Vol. 443 No. 8
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 9 November, 1993."
Will the Minister's speech be circulated as the matter is complex?
I assure Deputy Owen she will have a copy of my script in her hand within seconds of resuming her seat.
The Minister has only ten minutes and may have finished by the time I get it. I would like to have it before I reply.
Dáil approval of the terms of these agreements is necessary in accordance with Article 29.5.2º of the Constitution which stipulates that:
"The State shall not be bound by an international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann."
The Europe Agreements with Bulgaria and Romania were signed on 1 February 1993 and 8 March 1993, respectively. They were laid before the Dáil on 10 March 1994.
The Europe Agreement with the former Czechoslovakia was concluded in December 1991. However, following that country's decision to separate into two independent states, the European Community agreed to negotiate two separate agreements with the new states. Agreements were accordingly signed on 4 October 1993 with the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic and laid before the Dáil on 9 October 1993.
Could the Taoiseach iron out the problems in Sligo between Deputies and Senators outside the Chamber who are interrupting the debate?
There is a small seminar going on behind the railings.
The conversation in the lobby which is intruding into the debate in the Chamber must cease.
The four agreements we are considering today are similar in content to the Europe Agreements with Poland and Hungary which were approved by the Dáil on 30 October 1992 and came into effect on 1 February this year.
The 1989 revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe created the opportunity and the challenge for these countries to establish viable democracies and market economies which would be open to international trade and investment. After decades of enforced isolation this part of the continent looked to the European Community as an anchor of stability and a source of inspiration for the necessary political and economic changes that had to be put in place. The Community responded rapidly to support the political and economic reforms which were instituted in the countries of the region.
It did this initially by providing emergency assistance, where necessary, and more importantly by providing through the Phare programme, the experience and expertise necessary for economic reconstruction. The Commission also played an important role in co-ordinating aid from the industralised countries through the G-24, notably in the form of macro-economic assistance. Assistance was also provided through the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in which the EU collectively is the largest shareholder.
At the same time the Community sought to foster the sense of belonging to the wider Eurpean family of democratic peoples by creating new political and economic ties.
At the European Council in Dublin in April 1990 a decision was taken to negotiate wide-ranging association agreements with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on the understanding that basic conditions with regard to democratic principles and transition towards a market economy were fulfilled. These agreements, which subsequently became known as Europe Agreements, have now been concluded with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Romania and Bulgaria.
Other Europe Agreements are in prospect — for example, a mandate for negotiations with Slovenia is currently under discussion in the Council.
The Europe Agreements negotiated with six Central and East European countries aim at establishing close and lasting relations between the parties and at supporting the completion of the process towards market economies in the associated countries. They reflect their wish for ever closer ties with the European Union and acknowledge their desire for eventual membership. The agreements provide for phased movement towards free trade in goods and services, continuing economic assistance and regular political dialogue in an institutionalised framework. They are concluded for an unlimited period of time with a maximum transition period of ten years. Their full implementation is linked to the actual accomplishment of political, economic and legal reforms.
The Europe Agreements provide for the establishment of a free trade area over a maximum period of ten years. However, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have longer periods in which to phase out trade barriers — up to nine years — than the EU — up to five years. Special arrangements have been made for sensitive products. For textiles, coal and steel trade barriers are eliminated according to special schedules. For agricultural and processed agricultural products the parties have agreed to grant each other mutual concessions on a reciprocal basis. Although the Europe Agreements with Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech and Slovak Republics are not yet in force, the trade provisions of these agreements entered into force almost immediately on signature, by means of interim agreements.
In a short time the EU has become the main trading partner of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. From 1989 to 1992 exports to the Community from this region grew by 83 per cent while imports from the Community went up by 120 per cent over the same period. With the entry into force of the trade provisions of the Europe Agreements this massive expansion of exports towards the EU market has continued. I hope that in due course improved market opportunities will emerge among the Central and East Europeans themselves.
However, despite the trade concessions offered by the EU so far, EU exports to Central and Eastern Europe have increased by more than EU imports from the region to the extent that the EU had a 3.8 billion ECU trade surplus in the first eight months of 1993. This situation is also reflected in our own trade with these countries which though still small in absolute terms, has shown significant growth in exports to each of the associated countries, particularly to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
In recognition of this imbalance and in an effort to respond to the criticism of the provisions of the Europe Agreements in the sensitive sectors, the EU agreed at the European Council in Copenhagen to accelerate the liberalisation timetable for industrial products including the sensitive textile and steel sectors. Additional Protocols to the Interim Agreements formally giving effect to these trade concessions, were concluded on 20 December 1993. However, they had been operating on an informal basis since the previous July.
