Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 5

European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Roche)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill amends the European Communities Act 1972 and enables certain parts of the treaty providing for the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union to become part of the domestic law of the State, once Ireland ratifies the treaty.

This Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad on 6 November. The House is also being requested to approve a motion approving the accession treaty. These are the major steps required to enable Ireland to ratify the accession treaty.

The present process of enlarging the Union could see it growing from the present membership of 15 and a land area of over 3.2 million sq. km., with a population of about 370 million people, to a future membership of possibly 28 or more member states with an area of approximately 5 million sq. km. and an overall population of up to 550 million citizens.

As Deputies will already be aware, accession negotiations began with six of these countries in 1998, and with a further six in 2000. They were completed with ten countries, excluding Bulgaria and Romania, in December 2002. An accession treaty was signed in Athens in April 2003. Since signature of that treaty, the ten states have become non-voting participants in most EU meetings.

Accession will take place on 1 May 2004, during the Irish Presidency, following ratification by the present and acceding member states. That day will be a defining moment in the history of the Union, and in Ireland's Presidency.

Ratification procedures need to be completed by 30 April 2004. To come into effect, the treaty must be ratified by all of the current member states. However, should one or more of the acceding countries fail to ratify it, the remaining countries can still accede. To date, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Denmark and Germany have completed all ratification procedures.

All of the acceding states, excluding Cyprus which ratified by legislative procedure, held referenda on accession. The Government warmly welcomes the passage of these referenda. They were clearly supported by the public in these countries by convincing majorities. In fact, majorities in excess of 75% were recorded.

There can be no doubt but that this enlargement constitutes one of the most exciting and positive developments since the foundation of the EEC in 1957. Each country has made enormous efforts to qualify for membership and they have earned the respect of their European brothers and sisters while taking their rightful place at the Union table.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the Dáil. The European Commission recently published its annual progress reports on the acceding states' readiness for membership. The main message was a positive one: great progress is being sustained and only a limited number of urgent tasks need to be undertaken before accession. This is being described as the best prepared enlargement, a remarkable achievement given the sweeping transformation and preparation needed.

For today's debate, I want to recall just why this enlargement is happening. It is occasionally worth our while to look back at the remarkable history of Europe in the past ten to 15 years which has taken us to this point. The process of taking in these countries has been described rather poetically as the "soul" of the European Union. 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 in the continent of Europe. Accession will allow these countries to turn their backs on years of the threat of chaos, tyranny and poverty which ended hardly more than a decade ago. The accession will underpin their achievement of transforming their societies and economies, and basing them on democratic principles and the rule of law. This will be the cast-iron assurance they are all looking for – that there will be no going back to the grim dark days of the past.

Since its foundation in 1957 with six original members, the European Union has been taking in new members. It has been actively expanding. The values of the Union, as well as its success, have made it attractive to countries with different backgrounds. Any European state which meets basic political criteria is free to apply for membership.

The first steps which the acceding countries took towards joining the EU began shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communist regimes in central and eastern Europe. Appropriately, the first steps were taken in Dublin. A special meeting of the European Council was convened in Dublin during the Irish Presidency in April 1990. It discussed the unification of Germany and the momentous developments elsewhere on the Continent. It decided to enter into agreements with the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe. In 1993, the European Council at Copenhagen agreed that these countries could in principle become members of the Union and it also agreed the criteria which would apply to membership, the so-called Copenhagen criteria.

Formal applications for membership of the Union were made between 1994 and 1996 by ten central and eastern European states: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. Turkey had an application on hand since 1987, and Cyprus and Malta since 1990. Malta's application was withdrawn in 1996, but reactivated in 1998.

In December 1997, the Luxembourg European Council decided to begin accession negotiations with the six candidate countries which were deemed by the Commission to be ready at that stage for the process. These countries were Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. In addition, the European Council highlighted the work that would have to be done by the Union itself to prepare for enlargement by improving the workings of the institutions. Negotiations with this first group of countries began formally in March 1998.

In December 1999, the Helsinki European Council decided to open negotiations with all the other candidate countries: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. These negotiations opened formally in February 2000.

European Union membership will be the biggest event in the history of these countries since they gained, or in most cases regained, their independence. Preparations for membership will have taken more than ten years for many of the accession states. Their journey to membership has faced more upheavals and been much more challenging than the journey to accession was for Ireland. We must remember that the process of Community law has moved on in the 30 years since Ireland joined the Union.

We should not underestimate the struggle involved in reaching the negotiating table, agreeing terms and attaining membership. It has been a long, hard slog for these countries. The countries of central and eastern Europe not only have ensured that political oppression was replaced by a strong and certain commitment to democracy and human rights, but have also had to prepare their economies for participation in one of the most dynamic free markets in the world. They have had to absorb an extraordinary 80,000 pages of legislation, the acquis communitaire, but, more importantly, they have had to take difficult and sometimes painful decisions.

They have done so because they see, as we did in 1973, EU membership as offering their people the best prospect for a peaceful and prosperous future. All these changes are good for the economies and societies of these countries. The changes may well have happened without the prospect of EU membership but not in the same timescale. They remain, nonetheless, very painful changes for any country to have to go through.

Politically, the stability achieved has been extraordinary and dramatic. Progress in the areas of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the protection of minorities have created stability in a large area of Europe in a relatively short space of time. General elections have seen stable changes in power. These elections have been free and fair. As the recent Commission report indicated, there is still some work to do but a huge amount of work has already been done.

The process has also been a helpful context in dealing with difficult historical relations between different countries in the region. Some of these issues have not been fully resolved, but prospective EU membership means that the countries have been given the necessary motivation to resolve outstanding problems.

Structural changes in the economies of these countries resulted to a complete turnaround in their fortunes, leading to rapid growth from new healthy roots. This benefits the existing member states too.

In the negotiations that led to this treaty, each candidate country has had to demonstrate that it is able to take on the many obligations of membership. This implies the necessary administrative and judicial capacity to apply the acquis. The applicant must also be able to adhere to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

The pace of each negotiation depended on the degree of preparation by each applicant country and the complexity of the issues to be resolved. This allowed four out of six countries which started their negotiations at a later date, the opportunity to catch up with those which were already in the negotiation process. On the Union side, the 15 member states were the parties to the accession negotiations. Negotiating positions were approved unanimously by the Council. The results of the negotiations were incorporated into the Accession Treaty.

