I am not assigning blame to anyone. I am talking about all of us as a nation.
We have key areas of national policy where we have to take responsibility for getting it right or wrong ourselves – for example, the national finances and tax and health policies. Fortunately, we have recovered from our self-imposed economic failure after many difficult years. The European Union was a great help to us while we corrected our national finances, worked hard to be competitive and brought in the right tax and employment policies to encourage investment and enterprise.
The process of recovery from mass emigration and mass unemployment was faster and more sustainable by virtue of the help we received from the European Union. Our full and active membership of the EU has meant that we can attract jobs and investment. We are part of the European Single Market. We helped shape the rules of that market and we share its benefits and responsibilities. Without it Ireland would never have seemed as attractive a place for international investment and Irish businesses would never have been able to grow jobs and look forward as they have since 1973.
It is very difficult to underestimate the importance of our decision 30 years ago to join the EEC, as it was known then. It has always been important for us to actively engage with Europe and the people chose to do so in three subsequent referenda. The "No" result in last year's referendum on the Treaty of Nice, however, called into question the direction of our development since 1973. It would have been wrong to reject, ignore or undermine the fact of that result and the Government has listened to what it meant.
Many people did not vote last year. I accept that they may have felt they did not have enough information to make an informed decision and that they believed the Government should have done more to give them real reasons to vote "Yes". Some people may have voted "No" for that reason and I accept my part of the responsibility for that, along with the responsibility to act in the national interest in response to it. As political leaders, members of the Government were reminded by last year's vote not to presume that our proposals will receive the assent of those we serve. The message sent out by last year's result has been received in this House, in Government Buildings, in Brussels and in other European capitals.
A majority of a minority voted last year against a treaty designed to extend membership of the EU to more countries and to offer to them some of the opportunities we have enjoyed for 30 years. I do not think the Irish people wanted to say "No" to new member states last year, as this would involve turning away countries that suffered for 45 years under internal totalitarian rule, dominated by an external superpower and prevented from acting in accordance with their European heritage. I do not think we wanted to say "No" to the jobs and investment that arise from our participation in the Single Market. I do not believe we intended to say "No" to our influence in the community of nations that is the European Union. I do not consider that Irish people want a sudden about turn in our European role. If we reject the Nice treaty again we will, in effect, reject all these things. This is how such a decision would be viewed among our fellow member states, among applicant countries and among international investors in Ireland.
The job of bringing jobs to Ireland will be harder if we vote "No". Some on the "No" side claim this is not the case or that it ought not to be so, but the world will make up its own mind. Whether we like it or not, a rejection of the treaty will be perceived negatively rather than positively for Ireland.
A "No" vote would be an immediate slap in the face for applicant countries. Analysis conducted for clients of Citigroup, one of the world's largest banks, recently found that a "No" vote would be damaging for applicant countries, as it would begin to cost them millions from the day after the referendum. This is not a theoretical damage that would begin later, but right away and in real money terms. The cost of borrowing would increase for such countries, as investors would see their delay in joining the EU as making their government bonds less attractive. Analysts for Citigroup pointed out that applicant countries would be delayed from joining the EU until 2006 or 2007, instead of 2004. This view outside Ireland contrasts with that of "No" campaigners here that a "No" vote would not delay or stop new member states joining. The latter view is simply wrong and is not accepted by the applicant countries. It is not shared by observers who make their living by judging international markets.
The Citigroup analysts believe a "No" vote would be bad for Europe. They told their influential audience that a "No" vote would be viewed as another example of the EU's failure to pursue difficult matters, a failure which has usually been negative for the euro. The sum total of a "No" vote would be a reduction in new jobs for Ireland, a delay and an immediate cost for applicant countries and a negative signal to send to Europe. This would not represent a great achievement for Ireland. We can hope that analysts will not be hard on us and that they will talk about things other than money, but we know that they will as that is the way of the world. We can choose to work against the world or to make it work for us. A "Yes" vote will be a decisive confirmation that we want to make the world work for us, rather than trying to work against it.