Because of the sensitive nature of agriculture, a more restrictive regime was applied than for trade in industrial products. Ireland, in common with a number of other EU member states, had some concerns during the negotiations regarding the concessions to be included for this sector. Our concerns related in particular to beef, sheepmeat and live cattle. As a result, concessions for these products are limited and subject to safeguard clauses which allow trade protection measures in the event of serious injury to EU producers or serious disturbances in any sector of the economy.
In the event, these countries experienced a severe fall in agricultural output in the past few years, due partly to drought, but also to difficulties encountered in the transition from the old system to the new and the loss of traditional markets. It is generally recognised however, that these countries have significant long-term agricultural potential. As far as Ireland is concerned, utilisation of this potential cannot be at the expense of the CAP, not least in the light of recent concessions made by Europe's agriculture in the Uruguay Round.
The Europe Agreements also cover the conditions attached to the movement of workers from the associated countries within the Union. The agreements provide for non-discrimination for workers legally employed and for the co-ordination of social security systems.
As a result of this, extra costs could arise to the Exchequer through the provision of old age, invalidity and death benefits and for medical care purposes. It is considered however, that such costs will be negligible.
The approximation of the laws in the associated countries to those applicable in the Union, is recognised as a major pre-condition for their economic integration into the EU. To that end they have undertaken to ensure compatibility of their future laws with EU law and the EU will provide technical assistance for this purpose. This was one of the issues highlighted by the Copenhagen European Council which recommended that a task force should be established to co-ordinate training in Community law and practice. Laws relating to distortion of competition and the protection of workers, the environment and consumers are to be given priority.
Economic co-operation accounts for a substantial part of the agreements and covers a wide range of sectors including industrial standards, investment promotion, education, training, agriculture, energy and nuclear safety, financial services tourism and public administration.
In the area of financial co-operation the agreements provide for the continuation of the Phare project aid programme, for the possibility of EIB loans and the possibility in defined circumstances of balance of payments type assistance. In accordance with the decisions taken at Copenhagen and to respond to the changing needs of the association countries, Phare has been adapted to enable part of the funding to be devoted to infrastructure development and other investment needs. The technical assistance element has been correspondingly reduced, although it remains crucial in certain countries and sectors. Irish consultancies, which are particularly well attuned to circumstances in Central and Eastern Europe, should continue to play a signficant role. Association Councils at ministerial level are to oversee the implementation of these agreements. Parliamentary co-operation is also envisaged through a committee composed of members of the European Parliament and the Parliaments of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.
The agreements with the Czech and Slovak Republics and with Romania and Bulgaria also contain a human rights clause in line with the Council's decision of May 1992 that it would henceforth include human rights linked suspension clauses in all future agreements with third countries.
An important dimension of the Europe Agreements is that they provide a framework for political dialogue between the two sides. This is intended to support reforms and to bring about increasing covergence of positions on international issues among others through meetings at the highest level, meetings between officials and the use of existing diplomatic channels. The enhancement of the security and stability of Europe is defined as a major objective of political dialogue.
A further step to meet the desire of these countries for a closer political relationship with the Union was taken at the General Affairs Council in March when Ministers agreed a package of measures to reinforce political dialogue. This gives effect to the Copenhagen European Council conclusions which proposed a structured relationship with the institutions of the Union.
It is a tribute to the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe that the transition to new forms of government and the introduction of market-based economic reforms have been accomplished in conditions which on the whole have been relatively untroubled. The Czechs and Slovaks have demonstrated that the emergence of new states can be achieved peaceably. Minorities questions are being addressed in the context of a special Conference on Stability launched in Paris at the end of May.
The associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe have indicated clearly that their ultimate objective is full membership of the European Union. The Europe Agreements acknowledge this aspiration. The Heads of State and Government meeting at the Copenhagen European Council last year formally endorsed this goal when they agreed that these countries could become members of the Union when they are able to fulfil the conditions required. The Union's capacity to absorb new members while maintaining the momentum of integration is also an important consideration.
