Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 2010

Vol. 712 No. 4

Interim Economic Partnership Agreements: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the three interim Economic Partnership Agreements:

(i) Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA (Southern African Development Community Economic Partnership Agreement) States, of the other part;

(ii) Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the East African Community Partner States, on the other part; and

(iii) Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part,

which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 April 2010.

I welcome the debate on these three interim economic partnership agreements, which were approved by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday. The Dáil is the only parliament in Europe that will have engaged in extensive discussions on these agreements, which is a welcome development. The complexity of the agreements is such that they lend themselves to be discussed in committee. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs engaged in a strong and robust debate on them yesterday and reached the conclusion that they should be approved.

I wish to place on record the historical context relating to these economic partnership agreements and outline why they have been brought before the Dáil for approval. Historically, the African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries benefited from very favourable trade preferences with the European Union. However, these were deemed to violate World Trade Organisation, WTO, rules on the basis that they established an unfair discrimination among developing countries. In other words, some 77 countries in the ACP region benefited from these unilateral trade preferences but many others that were not members of the ACP grouping did not so benefit. That was an unfair and illegal form of discrimination.

In 2000, the European Union and 77 ACP states concluded an agreement known as the Cotonou Agreement. This provided for a new trade and development framework based on economic partnership agreements. These are a new type of multilateral agreement, combining both trade and wider development issues in a unified framework and containing reciprocal preferences in trade between the EU and the ACP states. On this basis, in 2001 the WTO agreed to give a waiver to the EU to continue the unilateral preferences until 31 December 2007. While that deadline has not been fully observed, it is clear that if progress was not being made in the process relating to concluding economic partnership agreements, unfair discrimination against non-ACP countries would continue. This would entitle said countries to bring a case to the WTO and this would have a seriously detrimental effect on the international trading system, particularly in the context of developing countries. That is the background to the debate.

I wish to make a fundamental point in respect of economic partnership agreements between the EU and developing nations. Regardless of whether one likes it, we live in an era of globalisation. Under our globalised trading system, all countries engage in trade with one another. The amount of goods traded across borders is larger than at any time in the past. This has benefited many nations. Unfortunately, the least developed countries have not benefited from the international trading regime that has been in existence for many years. As a result, it is my strong view that these states do not possess the tools to allow them to rise out of poverty.

While development aid is vital for developing countries, many specialists and commentators, academic and otherwise, in the development community agree that, of itself, it will never assist these countries in rising out of poverty. The only way to relieve poverty in these countries ultimately is by ensuring that they become involved in the international trading regime. This will assist them in building their trading capacity, their economies and their domestic enterprise systems. By so doing, they will take part in the international trading system and release themselves from poverty. I do not accept the contention that these agreements are being rushed through Parliament. We had a robust debate on them yesterday in committee. It is important to state that we must comply with international obligations to finalise these agreements which, by their nature, are agreements between the European Union and sovereign states. We must respect the rights of those sovereign states that wish to enter into these agreements. While a number of countries have done so, others have stated they are not ready for these agreements at this stage. We must respect the sovereign wish of those that are ready to agree and sign, which is the reason this motion is before the House.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate these issues in plenary session as they go beyond the detailed consideration of a select committee. At a meeting yesterday of the select committee I suggested we not sign until there had been signature by the African side. I also stated that in so far as these agreements have not been processed by the European Parliament that the European Parliament's opinion is important, in particular in terms of the connection between development and trade.

It is important I state immediately that I did not suggest in my contribution yesterday at committee, nor do I do so now on behalf of the Labour Party, that the African countries should rely on development only or that I am against trade. I am in favour of development that facilitates fair trade and enables renegotiation within a new international economic order or that which takes into account the present situation in regard to economic theory, economic development, economic strategy and economic policy. In regard to legal obligations, what is at issue is the process. A number of the countries involved have expressed reservations that are based not on technical details but on fundamentals such as what is required of them by way of timescale in terms of the reduction of tariffs, limited capacity, putting in new charters, the standstill clause, the new clauses in regard to tariffs on, for example, extractive industries and, the protection of infant industries, on which we do not agree in terms of whether this has happened.

I was influenced at a meeting on 3 June by the east African community which asked Ministers not to sign until these issues have been resolved. There are issues within the interim economic partnership agreements that will in turn pass on to full economic partnership agreements and there are further implications from what might be regional economic partnership agreements. There are issues in regard to transparency. I welcome that we are discussing these; it is what we should be doing. Ireland has a magnificent and well earned reputation in regard to development practice and theory. We should be debating where we are in terms of the linking of aid, trade, climate change and so on. That is the purpose of this debate. I want this House to engage in full debate on African issues and so on. I also want us to listen to the debate going on in Africa and to be able, post-Lisbon, to link our debate and the African debate with the European Parliament.

What is proposed in the text is not confined to what is required of the World Trade Organisation, WTO. There are other issues involved. This opens the door on a whole series of other issues in regard, for example, to services. There are aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which are additional to the WTO. Without being too technical, there are a whole range of issues involved. The Labour Party is not suggesting that anybody should break international legal obligations. We are simply saying let us have a discourse that brings everything forward, is transparent and shows that trade will not operate in such a hegemonic way as to defeat development issues. Let us not have a discussion on trade that reflects an asymmetrical relationship in regard to negotiation power.

