Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 2001

Vol. 546 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - European Union Enlargement: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy J. O'Keeffe on Tuesday, 11 December 2001.
That Dáil Éireann confirms its support for the enlargement of the European Union and calls on the Government to take all appropriate steps as soon as possible to ensure that Ireland does not impede or delay the accession of applicant states to the European Union.

The Labour Party is in possession and Deputy Michael D. Higgins has ten minutes.

I draw your attention to the fact there is no representative of the Government here.

Acting Chairman

We had better wait.

I have no difficulty waiting for a minute or two.

Acting Chairman

I understand the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Treacy, is on his way. The Deputy may proceed if he wishes.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The essence of the motion, which asserts a general cross-party support for the concept of enlargement, is something I welcome. It disposes of one dimension to the discussion we have had on the Nice treaty but given the shortness of time, I would like to offer some other views on the position in which we now find ourselves. I find the kind of discussion initiated by those who represent an intolerant view as to what happened in the referendum singularly unhelpful, and I want to be specific. Articles like that which appeared two days ago from Peter Sutherland are extraordinarily unhelpful. Not only do they suggest that we should, somehow or another, feel we have to rush to assuage European interpretations of the result of the Nice treaty but they seek to apportion blame for the failure of success in the referendum itself.

Views from outside during and immediately following the referendum were singularly negative, confusing and unhelpful. Again, I will speak plainly given the shortness of time. The statements immediately after the referendum by Romano Prodi were unhelpful and are recognised as such. The more recent behaviour and statements of Javier Solana are unhelpful this week as they were on numerous occasions previously.

We need a period of consideration as to what we do now. I am grateful to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for putting down the motion and giving us an opportunity to reflect on how we might appropriately use our time. I suggest that it is best to begin at the end – in 2004 – and work back from the presidency. One can then submit the tentative Intergovernmental Conference process that might precede 2004 to an analysis but also to a comparison with an Intergovernmental Conference process in the instance of the Nice treaty which was singularly unhelpful. It is also possible, working back through that process, to look at institutional deficits in terms of openness and transparency, mechanisms of reporting from Council of Ministers to the Parliament here and mechanisms of relationship between the different institutions of Europe.

That some have taken a strident position beginning with the suggestion that the people were wrong, that they probably do not know why they were wrong and that a few people, who have singularly failed to get elected to Chambers such as this, are going to tell them why they are wrong is disastrous and unhelpful. It also undermines the work taking place in the forum. The forum may have a different meaning for the different participants but in it, we hear from countries which have applied to join the European Union and which are waiting. We also hear opinions from those who took different positions on our recent referendum.

I would like to make some suggestions as to what the debate might contain. Again, I am afraid that those who subscribe to the end of history thesis and who believe the European world which exists was brought into existence in 1989 are inflicting a rather strange prejudice on the discussion as well. Europe pre-1989 was different from Europe post-1989. Post 1989, Europe went to the right. It established a market economy as the central paradigm of the relationship between politics, people and economics. It is unique and, therefore, we have an item to discuss. Is the enlarged Europe to be a social Europe? Is it to be a form of economy with significant social guarantees? If, for example, one was to look at world trade as well as foreign direct investment, one would find that there are some unique features in Europe and in the potential of an enlarged Europe. It trades mostly with itself, unlike the United States. If one takes a triadic analysis of world trade or of foreign direct investment, by which I mean the European Union, Japan and the United States – Canada is looked on slightly differently – one will find it very interesting that only 25% of world trade is available outside that quadric structure of trade and foreign direct investment. Europe has the capacity, because it trades so much with itself, to be any kind of enlarged society and economy it might wish. It has different structures in relation to the relationship of society and economy in the United States and in the potential of the enlarged Europe. That is something to invite the people of Europe.

I was in favour of the Nice treaty precisely because I wanted the applicant countries to have the social guarantees of a social Europe and a social economy rather than the barbarism of the crude market economic model of the United States – I do not put a tooth in it in relation to that. There are those within the debate now who are trying to suggest that the future of Europe can simply be a market model. It cannot be, except with disastrous results. Already many of the applicant countries – we have heard from them – have been speaking about the price that has to be paid in terms of pensions, worker security, unemployment, state activity, the narrowness of investment and so forth. It is important for us to realise that, if we are talking about an enlarged Europe, we should talk about a decent vision that will draw as much on the history of Europe and its potential as it does on a narrow market model.

What I find interesting about Sutherland's thesis and others is the singular inability to draw on the best capacity of Europe both philosophically and politically. Wherever has there been a hint at origins of democracy, of the impulse of the philosophical tradition, of diversity of culture? He is as wrong about the future of Europe as he was in Uruguay regarding the World Trade Organisation and as he is about Doha. I deliberately mention this because one is unlikely to hear it from other people.

It is important that we approach this debate without reductionist simplicities or the creation of fear, and without the arrogant assumption that there are those who know better than anybody else and who are only too willing to give us a lecture. It is important to listen to people in Dublin Castle and at the forum. We have no right to take advantage of the insecurity of, for example, very new multi-party democracies. There were times when advantage could have been taken of us because of our economic fragility. New democracies have the right to draw on their cultures to put a shape on Europe that will be generous. If it is to be generous, Europe has to be open to different forms of market economy.

We should sort out our situation but we are not in a position to give lectures to Europe on what it should do. With regard to the external context in which a debate such as this is taking place, there has to be a respect for equal participants within treaties. We simply cannot go with those who are inventing a bellicose rhetoric of war, such as Javier Solana, and participate in cabals that are barely legal within the treaties. If people are asking for a debate about enlargement – the concentration should be on 2004, an open Intergovernmental Conference process and a generous shape for Europe – it requires that we all have discipline in the creation of that vision. That is not the rule of the strong and it is not the rule of the militaristic strong in particular.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Carey and Brendan Smith.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has 30 minutes.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I support this motion because the effectiveness of the European Union and its enlargement are vital national interests to Ireland. The liberal democratic world order, established after the Second World War, has provided a basis for unprecedented opportunity, prosperity and peace across all countries and continents. On our continent, the EU has been the essential political and economic foundation for this order since the 1950s and for the benefits it offers. Given the history and achievements of the EU and the history of the continent of Europe in the 20th century, it is no wonder that up to 13 countries are seeking membership of the EU.