The Seville European Council in June 2002 was able to conclude that ten countries were ready to conclude by the end of that year. This happened on schedule in December in Copenhagen. The negotiations were long and hard. No country secured everything it wanted, in the same way as we did not achieve everything we wanted in our negotiations in the early 1970s. However, that is not the point. The European Union is a unique institution which advances by compromise and agreement and not by force majeure or by the diktat of the strong. It is precisely because of its momentum on all fronts that the negotiations have grown more complex with each succeeding enlargement as the acquis, the body of law, has grown.

Ireland's approach involved closely monitoring the whole process, especially the accession negotiations in policy areas directly concerning us, for example, agriculture, regional policy, the institutions. We also followed policy developments in other member states and the overall situation in the candidate countries.

Careful consideration was given to the institutional readiness of the candidate countries, and we have been as helpful as we can. The Government decided to allocate more than €1 million each year for four years to training and advising the administration of the candidate countries in their preparations for membership. That money has been really well spent. At the same time a sustained effort was made to intensify relations with these countries.

Ireland promoted and supported transition compromises in areas of special needs for the candidate countries where vital aspects of the acquiswere not threatened. Ireland also firmly believed that the already complex negotiations should not be further complicated by trying to anticipate future EU reforms, for example the mid-term reform of the CAP and the new financial perspectives. The reason the Government took this approach in negotiations is that we believe enlargement benefits Ireland and, of course, Europe. Ending the artificial division of Europe which lasted for too long after the Second World War is very much in all our interest.

Europe-wide surveys continue to show more Irish people favour enlargement than people in most other EU countries. The referendum on the Nice treaty last year confirmed this open, positive attitude among Irish people. Sessions of the National Forum on Europe, in which Members of this House took an active part, also bear this out.

Enlargement brings a new dynamism to the Union. Each new member state brings to the table its distinctive identity and rich heritage, its own particular way of looking at the world. New friendships will develop among new and older member states. New alliances will form around common interests and values. The addition of a large number of small member states with whom we have specific interests in common can only be to Ireland's advantage. We are already aware of the synergy and co-operation between our countries in the deliberations on the Convention. It was an eye opener that disparate countries stretched across Europe could have so much in common.

Another example of the potential for developing alliances is in agriculture. Many of the acceding countries are more dependent on agriculture than Ireland and it will be to our benefit that the agricultural interest in the Council of Ministers will be considerably strengthened.

Ireland stands to gain much from a greatly expanded marketplace with over 100 million additional consumers. Assured and free access to the new markets will bring substantial opportunities for this country. An essential contribution to our success story has been our access to the highly profitable market of 380 million potential consumers. Irish trade with these countries has already grown sixfold since 1993, Irish exports to these countries are more than €1 billion and imports more than €600 million. Ireland will also gain from further investment. In terms of Europe, this is not a zero-sum game. The reality is that we are in a win-win situation.

The admission process for the countries involved has been long and arduous and we have taken a special interest in it. The first step in the negotiations started in Dublin and it is appropriate, therefore, that accession will occur on 1 May 2004 in Dublin during our Presidency.

I thank Members for facilitating, at short notice, the arrangements for the passage of this Bill.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Fine Gael Party supports this Bill and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Bill provides the opportunity to reflect not only on the rights but on the responsibilities conferred by membership of the European Union. As we prepare to assume the Presidency of the European Union for the sixth time, it is time to step back and reflect on our responsibilities in general to the Union. We have a responsibility as Members to explain to the people the European Union issues.

Since the referendum campaign to join the European Communities in the early 1970s the Fine Gael Party has strongly advocated the continuation of the European integration process and on that aspect of our identity as a political party, I doubt if we could be challenged. Fine Gael has strengths and weaknesses but our commitment to the European Union process has been strong from the beginning.

In the first half of the last century 60 million Europeans, most of them in their prime, lost their lives. If that is not to happen again, we must learn from history and ensure the integration of Europe continues. It is not a question of assimilation, where we all become the same, but of deciding what to do independently and together by pooling our sovereignty.

I know it might offend others to put it this way, but I believe we did not come of age and become "fully sovereign" until we joined the European Union. We were totally dependent on Britain. If Britain devalued, we devalued; if their interest rates went down, ours followed. We produced for the British market and the sale of our agricultural produce depended on their goodwill. That has now changed, and the change has given us great confidence in many areas.

For example, there is a great possibility that the Irish language will be saved in Dublin and not in the Gaeltacht. Look at the demand for Gaelscoileanna, primary schools that teach through Irish. It is a pity that the parent driven demand for education through the medium of Irish is not met at second level. That is a direct product of membership of the European Union. People travel and experience other languages and then they want to keep their own language alive. In my view this newfound confidence of our role in the world has come as a result of our membership of the European Union.

We want the applicant states to have the opportunity also to gain from membership of the Union. In Ireland, while there have been positive there also have been negative experiences, and in my constituency the car assembly business has disappeared. You take the good with the bad.

I raise these points in the context of our rights and responsibilities. We have got ourselves into absurd situations because we do not tell the people the truth about certain issues, for example security and defence. We do not seek to argue the case in public and put the issues to the people. There are different views in this House on how we might do this, but the purpose of parliamentary democracy is to listen and then argue about each other's views. There is a very unhealthy attitude to security and defence, for example the way we joined the Partnership for Peace. We should be upfront with the people.

The debate on this Bill to enlarge the European Union gives me the opportunity to highlight the nonsense that prevents Irish troops serving in Macedonia on the doorstep of the proposed enlarged European Union while we send troop to Liberia, a much more dangerous peacekeeping mission on a different continent. That is wrong and absurd, and we are in that absurd situation not because of the EU treaties or the UN Charter but because of our domestic law and the triple lock we have imposed. This includes the approval of the Government, which of course is necessary, and the approval of Dáil Éireann, which is constitutionally necessary, but the Defence Acts have also imposed a third lock, that it must be a UN-mandated force.

