would the Taoiseach not agree also that with reference to the Maastricht Treaty assisting in job creation and growth, the reality, which is clear to nearly every country now, is that the monetarist basis of the Maastricht Treaty inevitably deflates our economy and all other economies and will not lead to growth, and that talking about growth packages is so much nonsense.
On the first part of Deputy De Rossa's question, I assure him that the elaborations on certain aspects of the Treaty that took place at the Edinburgh Summit were checked out legally before we agreed them. Consequently there is no need to consider that any changes have to be made in our approval.
Was that from the same Attorney General who advised you on the X case?
That is not the question the Deputy asked. If he wants to ask a further question he is free to do so, provided the Chair allows him. In reply to the second part of the Deputy's question, I believe that there is a strong need for all the member states to generate economic growth within the Community and within the world economy as a whole. The Japanese and everybody else must contribute to that effort and, of course, the EC must make their contribution. I see no other way of bringing about the growth that will help us as we depend so much on outside growth, having to sell 70 per cent of our produce abroad. Despite what the Deputy may think about the Maastricht Treaty, we have managed to have continuous growth in the Irish economy, averaging 4.5 per cent between 1987 and 1991 and from about 2.5 to 2.75 per cent in 1992. The figure for 1993 will not fall far short of that 1992 figure.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it was a mistake, and would be a mistake in the future, for Intergovernmental Conferences drafting European Treaties to continue to meet exclusively in private?
I would not agree with the proposition that 12 member states could negotiate in public and through their national media and get any result.
I disagree with the Taoiseach.
Order, please. I want to bring this question to finality. I must again say that the Maastricht Treaty does not arise now. It is for a bigger and wider debate than we can have at Question Time.
At a minimum would the Taoiseach accept that one of the real problems in having the Maastricht Treaty ratified was the lack of early information to the public here, in Denmark and elsewhere? Would he agree that regardless of the form the negotiations take on the next occasion, it would be essential that the public be kept informed of the stages of the negotiations so that it would not be a complete surprise to them if they have to vote?
Everybody accepted that there could have been a much better information flow between the Community states, the national Parliaments and the citizens of Europe. I do not believe anyone denied that there was an information deficit in that regard. Steps will be taken by the Community to improve that and we can all play our part, including this Parliament.
Will the Taoiseach agree that as well as an information deficit there is also a democratic deficit? Will he agree that the biggest deficit here is the lack of debate at political level and the absence of the Government's views on how it sees the Community developing if Maastricht is ratified? Will the Taoiseach undertake to publish a Green Paper outlining the Government's views on the development of all aspects of the European Community in preparation for a debate in which we should be engaging between now and 1996.
We want to see the Community widened and we also want to see it deepened. In regard to the suggestion about lack of opportunity for discussion on European affairs, a new foreign affairs committee was established at which there will be ample opportunity to discuss European affairs. That facility should be fully utilised by its members.