The strategic benefits offered by membership of the EU clearly win out over alternatives. Fundamentally, it is an option in favour of a liberal, democratic, free and prosperous society. Ireland, like each member state, benefits strategically and practically from its role in the EU. We benefit strategically in that we are part of a stable order of democracy, trade and peaceful international relations in which peace and prosperity flourish. We benefit practically by job creation based on trade and investment, by a common currency, common agriculture policy and inter-regional transfers.

Ireland's participation in the euro has brought about the fundamental benefits of low interest rates and a stable currency based in an economic zone 16 times its size. The value to Ireland of membership of the euro zone is immense, bringing itself to bear on every household and business in the country. No case can be made to suggest that we would have been better off having stayed out of an independent currency, tiny in world terms, while most members of the EU join together in the euro.

Not alone would we have been seen as a satellite of sterling but we would have been forced to have much higher interest rates in times of international uncertainty. No case can be made either that does not stop the economic zealots of Sinn Féin opposing the introduction of the euro in Northern Ireland and proposing the withdrawal of the Republic from the euro. I am certain the people of Ireland would be horrified to have their jobs and their livelihoods staked on Sinn Féin's central banking, interest rates and economic isolation of the North Korean variety. Let us hope the media spotlight is turned on this part of Sinn Féin politics also.

As we introduce euro notes and coins, we would do well to remind the public of the great benefits of the single currency, which the people of Ireland voted for democratically. Membership of the EU allows Ireland to seek to be the best place to do business for international companies in a market of 350 million. This is at the heart of job creation in Ireland for many years.

Approximately 140,000 people have jobs in IDA-supported companies here. It is fair to say that most, if not all, of these jobs would not exist if we were not members of the EU. Nobody comes to Ireland because of the size of the domestic market, with its population of merely 3.7 million people Although it is impossible to make an exact calculation, the number of jobs that arise indirectly from these international investments in Ireland as a base within the EU is certainly within the hundreds of thousands. Our membership of the EU, therefore, directly effects the employment and well-being of hundreds and thousands of workers and families throughout the country and their ability to live and work in their own homeland.

Where trade is concerned, the successive expansion of the single European market has brought new opportunities to our companies. Our exports to the EU accounted for more than 60% of our total exports last year, reaching 50.2 billion. Add the applicant countries and the potential for growth is very appealing. All accession states are now fully engaged in and fully committed to agreed economic reform programmes. These reforms will build the economic structures and income levels that will enhance the attractiveness of the accession countries as markets for businesses in Ireland. The Government has worked to ensure businesses in Ireland are in a position to take full advantage of the opportunities offered. The level of political exchange and trade missions has increased significantly in recent years. In many areas, these trading relationships are the result of strong foreign investments in Ireland.

EU enlargement will make Ireland a more attractive location for global companies as long as Ireland remains a competitive place for business. Just as heretofore in the EU, there is no simple guarantee that the strategic and practical benefits will be achieved for Ireland and for our fellow member states. We will have to put political and diplomatic effort into achieving them. The practical opportunities for trade and employment are there to be worked for. They will not be handed to us on a plate by the institutions of the EU or by fellow member states. That handout mentality never served Ireland well. It is a mentality which often lies behind the doubts of those who question whether one can be sure enlargement will be good for us. The answer is that enlargement will benefit Ireland for sure if we work to seize the opportunities that open up for us and if we keep our economy competitive and adaptable.

Our efforts must not simply be to secure discrete measurable benefits for Ireland, but to work to achieve wider benefits for all the member states. The old analogy is valid – we must work at the same time to expand the cake and ensure we get our fair share of it. Our efforts must be applied in two critical areas. First, we must work to make sure the union functions efficiently and democratically. This means getting the right institutional design, effective decision-making procedures and democratically acceptable balances between collective and national decision making. Our political and diplomatic engagement with our fellow member states on these issues will be all the more effective the more it is based on a well-developed, democratic debate nationally. That is why the National Forum of Europe is playing a valuable role.

Second, we must work to ensure that, where the union follows collective policies, they are the right ones to secure the benefits we seek and that they are implemented effectively. The Union must have the right policies as well as the right structures if Ireland and our fellow member states and accession countries are to benefit from our collective project.

The implementation of the EU's Lisbon agenda is fundamental. The Union must make substantial progress towards achieving the goal of becoming "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion in the near future". An inward-looking Europe will not achieve the desired level of competitiveness, employment and social inclusion.

Enlargement will be good for Ireland and good for Europe provided we work to make it so. Enlargement is not about aggrandisement. It is about consolidating and extending the shared strategic and practical benefits the European Union accords all its member states and peoples. The Progressive Democrats believe ratification of the Nice Treaty is necessary for the enlargement that all current member states and accession countries want and we will work to achieve that. The people of Ireland will not and do not want to prevent enlargement. We must address the process to ratify the Nice treaty in that context and in the context of the real benefits to the people of Ireland of active, engaged EU membership and of enlargement. It makes no sense politically or economically to attempt to separate the shared benefits of EU membership and enlargement from narrow benefits to Ireland alone. If we as a country actively play our part in facilitating enlargement in an EU with the right decision-making structures and policies, we are building strategic and practical benefits for Ireland and Europe as a whole.

To retreat from that collective effort or to pretend we can make it work in a way which suits us alone would be damaging to Ireland's interests as a European State and to our livelihoods and the interests of our people.

Enlargement is the most important and challenging development for the EU in the next few years. It is striking that accession negotiations will probably finish in the same year that the euro becomes a reality for our citizens. This confirms that the EU is dynamic and full of life and continues to develop in a positive way.

By agreeing to admit these new members, the EU is righting a past wrong – the artificial division of Europe, which lasted for far too long after the Second World War. It marks a return to normality. The accession of these countries will allow them finally to turn their backs on the dark years of the Cold War and will underpin their achievements in transforming their societies and economies, basing them on democratic principles and the rule of law.

Taking in new members will lead to a stronger Europe. The unambiguous experience of all past enlargements is that new members bring with them fresh political and economic dynamism and enthusiasm. In our case, we began to experience independence truly only when we joined the EU. The new members will also be a major asset in addressing the major challenges we face in coming years – expanding the market, consolidating the euro and developing foreign and security policy.

The Government fully supports enlargement and it also has the full backing of the people. According to regular Eurobarometer surveys of Europe-wide opinion, Irish people are among the most pro-enlargement of all EU people. We have explained to both our EU partners and the candidate countries that the "No" vote in the Nice referendum did not in any way reflect a negative attitude to EU enlargement. I was pleased when we met Mr. Moscovici that that message has certainly been received by the French Government.