Troops from 13 member states of the European Union – all bar Denmark and Ireland – are in Macedonia keeping the peace, relieving NATO of the responsibility, with the blessing of the UN. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter states that regional activities of this kind, as long as they are in keeping with the purposes and principles of the charter, are very welcome. However, we cannot participate in this. We can send our troops to a dangerous zone like Liberia but not to a less dangerous zone like Macedonia, on the door step of the enlarged European Union, of which we will be President in May 2004.

That is wrong, and the reason for it has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the argument but with the politics of the situation. It is to do with a Government that will not come out straight and say that the situation has moved on, the UN has moved on, the EU has moved on and that we must amend our laws accordingly. I shall be careful in how I put this, but it is wrong for the sake of politics to send our Defence Forces personnel to a more dangerous zone than they might otherwise serve in. There is something wrong about that. The only reason Denmark is not involved in Macedonia relates to its ties to NATO but we are not there because of politics, which is wrong. It is time we were upfront about this and had a debate on it. I hope to return to this at another opportunity in this House before Christmas.

This is presented as paving the way for enlargement of the European Union, but so is the Intergovernmental Conference, which may be completed before Christmas – if not it will be completed during our Presidency in the first half of 2004. That Intergovernmental Conference process includes a Convention report which provides for a common defence, as distinct from a common defence policy. I have argued about this a number of times in this House, going right back to the reflection group, the Amsterdam process and before, and I have argued for a protocol to an EU treaty which would allow for a common defence on an opt in or opt out basis for member states that wish to exercise such a protocol.

If the others wish to join an automatic mutual defence entity from the very beginning, let them do so. I have no difficulty with that. The Convention report has recommended, and the Intergovernmental Conference is considering, the Fine Gael proposal before ever seeing this document. There is to be a protocol on defence. Here is a golden opportunity for the Minister of State, but again we see no leadership, we see a Government keeping its head down. There is no healthy debate in this House and we will see the same outcome as we have seen with the triple lock.

The interests of the Defence Forces and the people will not be served by this sort of politicking. Even now, I urge the Minister of State to work to become one of the architects of a common European Union security and defence structure by being part of the architecture. If the Government indicates that we will become part of the architecture in certain circumstances it will be taken seriously in trying to write the rules. It is possible in a 25-member European Union for 21 of those states to sign up for automatic mutual defence commitments if they so wish, given their attitude to NATO, and for the other four also to be respected and given an opt in provision in this protocol.

This protocol has not been seen and is not included in the Convention report. It is mentioned that there is to be a protocol but it has not yet been drafted. Now is the time for the Minister of State to get in there, roll up his sleeves and draft that protocol in a way that brings us into a common defence in Europe but on terms that serve our best interests and our view of what Europe's best interests are. If we do not do so the rules will be made by others and, just as now we have our troops in Liberia but not Macedonia, we will join later on terms made by others and maybe not in our interests. For God's sake, we should put the national interest first and politics last for once and put the case to the people to decide. If we are upfront with the people and put the argument to them they will not shy away from it the way we have. It is time for a more open and honest debate.

I wish to raise two other points. One of the promises made last year in the passing of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 was that there would be more proactive and early scrutiny of legislative proposals from the European Union. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, which I chair, for the great effort they have put in over the past year. At a guess, I think we have scrutinised over 400 draft regulations and directives. However, we discovered recently that there is such a thing as a draft decision, which is not sent to our committee for scrutiny.

This particular draft decision concerned the stem cell issue we have all heard about in recent days. I shall not go into the issue itself as we have had that discussion and debate. However, some members of the press who consider themselves liberal have missed the point. The members of the press who are writing that the Dáil is not relevant, needs to be reformed, needs to relate more to the issues of the day and needs to be more of a legislature are the same people who wrote throwaway comments to the effect that the stem cell issue is of no great interest. Not only is it of great interest, it is an issue of ethics, human rights and constitutional and legal importance, but our great friends in the media did not see that.

One thing they missed completely was that due process was not followed in terms of considering that draft decision. The sub-committee discovered this by accident and sent it for scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business on its own authority. That is wrong. No matter how difficult or embarrassing a subject is – I have given credit to the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in giving leadership on this in the past – we must learn that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann have the right to scrutinise in advance such important decisions. Taking the Oireachtas for granted will not be accepted. Let us at least learn from the stem cell fiasco that this sort of procedure is not on. The Government cannot avoid the embarrassment. If we find the issue we will lift the rock and examine it in any event, so the Government should be upfront, put the issue to the Oireachtas and give it the opportunity through due process to examine all these matters.

We know there are concerns in Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany. I see the Portuguese have now come up with a formula. Why did we not get the opportunity to express our concerns, rather than having to do so by way of Private Notice Questions the day before the Minister attended a Cabinet meeting? That is in itself wrong, whatever the issue, even if it was car assembly, but this relates to a very important matter. It is not acceptable that Parliament is treated in that way. It is not an indication that there is a realisation across the Cabinet that EU scrutiny is required by law.

I ask the Minister of State, in chairing cross-departmental groups on the European Union and in preparation for the Presidency, to please communicate that to all Departments. The Oireachtas will not accept this, and for as long as I am Chairman of the sub-committee I will not accept it. Whatever the issue, it must come for scrutiny. That is an important principle.

As an ardent supporter of the European Union, I am concerned about the manner in which the Stability and Growth Pact was suspended earlier this week, as I am concerned about the self-image of Germany and France as the locomotive of Europe. When a delegation from the European Affairs Committee of the Bundestag, accompanied by the German ambassador, appeared before the Committee on European Affairs several weeks ago, it may have been surprised by the forcefulness with which I raised this issue. I intend to raise it again with the German Minister for European Affairs whom I hope to meet in the near future.

Having read various comments on the decision on the Stability and Growth Pact during the week, it has been suggested there was a degree of bullying on the issue. According to today's Financial Times, for instance:

The fiscal prop supporting Europe's monetary union was knocked away. The message was clear: the European Union has rules, but not everyone has to obey them. France and Germany, long seen as the driving force behind European integration, looked more like a pair of playground bullies. The resulting bitter divisions could have profound effects on the EU's development.

