Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1998

Vol. 488 No. 2

An Bille um an Ochtú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1998: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an Cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I referred to neutrality before the adjournment of the debate. There is no wish that this country should become part of some superpower quelling insurrections around the world. However, we must recognise that we have obligations. We are part of the European Union and have the same rights and entitlements as each other country in that Union. We will also have obligations in relation to each aspect of the Union. That does not mean we do not have choices: we do.

In 1972 and 1973 we had the choice of joining the EEC. We could have stayed out but that would not have been such a wise idea. There have been other opportunities to move in that direction since, that we have not taken, for the same reason. We must have a debate for the public that will be based on fact rather than fiction. We must also have a debate that will extend into the future. The EU will not stay at its present size. It is bound to be enlarged, even if that is not immediately relevant to this debate.

We must recognise that although we speak as Irish people, we also speak as Europeans. Some years ago there was a debate as to whether certain eastern European countries should be permitted to join the EU. One of them asked why it should be permitted to enter when, after all, it was in Europe. It was not in the EU but it was part of Europe. We should all remember that.

I hope that there is some time before this referendum to give people time to reflect on the maximum amount of information available before voting.

We must also let our European colleagues know that we are a good member of the Union, but we cannot be taken for granted. This is particularly important as more small nations are likely to join. The integration of a number of small nations of similar size, influence and economic impact will benefit the Union.

During the debate on the Maastricht referendum many negative points of view were put forward as a scare tactic. It was suggested that if one voted for Maastricht one voted for the abolition of the Central Bank and political control at Government level. That was misleading and, in turn, proved beneficial to countries who at that time were considering diverting from the European course. Some countries are still on that course, but I hope they will not remain on it. Unfortunately, the information that was peddled around freely in countries that were not 100 per cent disposed towards Europe at that time was used as a lever to oppose Maastricht in this country. I hope that does not happen in the run-up to the forthcoming referendum.

Regardless of the co-operation that exists between member states, Europe is not indestructible. In this debate we should target our comments towards solidifying, as opposed to fragmenting, the European theme. I will not mention particular member states, but some appear to have had second and third thoughts at present, which is not good for Europe.

The concept of renationalisation has reemerged. Having read our history we should all know that concept caused incredible suffering in terms of lives and economics in the past. It was the one thing of which the founding fathers of the modern Europe were conscious when they established the European Coal and Steel Community many years ago. If the question of renationalisation and the introduction of incentives, supports, barriers and tariffs emerges at some stage in the future, there is no sense talking about an integrated Europe. That would mean going off on a tangent for which we would pay a big price. Those who favour the European concept should note that we have contributed constructively to an integrated Europe, but we have also benefited considerably. We have put European money to good use and we are a shining example to other countries that wish to join.

Those are only a few of the items that need to be borne in mind in the run-up to the referendum. It behoves all of us to ensure the people we represent are fully informed and in possession of soundly based positive information so that they can make a decision in their own interest and in the interest of the European Union, irrespective of its size.

I am pleased to support the Bill in line with the proposed wording of Article 29.4.6 which will be put forward on Committee Stage. That wording states:

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5 of this section and in the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The proposed wording of Article 29.4.5 shall remain unchanged from that published in the Bill.

There is agreement on this wording. I am pleased we are not entering a divisive debate on the Amsterdam Treaty. If it became a party political issue on which we could not reach agreement, it could prove detrimental for this important referendum.

I formally welcome the fact that the retired Chief Justice Finlay, Senior Counsel, has been appointed to chair the referendum commission. As he has proved in the past, he will be an excellent chairman. It is difficult to ensure the debate is balanced and that both sides of the argument are put forward to give the public an opportunity to study the implications of the proposal. A large number of people voted against the referendum on Cabinet confidentiality and many others purposely spoilt their votes. I have rarely seen such a large number of people showing such annoyance at a referendum. The comments on ballot papers showed that we failed to get the message across. Politicians were blamed for not making sure the public was informed. We can speak as often as we like on a matter, but unless what we are trying to convey gets across in the media, the general public will not be aware of the arguments being made. That difficulty must be overcome in this case.

It will be difficult to get people involved in the debate, but at least the commission can ensure that a full and proper debate takes place. It was only in the lead up to the referendum on Cabinet confidentiality that opposition to the proposal became clear. Given that the opposition was late the referendum received much publicity in the final four or five days. It was difficult to counteract the opposition and to give an objective viewpoint on what was being said.

This Bill which deals with the Amsterdam Treaty is important. During our Presidency the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, and the Government played a major role in drafting the treaty. Therefore, it is essential that those on this side who helped to draft the treaty support it and work with the Government on this important national issue, the approval of this referendum.