To more closely examine our relationship with an enlarging Europe, it was decided to establish a national forum on Europe. In the past few weeks the forum has been able to debate several aspects of enlargement and has confirmed widespread support for the process. It has also heard many interesting insights from distinguished Irish and foreign speakers on how enlargement will affect important Irish interests such as agriculture, trade and investment as well as the environment and social policy. The mission in each of these areas is overwhelmingly positive. Ireland stands to gain much from a greatly expanded marketplace, with more than 100 million new customers. Assured and free access to that marketplace will bring substantial opportunities for Ireland. At present only between 3% and 4% of what Ireland produces is exported to the candidate countries. The potential for two way trade is very significant. Irish trade with candidate coun tries has already grown sixfold since 1993 and last year Irish exports were more than £1 billion in goods and services to these countries, while imports were nearly £500 million. This is a very healthy trade surplus and is just the beginning of what is possible when one takes into account that these countries import 40% more than they export.

These emerging economies also need the type of expertise and input that knowledge-based Irish business can offer, especially at a time of economic downturn in many of our traditional markets. Many Irish companies are at a stage of development where they need to invest abroad if they are to expand and continue to provide high quality jobs at home. Already there is substantial investment by Irish companies such as AIB, CRH and Waterford Wedgwood in the candidate countries. In Poland alone Irish business has made investments of more than £1 billion. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development made it clear last week at a session of the forum in Cork that enlargement itself will not pose a threat to the CAP or existing funding arrangements. He expressed confidence that Irish agriculture and the food industries will be well prepared to cope with any increased competition on the domestic market and to exploit opportunities in exploit markets as well as maximising their contribution to Irish wealth and employment and the development of rural areas in the next ten years. It is important to note the main farming organisations, which were all fully represented at that forum session, all indicated their support for enlargement.

Some people are afraid that Ireland will lose out because foreign firms will relocate to central and eastern Europe. That issue was also addressed at a session of the forum and all participants at the session concluded that enlargement would not by itself impact negatively on our investment potential. It is true that Ireland will be competing with firms from countries with lower labour costs than ours. However, business rarely relocates on those grounds alone and Ireland is in any event already competing with low-cost countries and winning investment due to, among other things, our higher education and skills base. The IDA and Enterprise Ireland have already adapted their strategies to ensure that Ireland retains its highly competitive position and continues improving its skills levels and infrastructure. As long as the Irish economy remains competitive and productive we will continue to have success in attracting foreign industry and developing indigenous companies.

It is possible for the candidate countries to be transformed in a dramatically positive way by membership of the EU, as happened to Ireland. We are keen to provide them with whatever assistance we can. Many of them look on us as role models, particularly in how we use funds and in the working of social partnership. Ireland has much in common with these countries. Many of them are similar in size to us and our experience in Europe has made us particularly sensitive to their special needs. We are very aware of this in the detailed negotiation process.

Our own adjustment to membership was not always smooth but that difficult adjustment was a necessary part of the transition which enabled us to take full advantage of our new opportunities. The enlargement process has gained new momentum in recent months and is now truly irreversible. Each enlargement in the past has been of benefit to those joining the EU and to those who were already members. This pattern will continue. The newly acceding countries will join a Union which will help to guarantee and reinforce the political and economic transformation these countries have undergone. The EU itself will of course benefit from this but also from what the new States will bring to the Union, not just in terms of increased trade opportunities. The task for us is to ensure we and the EU have made the necessary preparations and that we are ready to accommodate the new States. To fail to do so would be a failure of huge magnitude.

I compliment Deputy O'Keeffe on putting down this motion. I welcome the detailed and positive speech of the Minster for Foreign Affairs and the Tánaiste's comments. Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred quite rightly to the disappointment expressed by most Members in relation to the outcome of the Nice referendum last summer. I refer in particular to the very low turnout of 34%. The highest turnout for a referendum in Ireland was in 1937, when the draft Constitution was put before the people but in 1971, the turnout for the referendum to allow us to accede to the European Economic Community was 70%. Something I find disappointing in relation to people's participation in electoral politics was the low turnout for the Good Friday Agreement referendum in May 1998. That was the first opportunity for all of us in the Thirty-two Counties to vote on the same issue on the same day. In the Republic of Ireland only 56.26% of the electorate turned out for that referendum, even though it was giving us the opportunity to put behind us more than 30 years of terrible difficulties and the needless deaths and injuries of thousands of people. That was a very low turnout. As an Ulster person, I regret that many people did not vote in the Good Friday Agreement referendum, on which there was political consensus and in favour of which the overwhelming majority of the electorate voted. Many excuses can be put forward, for example that people are busier nowadays and do not have time to go to a polling station. I do not accept the argument that it was easier to get to a polling station in 1937 than in 1998.

Hear, hear.

Many people in rural communities did not even have a bicycle to get to a polling station in 1937, never mind a motorised vehicle, but a huge percentage of them voted in the draft constitution referendum. They wanted to be part of the electoral process and to show their appreciation of the efforts of generations of Irish politicians who struggled to place sovereignty squarely in the hands of the Irish people. The turnout for the Nice Treaty referendum was most disappointing and the only glimmer of hope I took from it was that 53% of voters in my county voted in favour of the treaty.

The Deputy can take a bow.

I do not know if any other county voted "Yes" in the referendum, which underlines the generosity of the people of County Cavan.

I hope the Cavan football team wins the championship next year.

The people of County Cavan know what side their bread is buttered on.

There was nothing selfish about their decision.

I assure the Minister that self-interest never entered the minds of the people of my county.

The European Union traces its origins to the signing by six countries of the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which established the European Coal and Steel Community. It took until 1973 for the first enlargement of the community, when Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark joined. Further expansions in 1981, 1986 and 1995, brought the Union to its present total of 15 member states. It can be argued that none of the previous enlargements matched the importance of that now in prospect, as 12 countries are in accession negotiations. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out yesterday, current indications are that ten new states may have concluded negotiations by the end of 2002 and entry in 2004 is a real possibility for them.

The importance of this enlargement, however, is not in its scale. Fundamentally, it represents an historic moment for Europe, uniting the continent peacefully for the first time, on the basis of democracy and respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law. Why are these countries so eager to join the European Union? Why have they made the sacrifices required in terms of economic restructuring and why are they prepared to abide by the disciplines of the Single Market and the single currency? The applicant states see in the European Union a political and economic opportunity to improve the quality of life of their citizens, without sacrificing their independence.