Many agreements have been bundled together in this motion, which is unusual. If, for example, an issue had arisen yesterday in regard to Ireland's moment of joining the European Union how would we, if a whole bundle of countries are to be treated the same way, have dealt with this? The three agreements are not the same. They are textually different. Also, they differ in terms of the degree to which they have been processed with only some having been initialled. There are ways of dealing with the issue. Only ten countries of the 47 concerned have become involved in any type of EPA process. We are at one in terms of the everything but arms agreement and the special agreement on preferences. There are other mechanisms open to us. It is not a doomsday situation. If we delay long enough, we will have appropriate input and transparency in Africa, Europe and Ireland. For this reason, I am happy this motion is being discussed in plenary session. I hope this is not the last time this will happen.

Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuilimid ag plé an rúin seo atá ag déileáil le conarthaí idir an Aontas Eorpach agus trí dhream de thíortha san Aifric, an chéad cheann leis an South African Development Community, sin Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia agus Swaziland, an dara cheann an East African Community, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania agus Uganda, agus an tríú ceann an grúpa Common Market for Eastern and Southern African States, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, na Seychelles, Zambia agus Zimbabwe ina measc.

Ar ndóigh, is tíortha bochta iad a lán acu agus ar ndóigh chomh maith is cóir dúinn atá sa domhan forbartha tréan-iarracht a dhéanamh bheith cinnte go bhfuil tacaíocht á thabhairt againn dóibh agus go bhfuil an fhorbairt atá i ndán do na tíortha sin ar leasa an phobail i gcoitinne. Tá mé buartha nuair a fhéachaim ar a leithéad de chonarthaí mar atá leagtha amach os ár gcomhair inniu nach ar son leasa an ghnáth-phobail sna tíortha sin atá siad ach ar son leasa an Aontais Eorpaigh.

Is tíortha bochta iad agus ar ndóigh, mar a dúirt mé, is gá dúinn déanamh cinnte má táimid ag cur conarthaí le chéile go bhfuil cosaintí iontu dóibh siúd a bhfuilimid ag déanamh na gconarthaí ar a son sa dóigh is nach mbuailfear iad le torthaí na gconarthaí sin. Ní gá dom ach ceann de na conarthaí eile a lua idir an t-Aontas agus Israel. Tá cosaintí sa preferential trade agreement sin ar líomhaintí i leith cearta daonna ach ní chuirtear i bhfeidhm iad. Caithfimid déanamh cinnte má tá cosaintí in aon cheann de na conarthaí seo go gcuirfear i bhfeidhm iad nuair a ghlacfaidh an tAontas Eorpach leo.

Is cóir i gcónaí agus sinn ag déileáil le tíortha na hAifrice smaoineamh don chuid is mó gur tíortha as an t-Aontas a bhí i gceannas ar na tíortha seo nuair a bhí coilíneachtaí iontu agus nuair a bhí an t-impiriúlachas i réim san Aifric. Bím buartha i gcónaí faoi na daoine a bhíonn ag cur an agenda seo chun cinn, gur as tíortha iad a chaill na coilíneachtaí sin. Caithfimid bheith cúramach nach bhfuilimid ag cur conarthaí i bhfeidhm a mbainfidh tíortha an Aontais leas astu.

Tá daoine eile tar éis ceisteanna móra a ardú ó thaobh an liobrálachais seo. Tá dainséir mhóra ann do thíortha beaga atá ag forbairt má tá an eacnamaíocht atá acu oscailte go hiomlán don domhan iomlán, a new world order, an economic order atá ann faoi láthair. Cad tá i ndán d'fheirmeoirí beaga nó do chuideachtaí beaga nó do dhaoine atá dífhostaithe? Cad atá in ann dos na seirbhísí poiblí? An mbeidh siad oscailte go hiomlán do chomhlachtaí osnáisiúnta? An mbeidh deireadh curtha leis na poist atá ann faoi láthair nó an dtógfar dreamanna eile isteach chun na poist sin a ghlacadh? Caithfear a bheith cinnte nach bhfuilimid ag cothú ceanntracha beaga, ó thaobh forbartha de, seachas an réigiún ina iomlán a fhorbairt. Tá dáinséirí anseo. Is trua nach bhfuil díospóireacht níos leithne á dhéanamh i bpairlimintí eile an Aontais Eorpaigh, ach is maith an rud é go bhfuilimidne ag déanamh na díospóireachta seo.

Ní raibh mé in ann freastal ar chruinniú an choiste inné. B'ait liom gur plédh an cheist seo ag Roghchoiste um Ghnóthaí Eachtracha agus nár plédh í ag an roghchoiste a dhéanann deighleáil leis an Aontas Eorpach chomh maith. Be chóir na rúin seo a chur os comhair cúpla coiste seachas ag coiste amháin, chun go mbeimís ar fad in ann deighleáil leo.

Níl mé chun cur i gcoinne na tairisceana seo, toisc nach bhfuil am agam inniu deighleáil go huile is go hiomlán leis an gceist thábhachtach seo. Mar sin féin, ba chóir níos mó plé agus machnaimh a dhéanamh ar gach céim chun tosaigh a déanfar amach as seo. Comhaontú eatramhacha is ea é agus nuair a thiocfaimid ar ais chuige ba chóir go ndéanfar an cheist a scrúdú sul a thagann an rún faoi bhráid an Tí. Tá súil agam go mbeidh na coistí in ann deighleáil le gach dul chun cinn a déanfar amach as seo.

Caithfidh mé an rún a chur anois. An bhfuil an rún aontaithe?

I wish to contribute to the debate.

The House decided this morning that contributions would be confined to a main spokesperson from three parties.

Could I cross the benches and become a spokesperson?

The Chair will refrain from commenting on such a suggestion.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share