In April, two of these countries, Hungary and Poland, applied for membership of the European Union. Their applications have been referred in the normal way to the Commission and we look forward to receiving the Commission's opinions in due course. In the meantime, and possibly until after the 1996 inter-governmental conference, the satisfactory functioning and full implementation of the Europe Agreements is the cornerstone of EU relations with the countries concerned.
I am confident that all Members of this House will agree that it is in all our interests to do everything we can to contribute to the building of a stable, prosperous and peaceful Europe. Indeed the success of the European Union will to a large extent depend on the degree to which it can be a positive factor for our fellow Europeans throughout the Continent who face challenges of historic proportions. The Europe Agreements make an important contribution in this regard. They provide an appropriate framework for partnership, an accelerated opening of markets and a programme of practical assistance. In short, they will facilitate the all important interaction between the European Union and the countries concerned.
On behalf of Fine Gael I would like to be associated with the ratification of the association agreements with these four countries. The debate highlights once again the speed with which changes came about in Central and Eastern Europe. I do not think anybody who has been in the Dáil for eight or ten years could have imagined that we would be ratifying close association agreements with countries such as Romania and Bulgaria which were involved in the horror stories behind the Iron Curtain. The fact that we are ratifying these agreements is very heartening.
The association agreements that were ratified in October 1992 with Hungary and Poland were a clear indication, and almost the trigger mechanism, that those two countries would become members of the EU. At that time agreement was also made with Czechoslovakia, which was then one country, but we did not ratify that agreement because Czechoslovakia was in the throes of negotiations about forming two separate states, which came about in January 1993. The agreement was a signal to Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that they were starting on the path to membership of the EU. Enlargement of the EU is a matter which will be debated further in this House and when the Tánaiste brings forward the White Paper I am sure we will have a chance to consider the implications of enlargement for Ireland and other EU members.
It is important that when entering agreements we should not do so begrudgingly but open-handedly, without giving the countries concerned a second class role in their association with Europe. Special facilities have been made regarding agricultural products. When one considers the dependency of these four countries on agricultural production, it is important that sooner rather than later we look again at the arrangements on policies to protect agricultural products in the EU. I recognise that many current EU members depend on agricultural products, but it is important that we do not create a second tier in Europe. We should be sufficiently competitive to welcome products from those countries that are joining with us.
All of us agree with the strong principles of democracy. Having experienced what for some people has been a very bruising democratic election, we were all warmed by the elections in many of these countries. They were very troubled elections and it was very difficult for the people to accept the changes, welcome as they were.
I particularly welcome the elements of the association agreements that allow for political dialogue, which is crucial. This was introduced in the agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1991 and 1992. These are new democracies and at times democracy can be very troublesome. Sometimes it is easier to have a dictator to make the rules. Democracy means dialogue and accepting the other person's point of view. It means accepting half a loaf when you are looking for a whole loaf. The elements of political dialogue in the agreements are very welcome.
Agreements are set up to create lasting arrangements and closer ties between parties. I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste highlighted some of the areas of agreement. There are a number of Irish companies and enterpreneurs who, as a result of closer unions with these countries, are gaining business opportunities. These opportunities will not only benefit us but hopefully the transfer of technology, expertise and information will allow the countries concerned to grow and develop.
It is important that we remind ourselves of the criteria that have been set down for future members of the EU. These countries have a long way to go before they reach many of these criteria. The criteria require that an applicant must be fully functioning democracy with a clear respect for human rights — I again welcome the human rights element in these association agreements. The applicant must accept the overall view of the European Union as well as the constraints imposed by its gradual creation. It must also accept the acquit communitaire that is the entire corpus of Community law and policy which has been put in place, before they become members. They cannot dine á la carte at the European Union table when they become members; they must be ready to adopt existing legislation, to fit into the Community system or to have the clear potential to do so within the terms of an agreed programme of adaptation and development. They must also be able to contribute positively to the maintenance and advancement of the European identity.
There is a lead-in time for many of these countries to fulfil criteria for membership. When we consider the profiles of the countries concerned we recognise how far some of them have to go before becoming part of the European Union club. For example, in Romania most of us are aware of the horrific aftermath of the exposure of the Ceaucescu regime, having seen horrific pictures of the way the people, particularly children, suffered, a number of Irish people were moved to adopt Romanian children. That was the public manifestation of that horrific regime.