In a recent speech, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, concluded that he sees sovereignty "not merely as the ability of a single country to say no, but as the power to maximise our national strength and capacity in business, trade and foreign policy, defence and the fight against crime". In other words, he recognises, as successive Irish Governments have, that it is self-defeating to cling to an outdated notion of absolute sovereignty. The more isolated a country becomes, the less genuine influence it can assert over its destiny. Outside the EU, would Ireland have any control over matters such as duties on exports, investment opportunities for businesses, exchange rates or other international affairs? If a country like the United Kingdom now sees the EU as vindicating and protecting its sovereignty, how much more important is the EU for smaller states? Surely this is why applicant states, generally of smaller size, see the Union as their best hope of protecting and guaranteeing real independence.

I do not wish to suggest that the European Union is perfect, as that is far from the case. It is easy to spot the flaws of the EU, but most institutions, local, national or international, have such failings. Politics is about achieving change and reform where required and preserving what works well and this is as true in Europe as it is in Ireland. In recognition of the fact that the Union has grown remote from its citizens, the Laeken Summit this weekend will launch a new phase of discussion and debate, focusing on ways to bring the Union closer to the people. Transparency, accountability and democratic legitimacy need to be increased.

I have spoken of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU and of the origins of the Union. It was widely recognised before the Amsterdam Treaty that reforms and changes were required to prepare a Union, originally designed for six members, to accommodate up to 27 member states. Many people have argued that qualified majority voting, a key element in helping to complete the Single Market, should be extended further to prevent repeated blockages at Council. It is strongly felt that the Commission cannot continue to grow along current lines, as a body with 35 members would be unwieldy. People have argued that the weighting of votes in Council should be altered to avoid unduly reducing the relative influence of the citizens of larger states after enlargement.

Some of these changes were agreed at Amsterdam, but it was generally recognised that further specific modifications were required before further enlargement. The negotiation of the Nice Treaty returned to these issues, which are generally described as those left over from Amsterdam. A balanced agreement, acceptable to all, was eventually agreed. The Nice Treaty is of far more limited scope than the Amsterdam or Maastricht Treaties, although the changes made are crucial to facilitating enlargement.

The opponents of Nice rarely, if ever, discuss the content of the treaty. A survey recently conducted by the European Commission office in Dublin indicated that the actual provisions of the treaty were low on the list of reasons why people voted "No". Anti-Nice campaigners focus on red herrings, either making the false argument that Nice is not required for enlargement or saying that Nice compromises neutrality, even though it makes no change whatsoever on that front. Those who speak about the democratic deficit fail to acknowledge that if such a deficit exists, it is primarily located in this country and is our responsibility to overcome. Opponents speak of a loss of power or influence without indicating how a small country like Ireland could exert influence outside the European Union.

Some people insist that the Nice Treaty died as a result of the "No" vote in June, but I consider such a view to be extreme. Our partner member states are continuing with ratification procedures, as is their right. All states, including applicant states, have reiterated their support for enlargement, proceeding on the basis of the changes agreed at Nice. The Irish people have the right to decide where this country stands in relation to Europe and we cannot be forced to do anything we do not wish to do. Anti-Nice campaigners are wrong to believe we have the right to force the rest of Europe, including the applicant states, to abandon the Nice Treaty.

Hear, hear.

Ultimately, a failure by Ireland to ratify the Nice Treaty, while a problem for the European Union, would be a more serious problem for this country.

The unreality of those who oppose the treaty is illustrated by Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment to this motion. It suggests that the Government should unilaterally insist on a new treaty, one which would result in a Union where population size plays no part. In Sinn Féin's fantasy Europe, the citizens of Malta would elect as many MEPs as the citizens of Germany, which is a strange version of democracy. The European Union has always been a Union of states and of peoples. All states have equal weight in key areas where unanimity is required but it is proper in other areas that, while the citizens of larger states should have a say, there should be a weighting towards the smaller states in the interests of cohesion.

The truth is that Sinn Féin, the Green Party and other groupings cannot offer a realistic alternative to the Nice Treaty. While they call for a new treaty, or even the wholesale destruction of the Union as we know it, they never indicate how the other member states and the applicant countries should be convinced to adopt their views. Ireland can make its own decisions, but it cannot force its views on the rest of Europe.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Crawford, Deenihan, Coveney, Owen and Ring. I compliment Deputy Brendan Smith on his very good speech, which came straight from the heart.

I wish to make about seven points, the first of which relates to my view of Irish history. While we gained our independence in a technical sense in 1921, we did not become truly independent until we joined the European Union. This country was so dependent on Britain to provide a market for its goods and to manage its currency that it was nominally independent but effectively an appendage of Britain. Joining the European Union completed the work commenced by Daniel O'Connell which was continued by Charles Stewart Parnell, John Redmond, Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera and all who fought for Irish self-governance. We obtained that self-governance when we joined the EU because it gave us the capacity not to be dependent on one interlocutor for the influence we wished to have over what happened in this country. It gave us the possibility of playing the field and of making allies, apart from Britain, on issues which were important to us.

I do not make a habit of speaking from a Nationalist point of view as I am conscious of its limitations as a political ideology. However, from a Nationalist point of view, I cannot understand the position of those such as Sinn Féin who oppose Ireland's full-hearted membership of the EU. This attitude is anti-national because it was only through the EU that we gained full and true independence.

As someone who had the privilege of attending such meetings, when it comes to a tour de table at a Council of Ministers or European Council meeting, Ireland is equal to all other countries. We are equal to the French and the Germans. Our voice is heard and is equal to any other country in terms of the decisions which are taken. The size of the country does not matter.

The Government should not take an unduly negative or defensive approach when negotiating issues in the future. It should not take the view that we cannot agree to this or that because it might frighten the horses in the second referendum. If we take that approach we will create problems for ourselves. The sooner the Government states that it is going to hold a second referendum the better, but I understand its reticence to do so for the moment. If we are to win the second referendum, it is essential that we sell our involvement in Europe on a positive basis and on the kind of things to which Deputy Brendan Smith referred. We must sell it on the basis of our capacity to influence what happens in the world through our membership of the EU. We live in a world of global disease, crime, climate change and economic contagion. On its own, Ireland has no possibility of influencing any of these issues. However, as a member of the EU it has the possibility of influencing them and it will be listened to.