Although I do not know how to bring France and Germany into check, recent images of their conduct, including joint cabinet meetings and President Chirac deputising for Chancellor Schröder at a recent European Council meeting, should not be allowed to pass without comment. The European Union is supposed to be a union of equal member states which pool sovereignty in certain areas.

This is a worrying development and I intend to use every possible opportunity to raise it. While we should not be alarmed, we should be concerned and make our view on it clearly heard. As a small state, we were given severe reprimands when our budget deficit exceeded 3%, yet the same rules have not applied to Germany and France. The former, in particular, appears to believe the rules do not apply to it, nor do they appear to apply to the Italians who use a great deal of window dressing in their accounting to comply with the 3% limit. It is time those of us in favour of European integration discussed and debated this issue, rather than leaving it to the extremists, the cynics and others.

I had hoped to raise another matter but have run out of time. I support the Bill and look forward to seeing the applicant states as members of the European Union. This will be good for their future prosperity and for peace and stability on the continent of Europe, the prerequisites for prosperity. The prosperity of this country will be assured for as long as we have an interdependent, integrated Europe.

Mr. M. Higgins

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. In the short period available, I will concentrate on one or two aspects arising directly from the Minister of State's speech and several matters to which he adverted. When those of us who favoured the accession of the candidate countries, on which there is a wide consensus in the House, debated this issue, some Deputies stressed that our reason for advocating accession was the construction of a social Europe. Given that many people will take different aspects of the European project as their primary concern, I want to make clear that I regard the social dimension as the most important aspect of the new Europe being created and of its contribution to an inevitable new global order.

I am concerned by part of the Minister of State's speech. When he referred to the near historical experience of many of the accession countries during the past decade, it was as if a certain kind of history was being written post-1989. I do not have the time or the inclination to debate the significance of 1989 and it would be a little academic to do so, but I will concentrate on some practical aspects of it.

The countries voting on whether to accept accession have emerged from an atmosphere of restricted and repressed civil liberties. It was also, however, one in which there were guarantees on housing, pensions and labour rights. Our invitation to them and the structure of our debate at the time of the accession negotiations, including the debate on the Nice treaty referendum, was that there was a choice between two models. One of these was the neo-liberal, ideologically driven economic model which emerged from the works of Friedrich von Hayek and others who have been so strongly embraced by the European right but very much practised by the right in the United States in the period of Reaganism and immediately afterwards.

This model offers minimal protection for workers but, again due to time limits, I will confine my comments to pointing out that blue collar workers in the United States have to work 247 additional hours than in 1974 to maintain the standards of living they enjoyed all those years ago. Unfortunately, there is a tendency among the right in the European Union to exploit shamelessly the changing circumstances of Europe and the retraction in global economic growth to seek to re-institute a kind of neo-liberal market which has already been well-developed by some of the Christian democratic and alleged liberal parties. Their strategy is to speak about labour flexibility when in reality they would erode gains made by working people in the areas of security of employment by extending it beyond contract, the right to pensions and the right to minimal standards in the protection of safety at work. We should not underestimate this and the debate on social protection will be a major test.

In the post-1989 historical reconstruction, one must ask a question about the choice between neo-liberalism and social protection. Some countries have taken different views, with Slovenia, for example, opting for a different approach from Slovakia. Sometimes countries proceed under different influences, with some, for example, opting for a slower growth rate while retaining a maximum degree of social protection, rather than lose it entirely in the name of growth and increasing inequalities.

We might be expected to make a contribution to this conversation. While I do not want to distort the position of the Government in making a choice between neo-liberal market extremism, which may be supported by others in the House, and social protection, I believe the Government would probably opt for a social model. While I am willing to accept this position to a point, it would come from a country with the highest or second highest levels of income and the lowest or second lowest levels of social protection, whether in child care, the right to housing, the right to health or other areas.

The Progressive Democrats Party, in particular, crows regularly that this society is becoming richer but omits to mention that it is the scandal of Europe. If Sweden is at the top of the league in terms of tax levels and also has the highest levels of social protection, the Progressive Democrats Party version of society is to measure the misery index in terms of the level of tax one must pay for social benefit. Let us not, therefore, imagine that this debate has gone away because it has not. It is also relevant to the comments of the Minister of State to whom I am not imputing a position but pointing out that the issue will need to be addressed.

The Lisbon summit of 2000, for example, was the first on employment, economic reform and social cohesion. It set out a new and ambitious objective for the European Union, namely, to achieve a competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world which would, according to the text, be based on full quality employment with increased social cohesion. This meant that economic and social progress were to go hand-in-hand.

We hear regularly appeals to be realistic and not to be party political. I wish to be realistic. As a trained sociologist, I spent most of the 1970s at seminars listening to people making speeches on the working day. It was expected that we would soon have so much leisure time in Europe that we would not be capable of handling it. All sorts of disasters were predicted. People had more time on their hands as the working life grew shorter, the working year shrunk with more paid holidays, and the working week shrunk as did the working day. Suddenly, the claws of the neo-liberal right, which are revealed regularly by the Progressive Democrats and the small sections of Fianna Fáil which they influence, come out. It is suggested that we should be prepared to work longer for the economy. If one is not willing to work past 65, it is suggested that one is being disloyal to the economy, dislodging it from its position and interfering with growth.

The old 18th century notion that there must be growth before there can be equality is rehashed by these people. This is an inversion of an old philosophical argument which has long been discredited. I welcome the accession states to the EU and the Labour Party will agree to this legislation for that reason. However, in nearly every one there have been strikes. I visited the foreign affairs committee of the parliament of one accession state where I was told of strikes among health workers, people working in the housing sector and public sector workers. No one should say that these states were in the depths of darkness prior to the opening of accession negotiations or characterise those negotiations as an invitation to the land of milk and honey. I stress the importance of a social Europe and the construction of a new view of the Union because one should not try to escape from one form of darkness only to encounter another. More thoughtful trade Unionists throughout the world are examining the challenges to protections which were won over a period of struggle which lasted more than 100 years.