It is known now that statistics and production figures were totally falsified during the Ceaucescu regime. When Romania began to move towards democracy it had to start from scratch because of the misappropriation from the national treasury. The rulers of that country had accumulated vast investments and had substantial assets in foreign banks. The country had literally nothing and found that its hands and feet were tied.
We know also that Romania and Bulgaria suffered as a result of sanctions placed on countries such as Serbia and Montenegro. It is estimated that the sanctions cost Romania approximately $200 million. Although the target of the sanctions was Serbia and other such countries, the neighbouring countries which traded with them also suffered drastically. Although we recognised that this would be a downside of the sanctions it was still necessary to impose them.
In Romania 29 per cent of the civilian labour force is involved in agriculture. The products produced in countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are very similar to those produced in Ireland although Romania and Bulgaria are very large grape producers and are trying to build up a wine industry. In that regard they will be in competition with Germany, Italy and Spain and will have difficulty exporting their products to the European Union. In mid-1992 Romania experienced severe drought and agricultural output declined by an estimated 10.3 per cent. This illustrates the difficulties they have had to face. The severe economic problems that these countries experienced should not be ignored.
The break-up of Czechoslovakia has resulted in two states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czech Republic is wealthier and has gained the advantage in the break-up, it has an unemployment rate of 2.5 per cent whereas the rate of unemployment in Slovakia is 12 per cent. The unemployment level of 11 and 12 per cent is causing great fear. What struck me was their concern about the dangers of unemployment, when I compared their level of unemployment with ours it made me focus on the dangers of our high level of unemployment and the fact that we too could face the kinds of problems — which in some instances we are — that these countries face. The government of the Czech Republic decided that it would cut out the development of military equipment but as most of the military equipment was manufactured in Slovakia 40,000 jobs were lost there. I am not advocating a rebirth of the military armaments industry but the decision of the Czech Republic, resulting in the overnight collapse of the industry with the loss of 40,000 jobs, devastated their economy.
Agricultural output is increasing in the Czech Republic. So too is industrial output and in the early 1990s Czechoslovakia expanded its trade considerably with the European countries, by 1992 EU countries accounted for about 50 per cent of total Czech exports. Clearly the Czech Republic has a better chance of fast tracking into the EU. The other three countries have a bit further to go to reach the entry level standard.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Bulgarian economy declined sharply. Output in most sectors was considerably down and there was a sharp rise in the rates of unemployment — although its rate of unemployment is still below ours. Most of Bulgaria's trading partners were former USSR countries but their capacity to import goods from Bulgaria has declined. It is essential that under these agreements European countries provide markets for their export products. However, it must be remembered that they export the type of products we export to the EU and, therefore, the element of protectionism will continue for EU countries so that the market will not be flooded by products from Central and Eastern Europe.
Our welcome of these agreements must not be marred by grudging acceptance but marked by a true sense of partnership so that these countries will recognise that we want to increase our trade with them and give them an opportunity to export to EU countries. We want to see their democracy strengthened and to assist them. The way to do that is in the area of education by establishing exchange programmes for civil and public servants and local authority staff to assist them in allowing democracy to flourish. I hope that before too long we will have a debate in this House on allowing some of these countries to take the next step to membership of the European Union as countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway and Austria have done.
I welcome these association agreements and I hope that the speed with which these countries have moved to democracy will be mirrored by the speed with which they move to greater partnership with Europe.
I note what the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said about these European agreements with four of the former COMECON countries. I share Deputy Owen's enthusiasm but on an occasion such as this one has to be realistic and somewhat sceptical of the more high-minded idealism of incorporating the former Warsaw Pact countries in the European Union. It seems that a fundamental decision has to be made, and this Chamber has never discussed it, about whether the European Union can transform itself politically into a democratic union of citizens and countries which will have a real democratic soul. On the one hand we have the federalist thesis that we are often told about or whether a different model of the European Union is emerging by degrees, a loose confederalist approach to Europe. In that context the question of expansion beyond where the former Iron Curtain stood is of crucial significance. It has not been sufficiently thought about, in Irish political circles at any rate. It is not being discussed in depth whether Eastern Europe — or large portions of it — are to be incorporated into the European Union over the next ten to 20 years and the implications of it for the nature of the union itself and for its capacity to deepen in terms of its democratic and cohesive elements.