As a member of a local authority and a political party I travel extensively. Irrespective of whether we like it, there is a body of opinion which has much criticism of Europe. Members of the European Parliament, members of the Commission and everyone involved in politics, who are committed to Europe, have a duty to put forward ideas and highlight the positive aspects arising from our membership of the EU. I do not want to do a total PR job but if there are difficulties they should be highlighted.

Many people are sick and tired of decisions taken in Europe. When promoting the terms of the proposed amendment to the Constitution public representatives will travel through cities and towns and will face major criticism about what is happening to free trade, particularly the export of goods to Britain. That is a major source of irritation for many but especially for the farming community.

Some years ago we had a "Buy Irish" campaign for which we received much criticism from Europe and, due to pressure, was discontinued. In the high streets of the larger cities and towns in Britain slogans of the Union Jack, "Be British", "Think British, Buy British" are openly displayed. Our "Buy Irish" campaign was simple and did not involve the use of flags or emblems. This campaign is causing much concern and certainly our exports to Britain are hampered, especially for beef and lamb. There is a problem also in relation to exports of lamb to France. When one gets off the ferry in any part of England one will see huge bales of hay on which advertisements state: "Buy British Beef". This is an issue which the European Union should have examined.

The Refuse Act requires larger centres for refuse collection and a number of refuse centres have closed throughout the country. Those which remain open will be full in a short period and there will be nowhere to put refuse. If an attempt is made to reopen refuse centres, or dumps, there will be major opposition. The theory is brilliant but the practice is appalling. It costs a great deal to get rid of rubbish and this is a growing problem.

Another example of interference by Europe relates to abattoirs. The Abattoirs Act has led to the closure of numerous butcher shops in villages, towns and cities for the reason that they conducted their own slaughtering of animals and so on and were continuously harassed by local authorities and health boards. The bottom line is that the supermarkets are getting bigger. The meat is pre-packaged in all types of foil, etc., and the customer has to buy what is on display. In the past the butcher knew what his customer wanted and was able to provide a quality product. Most of those butcher shops have now closed with the loss of many jobs.

We may talk about Goldsmith's Deserted Village or the ploughman homeward plodding his weary way. If we continue as we are even the ploughman will not be plodding his weary way. I am alarmed at what is happening in regard to the depopulation of our villages and towns. It is every bit as bad as Charlestown which was written about by a famous writer many years ago. People are being pushed into the larger towns and cities which are unable to cope with what is happening. This results in the depopulation of our rural areas and it is a serious matter. This results in congestion in towns and is part and parcel of the reason house prices are spiralling.

There are numerous problems throughout the country under the REPS and other schemes. Various studies and reports have been produced. Given the way in which European policy is directed, they have the effect of closing down many established businesses which needed support. Many towns and villages are affected as a result.

In the Bill we are dealing with emigration and the movement of persons. I am sad at our approach to emigration and asylum seekers.

It concerns me that, on arrival by plane or boat, those who look European are allowed through while those from Africa or Asia are stopped. I hope we will be more generous to genuine asylum seekers.

I am pleased that in some areas at least we will be able to opt out of the provisions of the Treaty. On the common foreign and security policy, although we are neutral, we should make our voice heard in Europe, the United Nations and elsewhere. It concerns me that some of our European partners have sold arms and other deadly weapons to countries such as Iraq and Iran for use against their neighbours. We should not allow our name to be sullied in this way. We should highlight this issue on a regular basis at the United Nations to curtail the massive profits being made from the production of arms. The weaponry developed in the United States and Britain was the subject of a recent Channel 4 programme by Mr. Jon Snow. It made frightening viewing. We should make our voice heard to ensure a halt is called. I support the Bill.

The Government parties appear to be following a policy of masterful silence. I am astonished that more of them do not have a contribution to make.

The matters contained in the Amsterdam Treaty have been the subject of wide debate in the media, the parliaments of the member states and among some sections of the public in the past two years. The Governments of the member states took to heart, happily, some of the lessons learned during the debate on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. As a result the preparation of this treaty has been much more open to public and parliamentary scrutiny than any previous treaty since Ireland joined the European Economic Community in 1973. The treaty was prepared by a reflection group and an intergovernmental conference. The work of those two bodies was much more widely debated than any previous European treaty. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in much of the media comment about the Amsterdam Treaty. The media appear to be following the same process and policy of silent abstention and absence as the Government parties.

I find it astonishing that some of the same media commentators who wrote and spoke at length and, in some cases, with great insight about the work of the reflection group and the intergovernmental conference are among the people who say there is not enough information available to the public about the treaty and that there has not been an adequate debate so far. They are giving a twist to the debate which is entirely unjustified. I invite the media commentators to look at their files going back to the beginning of the work of the reflection group to see how much public debate there has been about the issues dealt with in the treaty, the preparation of which was much more open to public scrutiny than any previous European treaty in the past 25 years.