I say the following to be positive. It is sometimes said the Swedish vote represented a kind of great negative to the European Union. In fact, the vote was quite progressive. The Swedish view was that its social protections would be better protected by rejecting what they consider to be the instability of the Stability and Growth Pact. Advanced Swedish opinion saw that it was faced with the extraordinarily backward view of greedy people who believe that all one's money should be for oneself and that one should construct security fences while letting everyone else go to hell. This is the neo-liberal Progressive Democrat view. The Swedes stress the importance of the public sphere and we will too as we move through the Presidency and find ourselves welcoming the accession states after May. It behoves us to speak about citizens in Europe as much as about consumers. I am becoming a little wary of the idea of listening to all the consumers whose markets will be more accessible to us.

A romantic Europe is regularly invoked. There is nothing wrong with a romantic view of Europe's past or of its future, although romanticism is probably not the best concept to use given where it brought us. We have to examine the way in which we speak about citizens. This is not an impractical or vague concept. Public sector broadcasting, the right to tell one's own story, the failure of the European Union to curb the concentration of ownership, its facilitation of private monopolies while it restricted and sought to roll back public service broadcasting are all issues which have been reflected in the adaptation of the accession countries to the acquis communautaire. A raft of uncommercial and economically unviable private broadcasting licences have been issued. It was suggested that it was part of the process of adaptation to establish a market in this area in a short period. These are important issues.

I take a positive rather than a negative view of the arrival of the accession countries. I saw the applicant states as countries which could contribute to a neglected aspect of the European identity, especially in terms of culture. For many reasons which I do not have time to develop now, culture is not mentioned in the founding treaties of the European Union. It is referred to in one line of Article 1.2.8 of one treaty which suggests that culture may be taken into account. We are tested at a moment like this as to what we mean when we speak about Europe.

Deputy Gay Mitchell has his view with which I profoundly disagree. The new Europe which is to be created must be built on trust and the rediscovery of a capacity to bring political solutions to bear rather than on fear. Political matters should not be treated as security issues. People differ on the status of these two approaches. I am profoundly of the opinion that recent events and Europe's role in the world represent a vindication of multilateralism and belief in international institutions. If one wishes to reform those institutions, one should do so. If it is hampered by the veto process, we should reform the Security Council. One should certainly not have resort to extra-council initiatives of the regional kind which have no mandate and which are unlikely to be supported by the General Assembly.

Only this week we have seen the return to the production of lower order nuclear weapons by the largest power in the world at the same time the EU was involved in a dialogue with Iran. It is difficult for ordinary citizens to understand how one can make a strong case on Iran and Korea, with which I agree, while the United States of America returns to the production of nuclear weapons and bunker breaking equipment. One always runs the risk of being accused of being anti-American when discussing these matters, but the truth must be spoken. If what one says is political truth, people must hear it. The defence budget of the most powerful country in the world this year is of the order of more than $950 billion. The cost estimated by the United Nations of providing clean water, mass primary education and freedom from the four major infectious diseases is $88 billion. That is approximately 8% of the armaments spending of a country which spends more than the next 12 of its friends combined or all 28 of its perceived enemies. It spends 18 times more on defence than do the countries which comprise the axis of evil. In developing a response to that, the European Union should not ask how it can have its own military structures.

The employment of the world's resources in terms of expenditure, intelligence, scientists and technologies to make medical advances and social improvements through better insulation and housing is a political matter. Therefore, I do not welcome the unpicking of the Convention process to the point at which we see regression in any of these areas. Gains were made by socialist representatives at the Convention on a social Europe and social protection. Gains were also made by those who have advanced the case for giving real meaning to sustainability. These gains are not available for unpicking. It would be a regressive step to reopen the matter at the Intergovernmental Conference to enable narrow, neo-liberal, right-wing aims to take the place of these gains. It is not my intention to question the nature of the Intergovernmental Conference process, but as Deputy Gay Mitchell has reminded us, this is a Parliament and I am entitled to make my views known here. The Deputy has his views, but my perspective is that gains have been made.

The indivisibility of rights and the addition of economic, social and cultural rights to political rights as elements of a future version of Europe which was envisaged at the Convention is resolutely opposed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at every level. I am not certain that the Intergovernmental Conference process has got off to a great start in so far as it seems to be providing an opportunity for the re-articulation of backward positions that we defeated in the Convention.

I emphasise that as far as I am concerned, I regard the accession countries as ones that challenge us. When I visited some of them and spoke to people, they pointed out that they joined to help create a Europe of the future based on a social model and not a backward version of something that existed previously with eroded rights. The Government has a difficulty in that it is carrying a large burden of that backward thinking which would push us away from such a model and would create something rather like the very limited rights-type of economy in the United States. We live a real world where we say rights are not available, whether in the workplace, the home, socially, ecologically or environmentally, and that which we have gained, we propose to hold.

Mr. Gormley

I am sharing my time with Deputies Harkin and Ó Snodaigh.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. The Green Party has always stated that it is pro-enlargement and, indeed, we campaigned in many of the accession states for a "Yes" vote. I made it clear in Malta and the Czech Republic that we favoured a "Yes" vote. I visited the Czech Republic a week before its referendum and what was quite remarkable was the even-handed way in which they approached the issue of membership of the European Union. There was no sense of tipping the forelock to the great masters beyond. They knew what they were getting into and knew the benefits and the drawbacks. They see, and have always seen, themselves as Europeans. Indeed, many years ago a delegation from the former Czechoslovakia visited the European Parliament. One of the speakers in the Parliament welcomed the delegation to Europe to which the representative from the delegation responded by saying, "We have always been here." That is a fact. They are true Europeans and they are now becoming members of the European Union. They have no sense of inferiority whatsoever.

The level of propaganda is remarkable. I remember when the eastern European states were liberated from the Soviet Union, we were constantly told about the terrible conditions, particularly about environmental degradation. I was at a conference in 1989 at which someone from the former East Germany spoke. He said he was tired of listening to rhetoric about how bad things were in his country in terms of the environment. He listed the achievements of the former East Germany as regards sustainability, to which Deputy Michael D. Higgins just referred. In the former East Germany, all paper was recycled, it only had three types of bottles, all of which were recycled, more than 80% of journeys were by public transport and CO2 emissions were low. Of course, it had bad localised pollution problems but we need to put this in perspective.