I advise the Government not to look for some kind of opt-out regarding defence or some suggestion that we will not participate in the Rapid Reaction Force. The Government has already secured complete freedom for the Oireachtas as far its commitment to the Rapid Reaction Force is concerned. However, we should not go any further down this road. We should state that we are prepared to bear our share of the sacrifices. People are not stupid. They know that if it comes to it, it is not fair to say that one can stop genocide by making speeches or by dropping food parcels. The only people who can stop genocide are those who are armed and who have the ability to shoot those who are murdering others because of their race or religion. Genocide can only be stopped by military intervention and Europe must have the capacity to stop it.

We should not underestimate the permanent damage which has been done to Ireland's interests by the "No" vote in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice, even if the result of the second referendum is "Yes". Those negotiating with Irish Ministers in future regarding the treaty will not be sure that our Ministers can deliver. Someone who cannot deliver in a negotiation does not get the best deal. We have to recognise that the "No" result in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice has done permanent damage to our situation. We have to try to retrieve the situation, but we must be honest enough with ourselves to admit that we will not do so completely.

Do we wish to end up like Norway which has to accept all the state aid and competition rules laid down by the European Commission? Norway is in the EEA because of the need to trade, but it has no say in these decisions. Do we wish to become a colony of, rather than a participant in, Europe as far as economic policy is concerned? If we vote "No" to the Treaty of Nice a second time we will become a colony of, and not a participant in, Europe. That is not something to which a self-respecting people should aspire.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject. I wish to re-emphasise the point made by Deputy John Bruton that it was only through membership of the EU that Ireland became a real nation. Only then were we able to hold our heads high and become leaders of the Union on the basis of the rota system.

As a Member of the Oireachtas I had the privilege of visiting Hungary and Poland. The latter in particular reminded me of what Ireland was like before we entered the EU. Ireland's failure to ratify the Treaty of Nice sent shock waves through the applicant countries, a message clearly received by those of us who made friends in them. Their attitude was that Ireland was not well-off when it joined the Union, that we did well from it and are now not prepared to let others join.

People voted against the Treaty of Nice for diverse reasons and because of the Government's failure to sell the real value of an enlarged Europe. I spent seven years representing the livestock sector at EU level, five of them as chairman of the EU beef and veal committee. I witnessed at first hand those who fought in two world wars sitting around a table trying to create regimes which would help us to work together. This highlighted how the EU could work and I served in this capacity at the time of the last enlargement process. The EU has come a long way since the days of the European Coal and Steel Community.

Ireland has done well from membership of the EU. Industry, agriculture and the public have done well out of Europe. We had setbacks in 1974 and during the 1980s, but much of that was due to our own failures. EU funding for education, agriculture, infrastructure, etc, has been very helpful and beneficial. However, and this goes for all politicians, we have often failed to admit that many of the good things that were done were financed by European funding provided by our European counterparts.

In the past few days I heard members of the Fianna Fáil Party state that the Government had provided £14.5 million for the water and sewerage scheme in Monaghan. However, they failed to admit that about £8 million of this came directly from the EU Cohesion Fund. The sewage treatment plant in Monaghan town was built with the help of INTERREG which is funded by Europe. Such behaviour does not help to encourage people to support the EU. Before we go back to the people it is important that we learn about the information deficit regarding the meaning of the EU.

I have represented farmers, and still deal with many farming problems as a Member of this House, but we failed to secure the farming vote in the referendum. Farmers would possibly benefit most from the Treaty of Nice. They are fed up with the bureaucracy handed down to them. If they make a minor mistake they lose their payments for 12 months. I recently received a letter from the Department which did not make sense. The official involved admitted this fact, but he did not lose out. He was allowed to rectify the mistake without any loss.

We are all committed to Europe, but we must not blame it for everything. Farmers did not receive grant payments from November 2000 until November 2001 because the EU did not agree to us funding grant aid. Through my colleague, Joe McCartin MEP, we learned that the application was not made until July 2001, yet farmers were told that the failure was on the part of the EU. We must examine these issues. We must not blame the EU, but give it credit where it is due.

Last night I spoke to a friend in Poland and told him we were in the process of discussing a Fine Gael motion calling on the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that Ireland does not impede or delay the accession of the applicant states to the European Union. My friends in Poland and Hungary are happy that this debate is taking place because their impression of the Irish people and parliament is one of suspicion. I met my Polish and Hungarian contacts when I was a Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and they came to Ireland looking for information and advice on how to approach accession to Europe. They came to me to discuss areas such as agri-tourism and organic farming. They were enthusiastic about getting involved in Europe and the opportunity this would present to them. They were doing their best to improve their agriculture and to bring their production processes up to European levels.

The rejection of the Nice referendum left them shocked and disillusioned. I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials have come across similar reactions in applicant countries. People in eastern Europe could not believe that Ireland, which was always held up as the shining light of what membership of the European Union could do for a poor country in a short period of time, could reject enlargement. They were hoping to model themselves on Ireland's success and become the Irelands of the next decades. We dashed their expectations by voting for what I feel were very selfish reasons.

What we have achieved in agriculture, roads infrastructure, sanitary provision, education, telecommunication, forestry and many other areas could not have been achieved without help from the EU. The Government and politicians often use this funding for political gain and often do not tell people that it has come from Europe. Recently in Kerry, at the opening of something that had nothing to do with infrastructure, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform listed the money that had been and was being spent on roads. Much of this money came from Europe but that was not mentioned. Politicians of all parties have deliberately omitted to tell people that money spent by successive Governments actually came from Europe. It is not too late to make it clear to people that great sums of money come from the European Union.

There was resistance by the environmental lobby to membership of the European Union but were it not for EU directives, far more damage would have been done to our environment. But for the establishment of special areas of conservation and national heritage areas, many of our prime amenity areas would have been desecrated.

The Minister is committed to Europe but some of his colleagues have been guilty of duplicity in the past number of years. In saying one thing in Ireland, another in Europe and yet another in America they have confused people. However, the people are not fools. They hear through the media what is being said in this House and elsewhere and any contradiction confirms their suspicions that some Ministers are not fully committed to Europe.

I am delighted Deputy Jim O'Keeffe tabled this motion and gave Fine Gael, which has always been a pro-European party, an opportunity to reiterate our support for enlargement. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be able to lead his party along those lines also.

Mr. Coveney

I thank my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, for giving Fine Gael the oppor tunity to reaffirm our support for the concept of EU enlargement. In debates on the future of Ireland and Europe, the theme of enlargement has dominated discussion since the rejection of the Nice Treaty in the referendum on 7 June last. This House has a responsibility to show leadership to the many Irish people who may have concerns about the Nice Treaty, European enlargement and what it entails.