I had the honour of chairing the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs during the time the treaty was being prepared. I pay tribute to the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs for their readiness to discuss the issues with that committee and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. When the issues were delicate, they told us they were delicate and when they were complex, they told us how complex they were. Those discussions were mutually beneficial to the Houses of the Oireachtas and to those involved on our behalf in the preparation of the Treaty.

I pay a personal tribute to all the public servants who were involved in this work. Those officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments served our country extremely well in their application to this work. Because he is now retired from the public service I can safely say without breaking any parliamentary privilege that we owe a particular debt of gratitude to Mr. Noel Dorr who played a central role in the negotiations.

The Government must soon make a decision about the date on which the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty will take place. We all hope that we will have cause to have another referendum before too long on a set of proposals that will bring peace to the island, Northern Ireland in particular, and lay the foundations for an enterprise in which all the people on the island can co-operate and to which they can give their allegiance. The Taoiseach said that referendum will take place on a date later than that targeted by the United Kingdom Government. I believe he is right and would not be surprised if it takes place even later than the Taoiseach expects. The referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty should take place before that referendum or, at the latest, at the same time. My preference would be to have the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty at the earliest possible moment. Although there are differing views in the House, it would be useful to have the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty before 1 May, if possible.

It would not be appropriate to create a situation in which we might have a referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty that would be influenced principally by arguments about the entry rate of the punt to the euro, a matter that has nothing to do with the Amsterdam Treaty but arises from decisions made when we ratified the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The arguments in favour of an early referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty are far more persuasive than the arguments for delaying it, although I accept they have validity.

It would be a great pity if the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty, which has nothing to do with the euro, were to be a debate on whether we had made the right decision on the entry rate of the punt into the euro. That will be the danger if this referendum is held later than 1 May. There are other arguments, but the arguments in favour of having an earlier referendum are far more persuasive than those for delaying it.

The Government produced a useful White Paper on the treaty and another document, a summary of it, which is a reprint of section 2 of it. The Government's original intention was to produce 200,000 copies of the summary and to distribute it through public libraries and other public outlets. I urge the Taoiseach to increase the print order because it is a useful document. We should make sure that at least one of those documents is sent to every household. It does not take a great deal of ingenuity to find ways to ensure that is done.

Having noted, with approval, the publication of the White Paper and the summary document, I find fault with the Government, particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for one part of the presentation set out in the White Paper and for the effects it has had on the initial public presentation of the issues in relation to the common foreign and security policy which are among the less important provisions in this treaty. Paragraph 15.50 of the White Paper states correctly that any move to integrate the Western European Union into the European Union would require in the EU, convening a new intergovernmental conference, an amendment to the treaties necessitating, in turn, a referendum in this country. That is accurately set out in that paragraph. Although I do not know if it is deliberate, it is curious that the word "referendum" does not appear in that paragraph, even though that is clearly what is meant. By contrast, paragraph 15.49 of the White Paper deals with the adoption of a common defence policy. It points out correctly that the Government, like the two previous Governments, has stated that whether or not such a decision would require an amendment to the Constitution it would be put to the people for decision in a referendum. That is a factual statement of the case, but it is not a complete statement. A complete statement would go on to say that, irrespective of the commitment given by this Government and by its two predecessors, the adoption of a common defence policy by the European Union would clearly involve a further amendment of the treaties and would therefore require a referendum to be held regardless of the commitment that was given. That presentation in the White Paper and the subsequent lack of any change in that by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in particular, has been a serious error and has damaged the presentation of the persuasive case for the ratification of this treaty. The omission of a clear statement of this kind from the White Paper led to a spin being put on the presentation by the media at the time of its publication. I am not critical of the media in this instance but that spin created unnecessary uncertainty and it gave another opportunity to those who oppose ratification to put forward spurious arguments and to raise unfounded fears that are not in any way helpful to the presentation of the reality of this treaty to the people.

In introducing the Bill to the House, the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated his intention to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to clarify the extent of the options and discretions referred to in the second paragraph of Part II of the Schedule to this Bill. This is another aspect which has been grossly mishandled by the Government. All that is needed by way of an amendment to the Constitution is in Part I and Part II of the Schedule to this Bill. The first part of the Schedule states: "The State may ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Amsterdam on the 2nd day of October, 1997." That is all that is required for us legally and constitutionally to ratify this treaty. The treaty and the various protocols appended to it are perfectly lucid on the scope and applications of the options or discretions provided for.