The new constitution – I take issue slightly with Deputy Michael D. Higgins on this – does not represent a great advancement in terms of sustainability. I do not see an advancement on the Amsterdam treaty, for example. That is where we have remained stagnant. We are lucky we have not gone backwards, and that has been claimed as a victory by some.

An interesting dynamic will be introduced as a result of the membership of the accession states. The Americans were quick to seize on old and new Europe – new Europe being the smaller states which make common cause with the United States and which see the future of European defence, in particular, as part of NATO. It is interesting to note that this old and new Europe is really a myth. Some 16 of the 25 states in the enlarged EU were in favour of war in Iraq, and that needs to be stated over and over again. They would far prefer to see European defence moulded in the shape of NATO and are not too keen on this European defence identity being espoused by the French and the Germans, in particular.

However, the one thing we noticed at the Convention was that they very much shared our point of view on the institutions. In particular, they were opposed to the idea of a president of the Council. It was remarkable that so many people stood up at the Convention without any tick-tacking, I might add. It was not a case of people being told to say one thing and others being told to say something else – it was spontaneous. People stood up and said "No". I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, who does not seem to agree with me. He did quite a lot of negotiating behind the scenes and I congratulate him on that and on the evenings he held. He managed to galvanise so many people. The Government may have been slow off the mark but it certainly got its act together towards the end.

The views of these states came from the heart and they were genuinely opposed to the idea of a president of the Council and the abolition of rotating Presidencies. They wanted the partnership of equals to continue within the European Union. That is the project they joined and which needs to continue. They see what is happening now as the big countries versus the small countries. When they see what is happening as regards the stability pact, can they have confidence when there is one rule for the big countries and another for the small ones? We need a Europe in which there is equality.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I welcome the opportunity to state once again my party's support for the upcoming enlargement of the European Union and future enlargement. As republicans, our roots lie in European solidarity and we look forward to the accession next year of the Czech Republic, the Republic Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, the Slovenian Republic and Slovakia. Many of these states have common experiences with Ireland. They have suffered colonisation and military occupation.

At present these countries face similar challenges to those we faced in recent decades in terms of economic and social recovery. I have sought on occasion, and I support the Minister of State in seeking, common cause with these countries, especially the smaller and economically weaker states, because our future in the European Union depends on the friendships we build now and as the European Union grows. Ireland should build partnerships with other small, militarily neutral and progressive states both within the EU and outside its borders.

I note with satisfaction that all the accession states with the exception of Cyprus held a referendum on EU membership to allow the people decide, which is a welcome development. Existing EU member states should learn a lesson from that and should be encouraged to ensure all countries in the EU hold referenda on future EU treaties, including the constitutional treaty which is still being debated and put together. I urge the Minister of State to ensure the constitutional treaty is put to the people not only in this state, which has a good record on referenda – in fact too good a record in that it held two referenda on the last treaty – but in all the states of the European Union. It was good to hear that this week Clare Short came out in favour of a referendum in Great Britain despite it not having a constitution.

I regret that in the forthcoming enlargement Cyprus will not join as a unified state, as we and all within the Union had hoped. Instead, it is joining as a partitioned and occupied state. Hopefully, that will soon be resolved positively. The EU must support and encourage Turkey to end its occupation of Cyprus so that it may also be accepted as a member. One member cannot militarily occupy another – that includes this island. Sinn Féin would welcome a human rights compliant, non-occupying Turkey into the EU once the situation in Cyprus and the Kurdish conflict are resolved in a manner which respects the rights of these populations to self-determination. That Turkey has a majority Muslim population would add a positive dimension to Europe and offer potential to reduce conflict in the Muslim world.

I also welcome the progress towards accession being made by Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. We need to start debate now on the plans for future enlargement, specifically the move towards the creation of a free trade area covering all the Euro-Mediterranean area under the Barcelona process. This is a controversial and complex issue with far-reaching implications. It needs to be fully debated in the House and in the public sphere at the earliest opportunity rather than coming at us through the back door or when we are struggling.

I encourage any development towards a Europe of equal partnership rather than towards the plan many European leaders seem to have of creating a superpower of some sort. Hopefully I am wrong about this plan and all who were on the "No" side can be proven wrong. We will have to wait and see. I welcome the Bill.

Ms Harkin

I am pleased to have a few minutes to speak on this truly historic European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We can now look forward to a vision of Europe no longer torn apart by war and conflict.

We were not part of the mainstream of European conflict over the past century. We had our own conflicts and many of us were only on the periphery as the heart was torn from Europe. I often heard my mother refer to "the war". While it loomed large in her life it featured more on account of the day to day practicalities of rationing etc. Its impact on those who lived in Europe was different. It shaped their lives. It gives one faith in the human spirit and the resilience of human nature that post that conflict we have managed to move forward to the fragile beginnings of what we now call the European Union.

We are now being asked to share the vision of a Europe bound together by economic, cultural and social ties. It is a Europe of nation states bound by common values and aspirations. In some ways it seems like pie in the sky when former enemies, divided empires and states seek to form the new European family. The great thing is that it is not pie in the sky. This is real and within our grasp. It is not all good or all bad.

Something which has intrigued me during our debates on Europe is the black and white nature of the debate. Europe represents all that is good for some people and all that is threatening for others. I must agree with Deputy Gormley that it has its benefits and its drawbacks. Looking at the package as a whole, we must decide if we want to take part in shaping it and to be part of the process. I wonder if Irish people are happy with their decision to vote "Yes" to the Nice treaty. Are those who advocated and voted "No" content with the outcome which will allow the new accession states join the EU in May, as they have clearly indicated they want to do?

When I campaigned for a "Yes" vote on the Nice treaty I used the idea of neighbours. I pointed out that Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia border Austria, that the Czech Republic and Poland are neighbours of Germany and that it is better if neighbours get on together and pool their resources. I know this is a type of neighbourhood watch philosophy sounds a bit like "The Waltons", but I am glad Ireland has not stalled the process in Europe.

Over the past year we have had the European Convention and the draft treaty. I have no time to speak on those issues but they have presented new challenges. I hope that in our debate we will look at the bigger picture as well as the finer detail. The draft treaty has many positive aspects as well as areas of concern about issues which must be clarified. That this treaty provides us with an opt-out mechanism where an individual state can vote against the treaty without affecting the future of other countries within the EU is important. This will ensure we have an informed debate. The outcome of our vote will hugely influence our future, hopefully in but perhaps out of Europe. This is a huge challenge for us, particularly politicians.