I do not want to place myself among the Euro sceptics but I am sceptical that Bulgaria and Romania and Ireland who are at opposite ends of the potential area of an enlarged Europe are ready to be put together in a new democratic collection of states in Europe. I do not believe there is the cultural dynamic yet in Europe to sustain such a movement and to retain cohesion. It is not that I am some kind of "Slavophobe", if such a thing exists, but I do not believe there is a sufficient dynamic to unite the entire area in one cohesive political and economic entity. If we are talking about, for instance, a common currency in the next five or ten years — that proposition sometimes seems to falter — are we talking about a Central Bank with responsibility from the Black Sea to Rockall, or is it seriously contended that the economies of Eastern Europe are in any position, even with the most optimistic outlook for their development, to join in a group economy which would have its pace set by the German and the more successful western European economies? I wonder if that is the intention.
These agreements are welcome, and it is right that Europe should be engaging with the former Warsaw Pact countries with a view to deepening trading relations with them, but I am sceptical of the proposition that we are anywhere near a threshold of convergence, economically or politically, with these states. I do not believe that history will permit them. Deputy Owen was correct in saying that seven years ago Members of this House would never have anticipated what we have seen thus far but there is a certain dynamic to history. The recent election of the former Communists to office in a number of these countries shows that within those countries the transformation process is bound to be difficult and that a glib acceptance that one can suddenly switch on political liberalism in a centralised economy was never a viable proposition.
I advance the thesis that we must consider, as a member state of the European Union, where our priorities lie. Do they lie in expansion into the COMECON region or in a strengthening of the European Union? There is a conflict in that it may be that those two conflicting interests of this country and of the EU will have to be reconciled but they can only be reconciled by a conscious debate and not by an unconscious process such as appears to be unfolding before us at the moment.
It is extraordinary that these agreements are tabled for debate in this House in circumstances such as this with virtually no notice. That underlines another point I raised on several occasions and which I wish to reiterate today — it is a point that bears repetition until something is done about it. This House is not taking its connection with the European Union seriously. We have a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am happy to be a member because it is a successful committee in many of its enterprises, but it was given the function of superintending EU secondary legislation as it is applied here against the wishes of most of the Members on this side of the House and against my voluble protests at that time.
That is right.
I said it had nothing to do with foreign affairs whether EU insurance regulations are translated one way or another into Irish domestic law. Somebody somewhere thought it was convenient to merge these two functions and the result is that not one EU directive, regulation or Irish statutory instrument under the European Communities Act has been considered by this House in the lifetime of this Dáil or by any committee of it. That is to our shame.
That would be sufficiently sad if it was the entirety of the story but it is worse than that. Unlike the Danes whose parliament takes Europe seriously and consider in advance what the agenda is in Europe, who look at draft regulations and directives and examine the agendas for Council of Ministers meetings in order to engage their political process on a rational basis with the European agenda, this House does nothing of the sort. There is no consideration in advance, on a democratic basis, of the substance of European legislation. There is no mechanism in this House for considering draft EU regulations or directives which are of crucial significance to this country. All of that is delegated to the public service and to the Executive branch of the State, the Government. If there is a draft directive on, for instance, conditions of employment or another part of the Social Chapter, there is no pre-emptive method for any elected representative in Ireland to have a say in relation to it. That is a huge problem and today's debate is only one instance of the usual pattern of this House's engagement in the affairs of the European Union in that we are considering something that has been done in circumstances where nothing can be done about it — we are locking the stable door without even inquiring whether the horse is inside or out.
The time has come for those on this side of the House to rattle the bars of their respective cages and to protest that there should be more engagement with the affairs of the European Union at a time when it makes sense to do so. There is no point in our discussing this motion today. There might have been some point if the agriculture content of these agreements, which are obviously of some significant to Ireland, had been discussed in advance. There might have been some point to be made about the political rights clause, which I welcome, or about any aspect of this if it had been considered in advance by this House. A discussion of this kind is futile and redundant and there is little point in codding ourselves that it serves a useful purpose, other than to allow Opposition Members make points which are slightly off-point in relation to these matters.
We have a lenient Chair.
The real issue is whether we are serious in our analysis and consideration of the development of the European Union or whether this House intends to play any part in the development or the expansion, if necessary, of the EU. I know the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has bespoken a report by Dr. Brigid Laffan on expansion of the European Union and its implications. That is useful work and it could be of some assistance to this House but this type of exercise has very little weight.