For my part I regret very much that Deputies Quinn and De Rossa chose to make an issue of the relevant part of the original text of this Bill. The fears they expressed were unfounded. Their expression of those fears were ill-judged and unwise and gained a currency they did not deserve. We have seen in his speech the text of the amendments the Minister intends to bring forward. It seems they deal adequately with the issue. I understand the Minister's amendment is a text that has been worked out by agreement between the Government and Opposition parties. While that is a constructive development, it would have been infinitely preferable to come to that conclusion by way of a debate in this House. I predict that opponents to the ratification of this treaty will claim that this part of the text of the constitutional amendment will be put together behind closed doors. That is one of their favourite phrases and they will allege something is being hidden from the people. I can hear them saying that already. It would not have been possible to make that claim if the text had been worked out in a debate on the floor of the House. The claim would be spurious, but the procedure adopted in this case may help to give it a certain spurious validity.

This is a democratically elected assembly and our job is parliamentary scrutiny. Our job is to debate in public all of the important issues that come before us. We should not have been afraid or reluctant to debate that issue here. I understand the proposed constitutional amendment will take the form of one question. At one time there were suggestions that there should be two questions. Those suggestions were entirely misguided. Since the second part of the proposed amendment is functionally redundant, it would have been bizarre to put this in the form of a second question. What would our constitutional position have been in the event of two questions if there were a "yes" vote to the first one and a "no" vote to the second one. It would be utterly ludicrous to run the risk of that happening, not because there is any reluctance to have the issue properly discussed, but because one follows necessarily and inevitably from the other. Parliamentary scrutiny by the Opposition is a necessity in our system, but it should be based on reality.

Given the extent of the Government's mishandling of the presentation in the White Paper and its mishandling of the formulation of the referendum question, the result of that debate in the form of the amendment which the Minister intends to bring before us is probably the best that can be obtained in the circumstances.

The circumstances are that those who favour the ratification of this treaty have been given a handicap at the start of this contest and we must be conscious of that in the course of the debate which will ensue between now and the time the people vote on the proposal to amend the Constitution. I regret I have seen no evidence of any appreciation of that reality on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or his colleagues in Government. I know the Government has other concerns and that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are properly concerned, engaged in and preoccupied with the peace process but there are 13 other members of Cabinet. I do not see any of them making an effort to adopt their collective responsibility to deal with this issue nor do I see any evidence that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs is putting any effort into persuading the people that ratification of this treaty is a worthwhile enterprise.

Incidentally, I note that the unfounded allegation that this treaty in some way sets up a federal European police force is now being revived. I note with terror that a Danish MEP no less is being brought over from a NATO member state — which, as far as I know, has close and effective police co-operation with its neighbours in Sweden and Germany — to tell the people how this treaty will affect our neutrality and how its new powers for Europol could allegedly permit British policemen to operate cross-Border in the Republic in due course. I look forward to having an opportunity later tonight to tell that gentleman in the hearing of the public how utterly specious his arguments are and to show how idiotic it is for the Green Party and others to claim to support strong action to protect our people against the evils of international drug trafficking, while attempting to deny us the very modest means made available by this treaty and the Europol convention to give some reality to the protection of our citizens against internationally organised crime, drug trafficking in particular.

If the opportunity presents itself, I will also point out how specious and dishonest it is on the part of members of the Green Party to lecture to us about policies to favour environmental protection and to say at the same time that we should refuse to ratify a European treaty which will make a major contribution to strengthening action at EU level to enhance the protection of our environment. It is arrant nonsense for people, one of whose mottoes is "Think global, act local", to suggest that we should refuse to give a proper European dimension to environment policy which is largely lacking so far, and without which action at national level can only be at best marginally effective. The Greens have a great deal to answer for in the course of this debate. We will drag them out and make them answer.

Without wishing to stray from the subject matter of this Bill and being anxious to say nothing which would complicate the Northern peace process, I will make a final remark. It is surely a fateful coincidence that we should debate the Amsterdam Treaty at a time when real and sincere efforts are being made to define the shape of an arrangement which will finally secure peace and justice in Northern Ireland. Whatever the arrangement, it will involve some measure of sharing of sovereignty, however limited or restricted in scope, between the UK and Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland. If we are sensible, people in the UK, Ireland and Northern Ireland will regard that sharing as a constructive exchange. Each of us will give up and gain a little sovereignty. The objective will be to secure something worthwhile for the people of these two islands and Northern Ireland, in particular. Relinquishing and gaining elements of sovereignty on a mutual basis is what this European treaty, like previous treaties, is fundamentally about. I hope this year will see us succeed in both enterprises.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998, or what has become known as the Amsterdam Treaty. It is vitally important that every citizen is allowed to express his view on this treaty through the ballot box. That will be democracy in action. The structure will eventually crumble if we move away from the ballot box to vote on treaties which are so important to everyone in the European Union and to those who we hope will be our friends and colleagues in an expanded Community.