I listened to the debate in the Seanad this morning with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox. An important point was made that if we do not connect the single citizen, whether Irish, Italian, Cypriot or whatever, to the EU, we are in danger of losing momentum. We must speak in plain language if we are to connect the citizen. Eurospeak alienates people. I am pleased to hear that the Irish EU Presidency will take the opportunity to decode Eurospeak and use language which will help citizens better understand the EU and its institutions and, more importantly, will connect citizens to European ideals.

On the matter of connecting citizens to the EU, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Gay Mitchell earlier when he referred to the scrutiny of EU legislation and the recent stem cell fiasco. Two committees of this House asked for a full debate in the Dáil and Seanad on this issue but it took a Private Notice Question to get some brief discussion on the issue. This is unacceptable. People see it as a rejection of democracy. We cannot allow it to happen because it frightens them and puts them off the EU, although it has nothing to do with it but has to do with how we conduct business in the House.

We would all like to feel we have some control over our lives and our future. Within that context we would like to have some influence on world events. We recognise that as individuals we are virtually powerless. However, as members of the EU we have influence, although not always as much as we might like. We can leave our fingerprints on world events and as Irish citizens influence global events. To do that we must take our courage in our hands and move forward as partners. We can retreat to the periphery or take our place with our neighbours. I hope we choose the latter option.

Mr. Haughey

I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and to make a few observations on the European Union. This is an historic time for Ireland and the European Union. It is the eve of our assumption of the EU Presidency for the sixth time, the final time we will assume the EU Presidency under the current institutional arrangements. I wish the Taoiseach and his Ministers well in their endeavours. In the past Taoisigh, Ministers and our civil servants fulfilled their duties with distinction. I have no doubt this will be the case again and we look forward to a successful EU Presidency.

Enlargement is one of the big issues on the agenda for our EU Presidency and that is what this Bill is about. The accession of the ten new members on 1 May will be an historic occasion. In his Second Stage speech the Minister caught the sense of history of the occasion when he stated, "There can be no doubt that this enlargement constitutes one of the most exciting and positive developments since the foundation of the EEC in 1957." He also referred to Europe finding its soul, the division of Europe in the past and the problems that resulted from the Second World War and the various dictatorships of the previous century.

The Minister of State's comments reflected the historic nature of this occasion for the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. It is obvious that ensuring that the accession of the new member states goes smoothly will be an important part of our Presidency. Ireland's Presidency will continue the efforts being made in respect of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. I wish the Presidency every success in that regard. I have reservations about the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union. I hope its membership will not import instability into the Union. A great deal of work remains to be done by the Turkish Government in that regard, especially in respect of human rights and the Cyprus issue. These matters can be discussed at another time.

The Lisbon strategy will be another important aspect of the Irish Presidency. Ireland will seek to re-inject momentum into the strategy in light of the current economic circumstances and the enlargement of the EU. We should try to tell people exactly what the Lisbon strategy is. It attempts to create growth and provide employment. If we can convince people that the strategy will have real and tangible benefits for the citizens of the State, we will have done a good day's work. I wish the Presidency every success in driving that agenda.

I cannot speak about priorities such as justice and home affairs issues and external relations because I have time constraints. I am delighted that the Government intends to give priority to development issues. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has requested that problems in Third World countries, such as HIV-AIDS and debt, be prioritised. It is important that we highlight such issues during our Presidency.

It is obvious that the Intergovernmental Conference will be extremely important. Although I hope that certain issues will be resolved before the end of the Italian Presidency, I do not doubt that we will rise to the occasion if it falls to us to conclude the process.

I would like to speak about the treaty that will put in place an EU constitution. We need to sell the treaty properly because it will be put to the Irish people in a referendum. The people should be told that it is a final treaty. They are not pleased when we bring referendums to them on a regular basis. They are familiar with our Constitution and are aware that certain EU treaties have been ratified. The fact that they do not like us to refer matters to them unless it is absolutely necessary is demonstrated by the low turnout in some polls. We need to tell the people that the new treaty relates to bringing peace and stability to Europe and consolidating and simplifying existing treaties. The EU will be made more transparent and the democratic deficit issue will be dealt with.

We should make clear that this is the last time that we will ask them to vote on an EU matter in the foreseeable future. People will engage with the issues if we clarify these matters. The initial reaction of some people may be to say: "Here we go again, another European Union treaty, what is it about, we do not understand it". We need to drive home the fact that it will be the final EU treaty for many years to come. The treaty will simplify the existing provisions and make this area much more readily understandable. It will highlight the benefits of the Union in bringing about peace and stability. It fits in well with the process of enlargement which is under discussion today.

I would like to discuss the details of the Intergovernmental Conference. Taxation, security and defence and the criminal law aspects of justice and home affairs are key matters for Ireland. I am delighted that the Government supports a reference to God, or our Christian heritage, in the preamble to the constitutional treaty. I support the Government in that regard. I wish the Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, every success during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Roche)

I will address the points made by Members during the course of the debate. Although there were few contributions, they were particularly apposite and focused. Some of the points that were made deserve to be commented on.

I was struck by Deputy Gay Mitchell's opening comments. He was right to state that no civilised human being could take pride in the history of Europe in the previous century when 60 million Europeans were butchered. It was industrial murder on a vast scale. I remind those who are critical of the European Union that the 50 years since the end of the Second World War have comprised the longest period of peace and tranquillity enjoyed on the European continent for many millennia.

Deputy Mitchell also made a point that I have alluded to on a number of occasions. People's fears 30 years ago when Ireland joined the EEC have not transpired. Our experience has been the opposite to that predicted by such people. The Deputy made the valid point that there is now a more vibrant interest in Irish culture, language and dance – our expression of what we are – than there was 30 years ago. We were much more subservient then. We have reason to be proud. Who could have forecast 30 years ago that there would be a resurgent interest in gaelscoileanna at primary and secondary levels? Who would have suggested 30 years ago that Irish dance would become one of the most popular expressions of culture in the world?