The general concerns relating to issues such as integration, militarisation, a common defence policy, neutrality and so on have caused people to stop and think and these concerns need to be dealt with in a wider debate on Ireland's future in Europe. However, this evening I will concentrate on the merits and threats of EU enlargement itself.

I do not accept that everyone in Ireland is in favour of enlargement and merely voted against the Nice Treaty because of concerns about issues such as militarisation. We must convince the Irish people that enlargement is a goal of common good throughout Europe, including Ireland.

It is important that we consider the merits of new members joining the EU, not only from an Irish perspective but also from the perspective of the applicant countries. It is not so long since we looked from outside into the EEC and saw the merits of common policies and co-operation in an economic and political bloc of nations working together for a common purpose.

For applicant countries, enlargement means consolidating their recently won or restored democratic systems. For democracy to prosper in these countries it is essential that they be given an opportunity to prosper economically and socially. Joining Europe can provide that opportunity. Enlargement can mean participating in a single market and in other policies of the EU, leading to the increased levels of prosperity which they see in member states. It can mean becoming part of a law based community of States, ensuring peace, stability, law and order with human rights as a priority. Applicant countries can learn from best practice in economic development and in parliamentary, administrative and legal reform. They can see stability, economic opportunity, democratic law, order and future prosperity. These are concepts we cannot argue against in principle and which must be promoted.

From an Irish perspective, some may feel threatened by the addition of up to ten new applicant countries with a population of nearly 100 million people. Many Irish people are concerned about decreasing structural funds and agricultural assistance due to greater demands and poverty elsewhere. Concerns about large numbers of migrant workers moving from east to west also must be allayed.

Enlargement offers Ireland far more opportunities than potential threats. Economically, enlargement offers a massive increase in markets. Ireland is unusual in Europe in being a net exporter. We export nine out of ten of our cattle and a similar ratio of sheep and pigs. A potential extra 100 million customers is something we should not turn down lightly.

The only way to ensure that migration from eastern Europe stops is to offer the countries of eastern Europe the opportunity to prosper also. If we keep these countries outside the EU and in poverty the problem of asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants will continue. For Europe as a whole, the EEC, which became the EC and finally the EU, has brought peace and prosperity to Europe for the first time in centuries. The threat to peace and prosperity in Europe now lies between east and west and the way to allay that is to join them in a common purpose.

I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for putting down this motion and I also thank the Government for agreeing to accept this motion without a vote. It would be a very bad message to send out from this House if we were to split on this motion and that is why I welcome it. I am in no way dismissing the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs during the Nice referendum campaign. It is a pity we did not hear more of him or that he could not have been more involved because in the debates I did hear, I feel he convinced many people, who thought they would stay at home, to come out and vote yes.

During the campaign those advocating a "no" vote managed to encapsulate their campaign in pithy language and poster slogans even though some of their reasons for voting against the treaty had no basis in reality. Whichever Government is responsible for leading the campaign for the next referendum, be it the current Government or, it is to be hoped, one from this side of the House, I hope those in favour of the treaty will get across the reasons for a "yes" vote in an equally pithy way using advertising and billboards. In this way people who did not bother to vote may be persuaded to come out and vote the next time.

I have had the opportunity, as have many Members of the House, to monitor elections in newly emerging democracies and I only wish we could take every citizen of this country to see people who are getting their vote for the first time, to see how much they want to take part, how long they will wait and how long they will walk and travel to take part in a democratic vote. Yet we are losing the will to participate in elections and we will rue the day that people increasingly abandon going to polling stations, particularly when an issue as serious as our membership of the EU is at stake. It is timely to remember the aspirations of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman when, in 1950, they developed the Treaty of Rome. Their conviction was that Europe should not be made all at once or according to a single plan but built through concrete achievements. There is no doubt among the 15 members that there have been concrete achievements.

We knew the objective of the EEC when we joined in 1973. It was to raise standards of living and to safeguard peace. There is no doubt that we have raised the standard of living in this country as a result of our membership. I reiterate the question asked by Deputy John Bruton: where else would a small island with 3.5 to 3.8 million people have the same standing around a table as countries with ten times that population and ten times our economic advantages? That is the kind of message people should be getting from us.

Membership has brought huge benefits to this country, including laws that protect the salary and wage rights of women, workers' rights and disability rights; environmental protection laws; market share and the opening up of new markets; cultural relationships; advantages in terms of much of our art and many of our artefacts; police co-operation; and co-operation in fighting against drugs and terrorism. Those are the benefits we must sell to the people and we must not allow people to be taken down the road of believing things that are not in the treaty and cannot harm the country. I hope when the time comes for the next referendum all Members of this House, including people who are now second-guessing the referendum, will be here together saying that we are right to be in Europe and we will not thwart the rights of the aspirant countries.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. When the Bill concerning the Nice Treaty referendum came before the House I had an opportunity to speak and I am glad we are having this debate again tonight. The previous speakers should not take the people for fools. The people listened and learned and then expressed a view at the ballot box. That view was that they did not know what they were voting for. They were dissatisfied by the way the message had been sent out. All political parties, especially those in Government, must take responsibility for this. The Minister for Foreign Affairs fought hard but he was a lone fighter because other Members hid in the ditches and went behind counters and told people to vote no, even though they were on the Government side of the House. Some of them had held very senior positions in the party. That may have been their position but they should have come out openly about at the beginning so the Minister and Government could have dealt with those issues earlier in the debate.

Why did people reject the treaty? They did not reject the idea of enlargement. Rather, they rejected what is happening here at the moment. People feel this House does not stand for anything and that all legislation now comes from Europe. When a Minister has bad news to deliver, be it at public farming meetings or housing meetings, the first thing they say is that they had no control over what happened, that it was the result of EU legislation. According to politicians, everything that comes from Europe is negative. As previous speakers have said, we do not hear anybody telling the people of the west, or anywhere around the country, about the kind of infrastructure that was put in place using EU money. Most people do not have the courage.

I have nothing against the EU Commissioner, Mr. Byrne – he is a nice man – but he is elected by nobody. He does not represent me, because I never saw his name on a ballot paper. He certainly does not represent the views for which I stand. I did not see much action from him during the referendum campaign, if he had the courage to do anything. I did not see him in Galway or Mayo or on the television fighting for this. He was abroad doing his job with his big salary. He knows that if the Government happens to be in place the next time around he has a chance of being re-appointed. That man's name should have been put on a ballot paper so that the people could vote for their commissioner. If that had happened, he would have been working hard to make sure his job was safe and that he would be there the next time.