On balance this treaty is good for Ireland, although I will talk about some shortcomings later. The EU has increased in size since 1957 and 1972 when we joined and I hope it will increase further in future. In comparing the EU to a creamery management committee, a mart or a board of directors, it is reasonable to assume that one cannot do with 20, 21 or 25 members what one may do with six or nine. If Ireland and other small countries do not have Commissioners at the table, I will vote "no" in a referendum regardless of the treaty. Irrespective of how large the Union becomes, a small sovereign country such as Ireland is entitled to be in the first division and to sit at the table with the best. The only way we may express our views and aspirations is in the company of other Commissioners. Irrespective of how large the Community becomes, Ireland should have a Commissioner at the table.

The European Union is evolving at a considerable pace. We will be delighted when the next four, five or six countries join because it will be good for Europe. It will not be good for the sector in Ireland which I know best and there will be many problems in agriculture because of enlargement. However, that is no reason not to enlarge the Union. History has taught us that a unified Europe is better than a divided one.

With this new treaty, the Maastricht Treaty and previous treaties, the Union has changed beyond recognition. For years everything was based on the common agricultural policy. We now face economic and monetary union, international terrorism and drug trafficking. We must put structures in place to enable us to deal with those issues which is what the people of Europe want.

A problem I have with the European Union is that it did not take unemployment seriously. There were many pious platitudes and I listened to endless debates, discussions and lectures in Europe on what would be done and what could be done. Most initiatives came to nothing. It seems to be different now, but I will believe it when I see it. Given that there is an unemployment rate in Europe of 10 to 11 per cent, and that includes some of the most industrialised nations, it can be seen we have not been successful in dealing with unemployment. The unemployment figures here have been significantly reduced and our economy is doing very well. One reason I will be delighted to vote "yes" in the referendum is that part of our economic recovery is due to EU initiatives and incentives we received through the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.

I also have a problem with the internal market. I have believed since the Treaty of Rome that a product manufactured and sold in one member state was entitled to be sold in another member state. I assumed that was what was meant by internal free trade and that it was what everyone else believed it to be. I have recently witnessed a spectacular renationalisation in some countries with respect to food products such as beef and lamb, especially Irish beef and lamb. While it is related to the BSE issue, what happened in the supermarkets in England and in European cities is as contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Rome as it could possibly be. Many people in rural Ireland now ask how safe the internal market is and what enforcement procedures the European Union has for a member state which attempts to ensure we do not have due access to its market. I do not believe there are any, and if there are, they are not being implemented. Our agriculture sector must export nine out of every ten animals. It would be a pity if, as a result of an internal market problem, all the advantages of EU membership were forgotten. It is hard to excite people about voting "yes" in the referendum, but I will make the case to rural communities that their best interests lie in supporting the treaty. However, it is no harm that the message be sent out loud and clear to the Eurocrats that they have a responsibility to ensure member states do not "act the maggot" as they are doing at present.

I am amazed at the lack of public awareness in member states about the European Union, its philosophy, what it stands for, where it is heading and what it means for the working men and women in the various member states. Despite what people say, various surveys suggest that we do not seem to be able to put across the message. There is little interest in this debate, for example. There would be more interest if there were a debate on the preservation of bogs or the rerouting of traffic in Dublin. I do not know who is to blame, but the European Union and national Governments must do much more to put across their message. One thing which can scuttle a union such as the EU is lack of interest. One thing leads to another, and before long, people will not care what happens.

Some people in Opposition oppose this treaty and they are similar to those who wanted a "no" vote in 1972 and for the Maastricht Treaty. I assume if we had another treaty in three weeks' time after this one, they would still vote "no". Some people suggest that greater integration in the European Union, both monetary and political, means people will become less nationalistic. I do not know if that is correct. Since we joined the European Union, more people participate in Irish dancing and in playing hurling and football and participation is increasing as the years go by. It is not that we are in competition with anyone. It is just that it enhances our way of life and culture. It is the same in France and other member states. I do not subscribe to the view of those who oppose the treaty. We can hold on to everything which is good for us and join the club at the same time. Imagine what it would be like if we were outside the Union? The financial consequences would certainly be disastrous.

While the Santer proposals are not part of the debate, they are certainly part of the evolution of the European Union. Deputy Enright spoke of the flight from the land and the problems of many rural areas. The Santer proposals will not only create a huge problem for Ireland but also for small farming communities throughout the 15 member states. It will make no difference if it is a German, French, Scottish, Galway or Tipperary farmer; they will all face the same problems. A mission statement must be made on the Santer proposals. It is no problem for us to go the road of New Zealand and Australia. It would be the easiest route. It would mean that market forces would prevail and there would be no intervention. It would result in something similar to what I saw in New Zealand: an ordinary farmer shearing 8,000 sheep. That number of sheep would have sustained ten farmers ten to 15 years ago. That is a huge replacement. People from all rural communities across Europe must come together to say they joined the European Union to ensure the maximum number of people were kept in rural areas. The greatest mistake that can be made is if the European Union is not in a position to deliver initiatives through national Governments to keep local communities vibrant and to create conditions to enhance living standards in those areas. There will be much discussion of the Santer proposals in this House. Many people voting in the referendum will reflect on their future in the area where they live if the Santer proposals are implemented.