Deputy Mitchell also spoke about the attitude we need to adopt. He made another point that I have made several times, namely, that Ireland's membership of the European Union has been a liberating experience for us in a very real sense. We have emerged from under the cloak and started to express what we are. Although we have found that it is a challenging world, we have risen to the challenge.

The Deputy also spoke of the need for an informed, dispassionate and factual debate about where we are going in respect of defence issues, especially at European level. Although I may disagree with where he thinks we should go, I agree with him that we should have a more informed debate than has been the case in the past. He made a specific reference to the role that can be played by neutral or non-aligned states at EU level. I agree with him on a fundamental level in that regard. I will make history next week when I will become the first Minister from a neutral or non-aligned state to address the Western European Union assembly. I will argue that such states can bring something special to the table.

Deputy Michael Higgins, who was as provocative and thoughtful as ever, spoke about the need to construct a social Europe. He said that we need to protect the advances we have made in this regard, especially in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Deputy and I agree that the convention was a marvellously open and democratic way of dealing with business. It was infinitely better than the way in which any previous treaty had been dealt with. It was open and upfront. There were no smoke-filled rooms. The Intergovernmental Conference which followed it has been rightly criticised because it is more of a virtual Intergovernmental Conference than a cross-table process. At least it is more open than previous such conferences.

Deputy Higgins spoke about constructing a real social Europe, in which everybody participates. May I be inelegant, by agreeing with the suggestion that participation should not be confined to those who can get their snouts to the trough? I share the Deputy's notion of a social Europe. We worked for such a Europe at Mr. Katiforis's working group, as part of the convention process.

I would like to take the Deputy mildly to task, however, in respect of his comments about the charter of rights. I think I am right in saying he claimed that it is resolutely opposed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. The Minister is a big boy and more than capable of defending himself. However, that portrayal or characterisation is not correct. It is false, though I am sure that it was not intended to be so. The issues which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been pressing for in the justice and home affairs areas would be supported absolutely by Deputy Michael D. Higgins if we had a better debate. The point is vindicated in the document that is going to the conclave this weekend. The Minister has been making the point that it is inherently extremely difficult to reconcile the common law and civil law traditions and that we must be very careful in the process going on, particularly in justice and home affairs.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is mainly in the social area.

Mr. Roche

On justice and home affairs he has made the point that we must be extremely clear that the civil liberties that we take for granted in our system are not trespassed on. Deputy Michael D. Higgins will agree with me that common law, warts and all – I do not necessarily believe that it is the absolute pinnacle – particularly in this country, where there has been the fortuitous development of a very strong constitutional tradition, protects the individual and must be protected. That is the Minister's point, and I agree with him. I am sure that Deputy Michael D. Higgins agrees with him too.

Mr. M. Higgins

No, it is backwards constitutionalism.

Mr. Roche

I was giving the Deputy the opportunity to clamber back on board reality, but no matter. My most generous efforts are rebuffed. Deputy Gormley spoke about the attitude which brought the European Union to its current state. He reflected a rather romantic view of the German Democratic Republic, certainly going on what I know of it. I will take him up on one point. He said that 80% of all trips in the German Democratic Republic were made by public transport. Of course, the alternative was to wait 25 years to buy a Trabant.

Mr. Durkan

Or a couple.

Mr. Roche

It was to buy one Trabant. I make that point though it has now become an icon. He mentioned the unity of purpose among the small member states in the Convention and also pointed out that it was not a matter of large states versus small ones. He was certainly correct there. The whole purpose of the Friends of the Community Method Group, in which I was very proud to play a leading part, was to emphasise the unity and equality of Europe. We were not looking for any way to steal a march on some of the larger states. If the same sense of purpose existed among the larger states in Europe and they accepted the equality of Europeans in the same way that we did, it would be a better place. The divide between large and small is essentially destructive.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh touched on the same issue when he referred to the necessity of ensuring that there is not one rule for the big and another for the small. That was also implicit in several of the other contributions. I agree with him. "Rules is rules", as the saying goes. They should apply to the big, the small and the insignificant. Deputy Ó Snodaigh also touched on the issue of EuroMed. That is interesting, since we are giving that some attention in the context of the upcoming Irish Presidency. If the wind blows on our back and we have the opportunity, Deputies will see the absolutely unique focus of a northern European state on the EuroMed area.

Deputy Harkin spoke of the Bill's historic nature and how what we are doing speaks to the European spirit. She is right on both those points, and that the dream of a Europe at peace is becoming a reality. Her sentiments have been expressed on many memorable occasions. She mentioned the speech by the President of the European Parliament that has just concluded in the other House. He favoured the Government and me with a reference to something that I want to do – bring Europe back to its citizens. I want to end as much gobbledegook, doublespeak, Eurolanguage and exclusive language as we possibly can. We are planning an initiative on that area during our forthcoming Presidency, and the positive response that we got from all the institutions to the first feelers we put out is fascinating. We will be able to do something. Quite an extraordinary breakthrough is possible there. We will not achieve everything that we want during Ireland's Presidency, but I want to set up a communications strategy which links Europe to its citizens and builds bridges, speaking in less exclusive language in future. I have already been speaking to two of the three further Presidencies coming after us, and they are enthusiastic supporters, so a process will be put in place.

Deputy Haughey spoke about this being Ireland's sixth, and the last classic, Presidency. He is right, since the new constitutional treaty will come into effect, and we will have a different Europe of 25 members. We look forward to a successful and challenging Presidency. We have put in a vast amount of spadework, and with a modicum of luck, it will be a good, very fruitful and historic Presidency. He said, as Deputy Gay Mitchell did at the outset of the debate – lovely synergy when it goes full circle – that we are closing the doors of history. On 1 May 2004, there will come a fantastic defining point. It is a marvellous moment for us to be alive and witness the doors of a tragic, brutal, butchering history being closed and the doors of a new history being opened for Europe. We can take real pride in the role that we have played in Ireland, including those for and against the Nice treaty. We demanded a level of debate. I agree fundamentally with two final points that Deputy Haughey made. One was on the Lisbon strategy, which, after enlargement is highest up the agenda. The second matter was building up a system of communication with the people. I have already referred to that, and he is absolutely correct.

Question put and agreed to.