The people have spoken. They are saying to the Government and to everybody in the House that the next time there is a referendum they want to know, clearly, what they are voting for. They want to know what the issues are and what power will be maintained in this Parliament. We were elected to this Dáil but at times I wonder whether we would be better off back at home, because we have less power here than some of the guys from the county council. Our powers are being taken away. I disagree with Deputy Deenihan about SACs and NHAs. The son or daughter of a farmer who wants to build a house in any rural area are told they cannot build because the area is protected as a scenic area for visitors from Europe over the next 20 years. The problem in rural areas is that people come from Europe to shoot and fish and they come to the west maybe once or twice a year, but they object to planning permission if it is granted by a council. I do not see how the Government expects people to vote for enlargement and support Europe when they hear negative things about legislation from Europe on a daily basis.

I am a European and I believe in Europe, but I believe it must be the responsibility of this Parliament to work with Europe and to be careful what message we send the next time. I wish I had more time to speak on the matter.

I am pleased to respond to this very worthwhile debate. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated last night, the Government is happy to support the Fine Gael motion which in our view sends the right signals to our European Union partners and, equally importantly, to the applicant states. I am glad that the strong consensus in this House in favour of enlargement has been reconfirmed and that there is a shared determination not to impede or delay the accession of the candidate countries to the union.

Several Deputies, including the leader of the Labour Party, have eloquently made the case for enlargement. While there is an appreciation that it is an historic opportunity and a moral imperative, too often there is a failure to recognise that it has the potential to be strongly in Ireland's economic and commercial interests also. The forum's sessions on agriculture and on trade and investment have helped dispel anxieties about low-cost competition and have underlined the market opportunities which will exist. Moreover, the whole of the European economy, including Ireland, will benefit. President Prodi put it well in the European Parliament on Monday when he said:

From an economic standpoint, enlargement is one of the few games in which all the players stand to win. It will bring stronger growth not only for the new member states but also for the fifteen.

Another point made by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Durkan, was that the applicant states were particularly disappointed and surprised by the outcome of the referendum on Nice precisely because they see themselves as having so much in common with us and because they recognise that it is only through the ratification of the Nice Treaty that enlargement can proceed. This is a reality however much those who opposed and oppose Nice may wish to pretend otherwise. The Minister for Foreign Affairs spelled out comprehensively yet again yesterday evening the background to the Nice Treaty and exactly why it is necessary for enlargement.

A failure to ratify the treaty on schedule would seriously impede and delay the enlargement process. The rest of Europe would draw little comfort from the assurances of Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Gormley that they are firm supporters of enlargement while urging the people to block the means by which it might be achieved.

It is clear that most of the political opposition to Nice has less to do with the treaty itself than with the basic character of the European Union as it has developed over 50 years, to our enormous benefit as a nation. Deputy Gormley spoke last night of his preference for an intergovernmental approach – I wonder if he wishes this to be the case in environmental matters.

The European Union has been so effective precisely because it involves much more than this. Its unique institutional character and its foundation of binding European law have been particularly important for smaller states like Ireland. A return to intergovernmentalism would in fact do far more to boost the relative power of the larger states than anything in the Nice Treaty.

Sinn Féin's approach to Europe was well illustrated by their performance in the Northern Ireland Assembly last week where they lined up with the DUP in opposition to introduction of the euro as a parallel currency in Northern Ireland. They seem oblivious to the immense economic importance for Ireland, as a small open economy, of EMU and of the Single Market, a point made on Monday by Peter Sutherland. Ireland remains fully committed to the European security and defence policy. This does not involve, as some would suggest, the creation of a European army but rather it is a policy to equip the Union to undertake humanitarian, conflict prevention and crisis management tasks.

This presents a real opportunity for Ireland to play a constructive role in promoting peace and stability. Our commitment in this area is fully consistent with Ireland's approach to overseas peacekeeping and with our foreign policy traditions. Ireland's future development, like its development over the past 30 years, will be bound up with our remaining at the heart of the European Union as active, committed participants, respected and valued by our partners, and with the capacity to shape the Union's processes to our advantage.

The Government fully appreciates the importance in this context of resolving the current difficulties. While it continues to consider exactly how to proceed, it has not been inert or inactive, as claimed by Deputy O'Keeffe, and it recognises that there are serious issues that need to be carefully addressed.

The National Forum on Europe is providing a very valuable platform for debate and for clarifying some of the issues which may lie behind the "no" vote. Fine Gael would undoubtedly enrich its work and strengthen the pro-European side of the debate by taking its seats in the forum.

The Government is also preparing major proposals on the reform of Oireachtas scrutiny of EU issues. What is most important, however, is that all of us who support a successful Ireland in a successful Europe vigorously continue to make the case for enlargement and for the European Union and to reveal to the Irish people the sheer inconsistency and illogicality of those who claim to support enlargement while in effect opposing the European Union.

I wish to share time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I have only five minutes to speak on a subject to which one could not do justice in five hours.

As a committed European, I believe it is in our interest to allow all the applicant countries to join an enlarged European Union. I spoke at length when the referendum Bill on Europe was before the House. We must never lose sight of the original Treaty of Rome. That appears to have gone astray in much of the debate I have heard over the past six or eight months. Due to its objectives and principles and because of advanced cohesion it managed to bring 15 countries together and makes the possibility of war between the states much less likely. In all the debate this matter was forgotten.

The area of human rights is important in the context of an enlarged Europe. Human rights and natural justice are the cornerstones of all democracies. That is significant for many of the so-called democracies that are likely to join the EU in the future. One need go no further than the tragic events which unfolded in County Wexford at the weekend to realise the benefits of everyone aspiring to the level at which human rights and related matters are controlled within the EU. Such an occurrence would not have been possible if the country concerned had been a member of the EU – or at least I do not think it would.

There is no reason to believe that many of the industries that set up here since we joined came here for 3.5 million people. The market simply was not big enough – they had a wider vision altogether but by getting a foothold in here they would drive on to an enlarged Europe.

There is no point casting aspersions as to who did or did not do anything in regard to the referendum. This population was never more prosperous than on that day. Our economy was expanding and jobs were falling out of the sky. People react to the prevailing situation and not what might happen in future. Now that we have got a shock to the system, people will have to reflect on the reasons the economy was proceeding as strongly as it was. Without an involvement with Europe we would not have been able to kick-start the economy in the way we did.