In the forthcoming referendum, we can choose to tell the countries of central and eastern Europe to wait to join the EU while we try to ensure Europe does things our way. We can try to assure them that the wait will not be long or costly, but that would not be fair, responsible or credible. By 1973, Ireland had waited more than ten years to be allowed into the EEC, as a result of a political row between France and the United Kingdom. We had done nothing wrong, we had offended no one and we were not a threat to anyone. Our path was blocked and our progress held up, however, for reasons that had nothing to do with us and were outside our control. It was unfair and it cost us at least ten years of development. Are we willing to do the same to applicant countries today? I cannot believe that we want to impose on them the frustration of the delay that was imposed on us. They have done nothing wrong, they have not offended us and they are not a threat to us. How can we impose on them a cost and a delay for reasons that have nothing to do with them? There is no point in pretending that would not be the real effect of a "No" vote. When they eventually join, what will we say to them as we try to develop trade, political and cultural links? I do not believe, as I have said, that the people want to do this to the countries waiting to join the Union.
Ireland has changed and grown since 1973, just as the EU has changed and grown. We have worked in a Community that has grown to 15 member states. The voting rules have changed, the Single Market has been brought in and the euro has been introduced. We have lost nothing and gained a great deal as a result of these changes. There have been rule changes before, new member states have joined and new markets have opened. There have been constant challenges in pursuing our interests in managing the Common Agriculture Policy, as well as regional, monetary and social policies. The changes brought about by the Nice treaty will not change fundamentally our ability to secure our interests in Europe while contributing to the welfare of all. They certainly will not wipe out our national identity. After 30 years of EU membership, has Ireland ceased to be identifiably Irish? Has the Netherlands lost its identity during almost 50 years of EU membership? Has Portugal ceased to be Portugal since 1986?
Eurosceptics and "No" campaigners claim that the EU is a conspiracy by the large powers, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, that wish to dominate all other member states. They argue that the Nice treaty is their method of finally getting their way, but this is simply not true. Why have France and Germany waited since the 1950s to lord it over everyone else? Why have they given up their second commissioner? Why do they accept voting weights that are under weight relative to their large populations? Why do they share decision making with us at all? Is it not absurd to claim that after 30 years of successful membership, we are about to lose our identity and succumb to the power of large states? It is absurd and wrong. It cannot be defended by reference to the contents of the treaty.
I could continue for a long time refuting the false claims and myths put about by those urging a "No" vote. Fundamentally, however, people are looking for positive reasons to vote "Yes". They want to hear from the Government why we should approve the changes in the Nice treaty. They want to hear about the real consequences of voting "Yes" or "No". They do not want exaggerations or myths. In effect, voters are asking for reasons to vote "Yes" and saying that they will think about them seriously. I can give three such reasons.
First, a "Yes" vote will help us create more and better jobs. Ratification of the treaty will help jobs, but a failure to do so will hinder job creation. A bigger Europe will mean more opportunities for employment, trade and investment, if we continue to work hard and stay competitive. It sends a positive signal internationally. Second, a "Yes" vote would be a boost for others in Europe who were denied for decades the opportunities and freedoms we take for granted. The hallmark of Irish people is hospitality and generosity. At the heart of our identity are the values of solidarity and fair play. We have never sought to progress at the expense of others, we have never blocked progress for other people and we have never refused to help. Third, if we vote "Yes" we can make the EU work for Ireland and for Europe in the rules agreed in the Nice treaty. We have nothing to fear from these changes; we have nothing to lose and much to gain. We have made a fair and balanced deal with other member states to protect our national position in key areas such as taxation, voting weights, equality between members as regards commissioners and protection of the rights of member states that are not involved in enhanced co-operation. The protection of our military neutrality has been made clear. In this referendum, the Government is offering the people the ability to make absolutely certain that only they can decide if Ireland is to join a European defence programme at any time.
As we face this momentous decision, I urge people to inform themselves by listening to the debate and by reading the information. I urge women, particularly, to think of the progress that has been made and the help we will continue to get from our membership of the European Union. I ask the electorate to reflect on where it wants Ireland to go after 30 years of membership. I call on voters to trust their instincts for an open, confident and caring Ireland and to vote "Yes".