In the past few days there has been considerabe craw-thumping by the media about how the politicians had not made Europe relevant to the Irish people. To some extent that was slightly annoying because personality issues seemed to attract the media far more than anyone who tried to make serious points about substantial matters of European interest or policy. In one area at least the political establishment, as represented in this House, has turned its back on Europe. The democratic deficit does not just exist in other parts of Europe but in Ireland also as regards European affairs. We have abdicated the role which the Danes, as a small democracy and member of the European Union, take seriously. We do not give serious consideration to what is happening in Europe on an ongoing basis or have a democratic scrutiny of the trends, developments and proposals for change in Europe.
I mentioned the sad plight of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and its utter failure to carry out the minimal function given to it regarding European legislation. This shows there is a democratic deficit and Members of the House are primarily responsible for that. It may suit the Executive to spend less time debating these matters and to have less controversy surrounding European laws, regulations and directives, but it does not suit the people or Irish democracy. In the last analysis the people do not understand the issues. Is it any wonder they show a remarkable indifference to whether they participate in any aspect of European Union affairs when the House shown similar indifference? Is it any wonder they feel there is nothing that can be done about most of the things that happen in Europe if the House takes the same attitude? It does not want to know about draft directives or regulations; it does not want to be consulted and does not have any opinion to offer. It prefers to abdicate that to members of the Government who arrive home with the result ready for ratification in debates of this kind.
The many important points raised by Deputy McDowell regading the democratic deficit from this end of the spectrum need to be debated at length in the House. We cannot do that today as we are allowed ten minutes to contribute on the issue before the House. However, if the Government finally agrees to a debate on the National Development Plan it may be possible to address some of the fundamental issues which need to be addressed regarding our membership of the EU.
The flurry of apathy surrounding the recent European elections is in marked and ironic contrast to the enthusiasm with which the European Union is viewed by those European states currently outside it. This enthusiasm displayed so resoundingly by the Austrians over the weekend, is based more on shadow than on substance — the shadow of presumed prosperity and stability versus the substance of 17 million unemployed and 52 million living below the poverty line in the EU.
The European Union, the Union of Maastricht, is currently in crisis. Last week European voters registered their protest by staying home. They voted with the feet but there is no sign as yet that the leaders of Europe heard the message.
When viewed together with the EU's recent enlargement, the association agreements concluded with the Czech and Slovak Republics, Bulgaria and Romania point the way to a new construction. It is now up to the EU's member states and those who aspire to membership to determine the shape of that construction.
The association agreements, the Europe Agreements, provide a broad framework for relations between the EU and the Associates in the political and economic arenas. Handled properly, these agreements could form the basis of a common European home stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. Alternatively, they could lay the foundations for an exclusive club in which the "have-nots" will be increasingly squeezed by the "haves" to the detriment of all.
What is clear is that the Association Agreements are a stepping stone on the way to a further enlargement of the European Union. The Visegrad countries in particular have made it clear that membership of the European Union forms their most urgent foreign policy objective.
The face of Europe changed irrevocably in 1989. While the fledgling democracies of Central and Eastern Europe share common domestic challenges in establishing new political and economic orders, they must also ensure regional security while protecting ethnic and minority rights. One of the questions which now has to be addressed is whether these aims can best be achieved within the context of the European Union or whether we should encourage the development of regional organisations based on the ad hoc interest groups which have already emerged since 1989.
While it is obviously in all our interests that the European Union should play a pivotal role in the development of the wider European region, I question the EU's suitability as Europe's sole anchor. Although membership of the EU is seen by many in Central and Eastern Europe as a form of insurance policy guaranteeing against the reversal of reforms already undertaken, that insurance policy rests on shaky foundations.
From an Irish point of view, the further enlargement of the Europan Union poses both dangers and opportunities. The various existing coalitions within the Union will be fundamentally altered by the accession of the EFTA states and would be further altered by the accession of applicants such as Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech and Slovak Republics. It is already clear that regional cores will form around Germany on specific economic and trade issues paralleled by a Northern and Eastern and Southern grouping on budgetary matters.
In these circumstances, Ireland will inevitably be forced to reconsider its strategic alliances. In particular, we will have to balance our ties with the UK, which continues to maintain an ambivalent position on Europe, with our other European interests. Enlargement challenges us all to rethink our role in the EU and to make the transition from mendicant to full participant. Given the dismal record of this Government it will not be an easy transition.