I thank Deputy Connaughton for sharing time with me and compliment him on an excellent contribution. I support the referendum on the 18th amendment of the Constitution and I encourage as many people as possible to vote "yes". I have no difficulty with those who advocate a "no" vote. That is their right provided their statements are correct and they are not pulling skeletons from the cupboard to frighten people away from voting.

I came into the House to take issue with Deputy Ó Caoláin's statement when he called for a "no" vote. He referred to Fine Gael's role as leader of a future Government and I take exception to his comments on our stance on upholding Irish neutrality. Fine Gael will uphold the decisions of this House. It was the founder of the Constitution and has upheld the structures of the State. The country was safe in Fine Gael's hands in the past and it will be so in the future. The Deputy should take that on board as a new Deputy and he should think twice before again making such rash statements. He is ill-informed.

As fully fledged members of the EU we must be seen to play our part. We must acknowledge the great benefits we have received since 1973. The transfer of funds from Europe has transformed the country and brought about major improvements. The upsurge in our economy has resulted mainly from the these transfers — Europe has been extremely generous. If we decide to opt out of the treaty we will be regarded as not playing our part and we could not expect the continued support of other member states.

Ireland's European Commissioners have represented this country very well. Last Thursday in Letterkenny I listened to Commissioner Flynn deliver an excellent address to the Border Regional Authority on the development of the EU and the future as he sees it. I questioned him on the need to ensure that we retain Objective One status for the Border region and the west of Ireland which have not made the same strides as the rest of the country. There is a strong case to be made for a further transfer of Structural Funds. We will not be in a position to make that case if we do not have a Commissioner with the ability to do so. I regret that we have a Fianna Fáil Commissioner, I would rather a Fine Gael Commissioner, nevertheless, he is doing a good job and representing the country as a whole. However, he must be slightly parochial on this occasion and represent the region from which he comes and I know he will do so.

We incorporated European directives into domestic legislation on issues affecting women's rights. This has transformed the role of women. They can now take their rightful place in the workplace and it is accepted that they have time off to play a role in the home. Men may not have liked this when it was thrust upon us but we now see it is a forward thinking initiative under which women can play a role similar to that of their counterparts in the UK and Europe.

Protection of young people is the kernel of the problem of drugs importation. Massive amounts of drugs are coming into the country. No doubt the Green Party, the Independents and Deputy Ó Caoláin would resent Europol playing any role alongside the Garda in preventing drugs coming into the country. They could not be more wrong. We must have full co-operation and contact across Europe wherever these drugs are sourced. Countless millions of pounds worth of drugs have been confiscated as a result of good information being supplied by Europol to our law enforcement agencies set up to intercept the traffic in drugs and prevent the abuse of young people. More sinister is that Ireland was used as a base for exporting drugs into Europe. This is not acceptable and any individual or party which shirks its duty to encourage full co-operation and commitment in the EU to stamp out this trade would be doing a grave injustice to our people, especially the young.

I will highlight animal diseases, BSE and European markets. On Tuesday last the Minister visited a milk powder factory in my constituency which exports its produce worldwide and to Europe in particular. We have free access to these markets and our market must be open to imports from Europe. We can produce agricultural goods equal to and better than the best. We have nothing to fear if we can place these goods on the market at a competitive price. We have and will continue to reap the benefits but we must be seen to be prepared to play our part in Europe.

We must also encourage the enlargement of the EU. A recent television programme examined farming in Poland which is seeking EU membership. The programme illustrated that Polish agriculture is at the stage we were at 40 years ago. I was amazed at how backward Poland's agriculture sector is. However, I also noticed that the quality of Polish soil is far superior to that in Ireland. We cannot be negative and hold European funds for ourselves, closing the door on other member states. That is not the Ireland that I represent, it would be a selfish approach. Polish farmers are entitled to join the EU and receive transfers of funds. We are so far ahead of Poland that if it catches up and displaces us in the marketplace it will be our fault, not the fault of the EU or the Polish people. They will make great strides when they get opportunities similar to those which were presented to us. The Ireland I know aspires to seeing all EU member states and those further afield having the opportunities which we have enjoyed. I call on those in my constituency to vote "yes" in May on the 18th amendment of the Constitution.

I thank Deputy Boylan for the welcome extended to me in Virginia, County Cavan. I commend the plant there on receiving an award for meeting EU standards.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate for their constructive approach. It is clear there is wide support in the House for the Treaty of Amsterdam, the ratification of which is the ultimate purpose of the Bill. Support for the treaty is rightly understood as support for the continued, full and committed participation of Ireland in the European Union as further developed by that treaty. This is fundamental and I welcome the emphasis placed on it by so many speakers.