There are problems with how things are handled by the European Union. Individuals everywhere have serious trouble with it. There is a significant reason so many farmers voted "no". There are many cases of farmers not being entitled to their grants because of making a minor mistake in regard to the regulations. That type of incident becomes common knowledge and engenders fear of such a system. One would want to kill someone or deal in drugs to be fined to the same extent as the farming community. Unless something is done about this before the next referendum people will not wear it.

I am happy with the big turnout of speakers for this debate – 19 speakers in three hours is an indication of the level of interest of Members of this House. Many others would have spoken if there had been a time slot available. This points to the need for Government time to be given to debates in this House on Europe. Apart from changing the Government, it is the most serious issue facing this country over the coming 12 months. Holding this debate is very important and, equally important, is that my party has secured the unanimous agreement of the House in favour of the enlargement of the Union. That is necessary because the message received throughout Europe following the rejection of the Nice Treaty was that Ireland is against enlargement. To correct Deputy Brendan Smith, Deputy Gormley made it clear when speaking in support of the motion that he favours enlargement. That should not be forgotten. There has been no speech on the motion against enlargement. We should be pleased with that.

I am disappointed the second part of the motion was not adequately addressed by Govern ment speakers. While it seeks support for enlargement of the EU, it calls on the Government to take all appropriate steps as soon as possible to ensure that Ireland does not impede or delay the accession of applicant states to the EU. While the Government has accepted that part of the motion, there has not been any indication of action. It is worrying that the Government has not taken steps to ensure that we will not impede enlargement and it has given no indication of its intent to do so. Six months have elapsed since the referendum and while the Minister and the Taoiseach have indicated that there has been reflection, analysis and examination there has been effective paralysis. That is disgraceful in the context of the need for action to be taken and be seen to be taken before the people are again asked to vote.

I do not know the reason for this inactivity but I am convinced measures must be put in place before we return to the people. That will take time and if the Government is not prepared to put them in place or to even outline what it would like to do it is proceeding towards a false dawn and risking the possibility of a further rejection in the next referendum. If that happens let it be on the Government's head. As a European and as someone convinced of the need for public approval of the Treaty of Nice in the interests of Europe, I believe that for the applicant countries and, above all, my country, this is a dangerous course of action. I do not know the reason for it.

The Deputy's party should join the forum.

It is fine if the Minster wants a forum and a talking shop but I am concerned that the Government should launch a programme of action. Even from the odd report on the forum, it appears nothing such as this has been considered.

It does nothing for the Deputy's credibility to dismiss the forum as a talking shop.

The Government has not responded to our invitation to advise the House of the appropriate steps it proposes to take. On Question Time yesterday, the Taoiseach vacillated and appeared confused. This was highlighted by a report in The Irish Times today, which had the following headline: “Ahern refuses to say ‘yes' or ‘no' on Nice poll.” An adjacent headline covering the debate in the Dáil debate last night reads: “Cowen warns of consequences of failing to ratify the Nice Treaty.” This epitomises the confusion on the part of the Government and especially the vacillation by the Taoiseach. That is why I am worried. There is a need for a detailed package of measures to be put forward for consideration by the House, the Seanad the Oireachtas committees and, ultimately, the people. There is a failure of leadership on the part of the Government if it does not act.

In opposition, the Fine Gael Party has attempted to deal with this lacuna. We produced a serious 40 page document, Ireland in Europe – the Way Ahead, which has been laid before the Oireachtas Library. We set out a six point plan on what we consider should be done. While we do not believe it is a complete answer, the plan contains serious proposals for consideration.

I call on the Government, in the interests of the country, not to waste any more time. There is a need for consultation within the parties and in the Oireachtas. The Government should publish its proposals and make time available for debate. It is extraordinary that there would have been no debate in this House were it not for the fact that Fine Gael moved a Private Members' motion on this issue. Nineteen speakers were crammed in to a three hour session because no more time was available. The Government must make time available in the Oireachtas for debate when it publishes its proposals.

The Deputy should attend the forum tomorrow.

The only report of consequence concerning the forum was mentioned in The Irish Times today, with a story headlined: “Nice Treaty confusion condemned by Cowen”. Does the Minister expect me to waste my time at the forum?

The Deputy has no credibility. He shows a disgraceful disrespect for the forum.

It is interesting that this headline derived from a report of the Minister not speaking at the forum but in the Oireachtas, in Seanad Éireann. He had to attend the Seanad to condemn the confusion in the forum.

Prominent members of the Deputy's party are dismayed Fine Gael will not participate in the forum. It is playing games.

The Minister should forget about the forum and tell the House what he will do about the future of Europe. If he has proposals he should publish them. If he does not, he should resign. Unless the Government is prepared to publish proposals it will have failed in its duty.

While I expect vacillation from the Taoiseach, I would have expected more from the Minister. He made a reasonable effort during the last referendum but he has since failed to produce a single proposal as to how to deal with the failure of the Government to have the last referendum passed.

It is imperative we deal with the issue of facilitating the early enlargement of the European Union and that a programme of concrete measures are in place to demonstrate to the electorate that the concerns expressed in the last referendum have been, are being and will be addressed. That cannot be done without a programme of measures. I am glad the Government had the good grace to accept the motion by way of support for the enlargement of the European Union but I am concerned that it continues to fail to publish any proposals to deal with the consequences of the rejection of the Nice Treaty in the referendum last June. If the Government continues to fail in this the Opposition will continue to push the issue. However, it will be the first item we will address on our return to Government.

We will work with others through the forum.

Acting Chairman

Does Deputy Ó Caoláin wish to move his amendment?

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"calls upon the Government to implement the referendum decision of the people and to formally request the Member States of the European Union not to proceed with ratification of the Treaty of Nice, recognising that no EU Treaty can come into effect without the approval of all Member States; and mandates the Government to seek the negotiation of a new Treaty which will allow for enlargement and provide for the future of the EU as a partnership of equal states regardless of population size with full recognition of the sovereignty of each Member State and, in particular, the military neutrality of the Irish State; and urges the Government to legislate for a referendum to amend the Constitution to include an explicit assertion of military neutrality."

I wish to register my disappointment that I was not facilitated with an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Acting Chairman

I cannot help that now.

Amendment put.

Deputies

Vótáil.

Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Gormley, Sargent, Ó Caoláin, Higgins (Dublin West) and Healy rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the amendment defeated. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies who claimed the division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Amendment declared lost.
Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share