Last year's GATT negotiations demonstrated a frightening failure to look beyond the narrow demands of vocal vested interests. While clinging blindly to France's farming coat tails in an effort to appease the IFA, we failed to join the Italians in their bid to protect textiles; nor did we look to the potential of new industries and technologies — developments which will be vital in the European Union of the coming decades.
As we face into a post-enlargement era of new coalition building there are few signs that this Government has learnt anything from the GATT experience. Ireland's European policy remains firmly located in the begging bowl. We are, as ever, one step behind events. The days of our being a net beneficiary of the EU are numbered. In future, we will have to share the post-enlargement cake with our Central and Eastern European neighbours.
Just what will enlargement mean for Ireland in hard figures? While the accession of the EFTA countries will mean a small net contribution to the Union budget, it has been estimated that the eventual accession of Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech and Slovak Republics will mean a net outflow in Structural Funds and CAP of over 12 billion ECUs. At the same time, we will have to meet the challenge of increased competition not only in the agricultural sector but also in the vulnerable textiles and footwear industries. There are as yet no signs that this Government is prepared to meet these challenges, or to look beyond the end of the current round of Structural Funds.
Membership of the Union means more than streams of ECUs and narrow self-interest. Membership of the EU means signing up for a basket of economic criteria which could prove an unsustainable burden on the fragile economies of Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, the very stringent IMF criteria imposed on Bulgaria and Romania in the context of the standby arrangements and the systemic transformation facilities are already being felt by the citizens of those countries.
Of the four new associates, three are economically vulnerable. The inequities within the European Union to which I adverted are mirrored by the inequities amongst the aspirant members. These inequities, unless tackled, could prove a source of long-term political, social and economic instability.
The economic prospects of Slovakia have already been damaged by the Czechoslovak breakup, while Bulgaria has found itself an unwitting victim of the economic sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro. Romania has still not recovered from the economic depradations of the Ceaucescu regime and there are few signs that the EU aid package will turn the situation around in the short term.
While our neighbours struggle to find their feet in a new economic and political order, the European Union is currently in a phase of considerable flux. European political union and European Monetary Union have effectively been put on the back burner while the concept of a social Europe espoused so energetically by Jacques Delors and the European Commission is under constant threat from the Council. The White Paper on Employment, Competitiveness and Growth, which could have provided a blue print not just for the European Union member states but also for the aspirant members in Central and Eastern Europe, has been watered down to the point where it is unrecognisable.
The sweatshop economics of the Right are gaining increasing sway as was demonstrated at the recent OECD meeting. Terms such as "labour market flexibility" and "reform of social protection" are increasingly being bandied about as code words for the right wing Darwinian policies which, as the British Institute of Fiscal Studies pointed out only last week, have already wreaked havoc in Britain. The fact that those policies have wreaked havoc in Ireland is not yet recognised to the extent that it should be. Some time ago we pointed out the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country, a fact which was confirmed by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors in a report which stated that the kind of economics being pursued in Ireland in tandem with other EU countries was creating a growing gap between rich and poor and that the levels of increased income of those who are worse off in Irish society is way behind those who are better off.
There is a grave danger that the European Union may degenerate into little more than a free trade zone. Against that background the conclusions of association agreements with certain states in Eastern and Central Europe could leave other states literally out in the cold, adding fuel to what is already a volatile situation. Last week EU citizens gave their verdict on these developments, a verdict expressed in disinterest and protest, and one which the aspirant members may endorse in the years to come. This House needs to debate and consider that position as it will have wide ranging implications for the health and prosperity of this country. I urge the Minister of State, who is currently holding fort for the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to ensure that time is provided in the foreseeable future for an adequate and wide ranging debate on all aspects of the European Union.
Deputy Deasy rose.
According to the Order of the House agreed this morning, there is no provision for any additional speaker.
On a point of order, the Order of the House also provided for a one hour debate, which we have not had. I beg your indulgence, with the agreement of the House, do allow us to avail of the time allotted as there is a Member offering.
It is always interesting to listen to Deputy Deasy.
Instead of wasting time discussing the matter we should let the Deputy proceed.
Does the Minister of State agree with that proposal?
I am very interested in hearing what Deputy Deasy has to say.
Please do not overdo the compliments, gentlemen, as my remarks may be something of a let down.