I will expand on the remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs by focusing first on the wider context in which the treaty has been considered necessary. There is a shared concern throughout the European Union that the challenges evident in this century and expected in the next should be met by a Union which is better equipped politically, economically and institutionally. As many speakers reminded us, history and our own experience show us that it is only through the European Union that we can ensure peace and prosperity among the member states. I agree with Deputy Quinn that enlargement has been in the past, and will be again, the Union's way of seeking to guarantee peace, democracy and the rule of law for an increasing number of the people of Europe.

The reaffirmation of the principles on which the Union is founded — liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law — is accompanied in the treaty by an explicit provision that only countries which respect these principles may apply to become members of the Union. This is fundamental. It is copperfastened by a provision which allows for the suspension of certain rights of membership, ultimately including voting rights, if a member state is found guilty of a serious and continuing breach of those principles.

The debate has shown that it is important to see the Treaty of Amsterdam as part of a process of maturing for the Union and for Ireland within the Union. During the 25 years since we joined the European Union membership has grown from nine to 15 and there is a very real prospect that it will exceed 20 during the next decade. It would be an understatement to merely say this development will present us with challenges and opportunities as it will also present us with choices. These choices will involve a balance between our own interests and those of our existing and prospective partners.

The Amsterdam Treaty is a good deal for Ireland, for Europe and for European citizens. It addresses the core issues which affect daily life throughout Europe: employment, the environment, social policy, public health, consumer rights and combating discrimination. It establishes fundamental rights on a treaty basis for the Union and creates a framework in which freedom of movement can be progressively realised to the maximum extent possible. It couples this with flanking measures in areas such as external border controls and fighting international crime.

A number of Deputies expressed support for those aspects of the treaty which deal with the related areas of freedom of movement and fighting international crime. The aim of the treaty in this area is to enhance the capacity of member states to ensure the safety of its citizens by developing common action among states in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and by combating racism and xenophobia. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, the Treaty of Amsterdam subjects this kind of co-operation, which has been developed in the Union since Maastricht, to democratic and judicial controls for the first time.

While there are different views on whether the treaty does enough in terms of reform of the Union's institutions, it is accepted that the European Parliament is the institution which has fared best. This means there is a gain in democratic accountability. A number of Members met yesterday with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Gil Robles, who is visiting Ireland.

The treaty is a good deal for Europe because it strengthens and makes more coherent the foreign policy capacity of the Union and better prepares it for the next historic enlargement phase. Importantly for Ireland, there is no change in the right of each member state to nominate a full member of the Commission. In advance of membership exceeding 20, the Union's institutions will be further examined to ensure that its functioning is not impaired by enlargement. In response to a question raised this morning, the outcome of the future review of the Union's institutions is not prejudged. It is clearly in Ireland's interest, and in accordance with our long established European policy, to be at the heart of the process of European integration. The Government believes the public would wish the State to have the capacity and freedom to continue to participate fully in the Union's development. The modified wording of the constitutional amendment which the Government proposes to put to the people will, if accepted, ensure that Ireland can remain at the heart of the European project. The Minister explained the legal reasons behind this approach.

The view that the European Union should play a full and positive role on the international stage was reflected in many of the contributions. The widespread support expressed for the revised Common Foreign and Security Policy provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam is welcome and fully justified. Ireland's long tradition of a principled, constructive and engaged foreign policy finds strong expression through our participation in CFSP and enables us to join our EU partners in pursuit of the goals of international peace and justice.

In response to some of the issues raised by Deputies, Ireland's neutrality is not affected by this treaty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs set out clearly the scope of, and the safeguards in, the Treaty of Amsterdam. I respectfully invite those Deputies and members of the public who continue to have reservations on this point to accept that Ireland's policy of military neutrality is not under threat. Furthermore, the Government's commitment, which repeats commitments given by successive Governments, to put the issue to the people for decision if it ever arises in the future ensures the issue of military neutrality remains one for the people to decide.

I assure the House that, despite some suggestions to the contrary, the EU does not aspire to become a nuclear superpower, waging war on neighbouring countries or regions and there is nothing in the Treaty of Amsterdam which supports such a contention. The inclusion of the Petersberg tasks in the new treaty should not be seen as a threat to the United Nations. Successive Secretaries-General have called for greater regional support of the efforts of the United Nations in the peacekeeping and crisis management areas. The treaty explicitly situates the CFSP in the context of the principles of the UN Charter.

The experience of the international community in recent years in the former Yugoslavia, Albania and the Great Lakes region in Africa has demonstrated that if the international community is to play a role in conflict management and post-conflict rehabilitation a greater degree of commitment from the EU is required. The progressive framing of a common defence policy is situated in the context of the Petersberg tasks which were conceived in the context of support for the UN and OSCE. This is very much in line with Ireland's position on international peacekeeping, an area where the members of our Defence Forces and Garda have served with distinction for many years with the popular and proud support of the public. Ireland wants the EU to make an improved contribution to international peace and security, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, and we are willing to contribute to these tasks on a case-by-case and voluntary basis.

Ireland is not a member of the Western European Union and has no intention of joining it. Like our three fellow neutral members of the EU, Austria, Finland and Sweden, we are observers at the Western European Union. The importance of our continuing observer status in the Western European Union is underlined by the inclusion in the Amsterdam Treaty of the Petersberg tasks which will be carried out by the Western European Union at the instigation of the EU. Integration of the Western European Union into the EU is not an agreed objective of the EU and is not provided for anywhere in the treaty or its protocols.

The issue of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the Western European Union's declared willingness to support the UN, the OSCE or the EU by providing an operational capacity for the Petersberg tasks. Ireland's long standing policy against nuclear weapons is well known and understood by our EU partners.

Deputies referred to a number of aspects of the EU agenda in the period ahead. We are weeks away from decisions on the participants in the first phase of EMU. Over the medium-term, the review of the financial perspectives, the future of the CAP and of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and EU enlargement will be the predominant issues. Enlargement, which will be a major issue for the European Union in the future, figures particularly high on the EU agenda this month. An essential prerequisite of further enlargement, achieved by the Treaty of Amsterdam, is the affirmation by member states of the European Union, in practical as well as political terms, of their total commitment to defending the rights and pursuing the interests of their peoples. The Union has no higher purpose.

The commencement of the next phase of the enlargement process is a decisive step forward in the historic project of creating a new Europe, united on the basis of shared democratic principles, respect for minorities and human rights, and with economic opportunity and social justice for all. Extending the model of European integration which is represented by the European Union throughout the continent holds out the promise of future stability and prosperity. The European Council held in Luxembourg in December took the necessary decisions to launch the next phase of the enlargement process. It decided on an accession process involving all ten central and eastern European applicants and Cyprus. It set in motion an inclusive process designed to lead in time to accession by all the new democracies that have applied to join the Union.

It was agreed at Luxembourg to establish the European Conference as a new forum to bring together the member states of the European Union and the states aspiring to accede to it. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will attend the inaugural meeting of the European Conference in London next week. The formal accession process will be launched on 30 March and will be followed the next day by the inauguration of bilateral Intergovernmental Conferences with Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Cyprus. At the same time, the process of preparing Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria for future negotiations will be speeded up.

From the outset, Ireland has made clear its commitment to enlargement as an historic opportunity for peace and stability in Europe and we consider that the momentum towards enlargement is now irreversible. We are committed to supporting the applicant states in their efforts as they prepare for accession and look forward to welcoming them as our partners in the European Union.

It goes without saying that enlargement on the scale envisaged will be a very considerable economic undertaking by the Union and will have significant financial implications. The Union will, therefore, have to provide the resources necessary to make it a success. No less importantly, the Union must also ensure resources to consolidate its achievements to date in existing member states. For Ireland, there are two areas where this consideration is of particular importance, namely, sustaining the economic development of less advanced regions and the Union meeting in full its commitment to maintaining a viable rural community.

Against that background the Union is currently engaged in a review of its future financing and a number of core policy areas. This process, collectively known as Agenda 2000, is of major significance to Ireland as it involves the future shape of the Union's structural and agricultural policies. I am confident Ireland will continue to benefit significantly from the Union's structural and cohesion policies.

We have experienced an undisputed improvement in economic performance in recent years and our membership of the European Union has been an important factor in this. However, it must equally be stressed that the long-term sustainability of this achievement must be ensured and that we have much ground to make up before we replicate the state of development of European economies with a longer history of economic progress. This is especially true in the context of infrastructural investment, where we have substantial outstanding development needs.

Regarding agriculture, the forthcoming negotiations will focus on further reform of the common agricultural policy. We accept that European agriculture must become more competitive in world markets and that it must be developed on a sound, stable and sustainable basis. This is in our long-term interest as a major exporter of agricultural products. At the same time, the reform process must be carried out in a manner which preserves the essentials of the common agricultural policy and which ensures that the interests of farmers and rural communities are fully protected.

It is worth reiterating that Ireland has been and wishes to remain at the forefront of European development and integration. The tasks ahead at European level are very significant for the development of peace and security in Europe. Ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam is a next and necessary step in the completion of those tasks, a view shared by the overwhelming majority of Deputies. I am greatly encouraged by the views expressed in the debate and hope the Government's view of the Treaty of Amsterdam as constituting a good deal for Ireland, for Europe, and its citizens will be endorsed by the people in the forthcoming referendum.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share