On the last day we dealt with questions to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs I made the point that it was about time a number of major debates took place on the evolving situation in Central and Eastern Europe and, in particular, on the application for membership from a number of countries such as Poland and Hungary. As we have seen today, there are associated membership applications from four countries, Czechoslovakia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. Acceptance of these applications will have enormous consequences for Ireland. I may not agree with all the points made by Deputy De Rossa but many of the statistics and background information he gave are accurate. However, I disagree with the slant of his remarks.
They are too much to the Left.
If those countries I have mentioned join the European Union within the next five to ten years, Ireland will suffer a massive reduction in its income from the EU. Deputy De Rossa seems to believe that might not be a bad thing if it would only affect large farmers. It would also gravely affect our economy; every man, woman and child would be affected regardless of whether they are farmers, unemployed or social welfare beneficiaries. Where will we find the money to replace that massive reduction in income? As of now we do not have the capability to find it.
On a point of information, I did not say it might not be a bad thing if it were only to affect large farmers. I pointed out that in the GATT negotiations the only concern of the Government was large farmers while a range of other areas was neglected.
Deputy Deasy, without interruption.
I accept the Deputy's point and will not argue it. All of us want to suss out the situation and I am merely pointing out the seriousness of the matter.
Three weeks ago a parliamentary delegation from Poland visited this country. Poland, an applicant for membership of the European Union, has 2.2 million small underdeveloped farmers, while there are approximately the same number of farmers in Romania. The number of farmers in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Slovakia is almost the same as the number of farmers in the EU at present, approximately six million. All these farmers need massive financial handouts if they are to be brought up to the same level of efficiency as farmers in member states of the union. That money can only be provided in one way, that is, taken from countries like Ireland which are receiving it at present. As Deputy De Rossa rightly said, instead of being net beneficiaries we will become contributors to EU funds. Has anyone given serious consideration to this point? This is why I say we need a series of major debates on this matter in this House.
People in these other countries are grossly underprivileged and we have an obligation to improve their standard of living. This will severely affect us and we had better be prepared to face up to that situation instead of crying when the decisions have been made. There is a huge conflict between what is good for us and what is necessary for these people who are living in dreadful conditions. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed on the last occasion we mentioned this matter that we should have such a debate. The sooner that takes place the better.
The Minister referred briefly to the human rights situation in some of the countries I have mentioned. The human rights situation in Romania and Bulgaria is not too clear. We do not know whether it is satisfactory. For example, it is not clear who controls these countries or whether the security forces, the army, the police force and the secret police are autonomous, and they operate as they wish irrespective of what the politicians would like to see done. I suspect that is still the case particularly in Romania and Bulgaria. If we are to have associate membership with these countries we must be sure that human rights are being protected there and that the change in Romania is not just a change in leadership or in name but a change in the system. We are not sure if this has been the case.
As a member of the Council of Europe I have visited Romania twice in the past 15 months. I have also visited Hungary as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and recently visited Poland as a member of the Council of Europe. It is absolutely frightening to see the poverty in those countries. What the people need is a massive injection of capital from the West. While what is contained in the Tánaiste's report is all very well, we are merely fiddling around with the problem. Each of them needs tens of billions of pounds to build up a structure which could compete within the European Union. Who is going to give it to them? How will it be done? It will have to be done because the probable alternative is that there will build up a massive resentment within those countries towards the West and who knows how that would end up. I do not want to engage in scare-mongering but it could lead to a third world war. When there is deprivation on that scale, accompanied by access to Western television, when those people see Western standards, tourists and visitors and observe the difference, inevitably that will lead to enormous ill feeling which can be very disturbing and cause major problems.
I should like the Tánaiste to examine particularly the human rights position in those countries, for instance, the rights of minorities in Romania and whether they are getting a fair shake-out. They maintain they are not. For example, there is a Hungarian minority of 1.7 million people, located right in the centre of that country, who complain consistently they are not being properly treated, that their language and educational system is being dismantled.
This is a huge question. A limited debate in this House is not sufficient. I would prefer a major debate or a series of major debates because the implications for this country are tremendous, as they are for those countries. Undoubtedly we shall have to give a certain amount. Let us work out our contribution in advance. Let us not be rushed into any hasty decisions which would affect the standard of living here generally.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 9 November, 1993.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member States, of the one part, and Bulgaria, of the other part, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 10 March, 1994.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 10 March, 1994.
